(8-71

**c

UNIVERSAIISM AS

OR,

TEXT BOOK

MODERN UNIVERSALISM

AMERICA

BY REV. EDWIN F. HATFIELD.

NEW YORK :
PUBLISHED BY J. A. HOISINGTON,
THEOLOGICAL BOOKSELLER, 156 FDLTON STREET,
THIRD DOOK EAST OF BROADWAY.
1841.

Entered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1841, by
EDWIN F. HATFIELD,
in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States, for
the Southern District of New York.

i W. BENEDICT, PRINTEB, 128 FULTON-ST-

PREFACE.

Error, to be successfully combated, must be known. A
minute acquaintance with the resources of an enemy is indis
pensable to a prosperous campaign. A mode of attack suited
to one position would be utterly unsuitable to one of a differ
ent character. Ignorance, in such a case, is defeat.
These remarks apply with peculiar force to the controversy
with Universalism. A sect has grown up in this land withitfl j
the memory of those now living, which, with loud professions I
of charity and universal benevolence, under the above name,/ j
arrogates to itself the peculiar distinction of being the only de-J I
positary of religious truth. Insignificant at first by reason or I
their entire want of a profound acquaintance with the Scrip
tures, and the disreputable character of those who became the
first converts to the creed, it has now acquired importance by
the extent of its prevalence. With a diligence and industry
worthy of abetter cause, they have insinuated themselves in
to the confidence of the community in various sections ofthe
country, until they now claim to be regarded as one ofthe most
numerous religious sects in the land. They are, in their own
estimation, (' Life of Murray,' p. 272,) " the fifth, (if not the
fourth,) in order, in point of numbers, respectabiltiy and talent,
among the denominations of the land ; — among the greatest
reading people in the Union ; having no less than nineteen or
twenty periodicals, issuing every month at least 100,000 sheets
to 25, or 30,000 subscribers, among at least thrice that number
of regular readers." " In the southern aDd western States,"
they say, " the doctrine is extending its progress faster than
preachers can follow to proclaim and defend it ; while in the
eastern and middle States, ministers, laymen, and even whole
societies are embracing this calumniated doctrine, and com
ing over to its avowal and support."
Such were the pretensions of the sect eight years since.
Their statistics for the present year show that they have lost
none of " this same confident hoasting." They maintain

IV TREFACE.
(' Universalist Companion,' p. 70,) that " during the past year
— no less than fifty-nine new laborers have entered into"
their" field of labor, of whom nine are converts from the Par-
tialist ministry ; — while hundreds, yea, thousands, if not tens
of thousands, ofthe Partialis t laity have embraced and avowed
the faith of Universalism during the past year." " There are,"
theysay,(p. 71,) "intbeUnitedStatesalone,] General Conven
tion, 12 State Conventions, 56 Associations, about 853 Socie
ties, 512 Preachers, and 513 Meeting-houses owned wholly or
in part by Universalists. In addition to those in the United
States, there are about 15 Societies, 7 Preachers, and 3 or 4
Meeting-houses in the British Provinces."
It is, doubtless, the case that this estimate makes but little
allowance for societies that have ceased to be, and are among
the things that were. Yet with every deduction that can be
made, and that truth demands, it is still quite apparent, that
hundreds of enterprising preachers, and a score of editors are
constantly engaged in disseminating from the pulpit, through
the press, and by every means in their power, their peculiar
tenets throughout these United States. Every opportunity is
watched and carefully improved to bring themselves into no
tice. Ifa paragraph appears in any periodical reflecting, in
the least degree, on them or their doctrines, it is made the ba
sis of a labored and spirited defence. Ifa sermon is preached
in defence of the strict eternity of future punishment, it is
made the occasion of a course of Essays, or Sermons, in reply.
In every possible way discussion is provoked, and the people
called out to hear their claims.
To this course they are encouraged to adhere, because in
part they are aware that their doctrines are but little under
stood by their opponents. " There is one advantage," says
one of their preachers, (' Magazine and Advocate,' III. 134,)
" which Universalists ever have had over their opponents,
thought it may not appear so to the multitude. Very few Partial-
ists are there, who are acquainted with what we believe, and as
we believe it, with the arguments by which we defend, and the
proofs we adduce to support our positions. But where will
you find a Universalist, who thoroughly understands his own
system, and does not, at the same time, understand every
nook and corner in the crazy old edifice of Limitarian theolo
gy? — Seta Partialist to disproving Universalism, and what
murderous work must he make of logic, what perversion of
truth, what contradiction of facts ! He brings forward pas
sages his own teachers have rejected, lays down positions

PREFACE. V
which have nought to do with the subject, assumes premises
denied by his opponent, and destitute of all proof," and " ar
gues, in his ignorance, the truth of the very position contend
ed for by the Universalist."
It is by no means uncommon for a Universalist preacher to
accuse and convict one, whom he regards and treats as an op
ponent, of being but little acquainted with the peculiarities of
the doctrine against which his labors have been directed. The
author has seldom heard a sermon against Universalism, that
was not based on assumptions, or directed against principles,
which no well-informed Universalist at the present day ad
mits. Such discourses, therefore, must not onlybepowerless,
but give an opponent a great advantage in reply.
Orthodox preachers, in order to acquaint themselves with
the peculiarities of the sect, have, in too many cases, content
ed themselves with an examination of the masterly argument
of the younger Edwards against Chauncy ; or the ' Calvinism
Improved' of Dr. Huntington; or the writings of Winchester
and Mitchell. Thus informed, they have constructed a most
powerful argument, and completely overthrown the strong
holds of the early advocates of this peculiar creed ; and they
wonder that any can hold on to a doctrine so untenable, and
be Universalists still. The truth is, that not a Universalist
preacher in the land, so far as the author has been able to
learn, does hold on to the system thus attacked. These are
not their text-books. They that would know what they be
heve must consult more modern writers, and gather their
creed from their most recent publications, and inform them
selves thoroughly in regard to the latest discoveries and in-
trenchments ofthe sect, or they will labor in vain.
To aid such in this investigation the following work was
undertaken. The results of his inquiries were first given to
the public by the author, in a series of seventeen Essays, over
the signature of " Enoch," through the columns of the New
York Evangelist. The volume now presented is a republica
tion of those Essays only in part. The work has subsequently
been re-cast, the greater part entirely re-written, and large ad
ditions made to the whole. A hst ofthe authorities from which
information has been drawn is appended, and great care has
been taken to obtain the utmost accuracy in citing their testi
mony. The books themselves are such as may be found in
almost every Universalist library, and are constantly adver
tised, with three or four exceptions, for sale in their book
stores, as ' Universalist Works.'

VI PREFACE.
It is worthy of remark, that, though the substance of this
Treatise has been before the public several months, no reply
has been attempted, and all allusion to the series itself, by any
of their periodicals, has been most carefully avoided, as far as
possible. Ordinarily, as has been remarked, every allusion to
the sect is replied to at once, and every such reply copied
again and again by their periodicals. In the present case a
most ominous silence has pervaded their whole ranks. They
have not ventured to deny the truth of the allegations here
made, nor can they. On the other hand, when, about a year
since, the author presented, from his own pulpit, in the pre
sence of two at least of their ministers, and a large number of
the members of one of their societies, the leading features of
the system, as they are detailed in this volume, they took oc
casion to congratulate themselves, and the Universalist pub
lic, that for once an orthodox preacher had told the truth.
" A zealous sister in the faith who was present" (' Universal
ist Union,' V. No. 15,) thought him " deserving of a vote of
thanks for introducing so much Universalism into his desk.
We think so too," said the editor of the ' Union,' " and hope
he will not be weary in well doing. Let him buckle on his
whole armor."
Should a reply be attempted, it will be of no use to say that
the statements ofthe author are not worthy of credit, or that
he has not given the sense of the writers to whose language
he has referred. Errors of the press may have been overlook
ed in the revision of so many quotations, but these can hardly
affect the general result. These quotations are too numerous,
and too evidently speak the same language, to be misunder
stood. If any doubt be cherished as to the honesty of the au
thor, the reader is respectfully referred to the books them
selves, where he will find vastly more ofthe same purport, of
which what is here given is but a small specimen.
It is hoped that the work will be of service not only to the
community at large, but to theological students, and brethren
in the ministry, who have but little time or opportunity to ac
complish a task, that has proved so unpleasant and often
heart-sickening to
THE AUTHOR.
March 4, 1841.

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I.
PRIMITIVE UNIVERSALISM.
Rise ofthe Sect in America — Doctrine of their first Preachers — The
original system abandoned— The new scheme and its founder —
Transition-state. .... 13
CHAPTER II.
PREVAILING CREED OF UNIVERSALISM.
Progress in error — Essentially different from all other schemes — Ar
rogance of wisdom — Not a Christian denomination — Real and no
minal Universalists — Formed into a system — Embraced by „Uni-
versalist preachers generally — The Creed — Peculiar to this age
and country. . ... 21
CHAPTER III.
FINAL HAPPINESS OF ALL MANKIND.
Summary of the creed — Denial of every thing heretofore thought
sacred — Pretence of being the plain doctrine of the Bible — Final
holiness and happiness universal — Does not teach that men will
be happy at death — Novel mode of interpretation — Bible a Jewish
affair— Credulity. ... .33
CHAPTER IV.
PENALTY OF SIN.
"^Penalty of Sin — Once universally supposed to be endless death —
This position denied — Final happiness never forfeited by Sin —
How regarded by Murray, Chauncy, and Huntington — Views of
this penalty expressed by Modern Universalists — Strauge inter
pretation of ' eternal life' — ' Eternal death' not mentioned in the
Bible. • • .46

Vlll CONTENTS.
CHAPTER V. "
DENIAL OF NATIVE DEPRAVITY.
Siu not an Infinite evil — Native Depravity denied — The account ot
the Fall fabulous — Man is by nature as good now as Adam ever
was— Origin of Sin — God not the lawgiver, but the mind itself—
Sin fulfills tho will of God — The mind is not the sinner, but the
flesh — God the author of sin — Men not totally depraved. 61
CHAPTER VI.
NO PUNISHMENT AFTER DEATH.
Is sin punished after death? — Views of Relly, Murray, and Chaun
cy — Sin punished only in this life — No punishment after death, a
novel sentiment, not twenty-five years old — Secession of the Res-
torationists — Evasion ofthe question of no punishment after death
— Culpable indifference to the question of a future punishment —
Appeal to their preachers, and to the people themselves. 76
CHAPTER VII.
SIN CEASES AT DEATH.  DEATH NOT THE FRUIT OF SIN.
New Rule of Faith — No common ground in controversy — Sin ceases
at death — Mankind naturally mortal — Yet they interpret moBt of
the threatenings of the Bible, of natural death — Inconsistency —
Scripture-account of the matter. . . 89
CHAPTER VIIE.
MAN HAS NO IMMORTAL SOUL.
What becomes of man at death 1 — Poetic effusions — Mind not im.
mortal — Man has but one nature, and that material and mortal 
Mr. Ballou's ignorance — Sketch of Mr. Balfour — His exegetical
labors — Man has no immortal soul, exegetically considered — These
views generally received — Source of the doctrine — Materialism 
Death the great Savior. . . . 10J
CHAPTER IX.
NO ESCAPE FROM PUNISHMENT.
Nature ofsuffering for sin — God'alljust and inexorable — Sin invaria
bly punished in full— Zeal for God's justice — No remission of
punishment by forgiveness — Views of Zophar, David, Ezra, and
the pious in our day — Question of Suicide — Denial of its criminal
ity — The mercy of God excluded. . . . 117

CONTENTS. ix
CHAPTER X.
SIN ITS OWN PUNISHMENT.
Nature of Punishment— Sin fully punishes itself— Human penalties
should be abolished — The Mosaic Law unjust — The more sin, the
less punishment — The doctrine a mere hypothesis — Its truth can
not be known. ..... 130
CHAPTER XI,
NO SUCH THING AS PUNISHMENT.
Design of punishment— A carnal scheme— Danger of misapprehend
ing their admissions — What does sin deserve — Denial of al! pun.
ishment — All suffering for sin is the fruit of God's love, and de .
signed only for the sinner's highest good — Its removal, and not its
infliction, a curse — All men the children of God — Mankind not di
vided into two distinct classes — Fearful language of Scrip
ture. ... 140
CHAPTER XII.
DENIAL OF THE ATONEMENT.
No salvation from punishment, or deserved sufferings — Christ is not
a Savior in this sense — Views of Murray, Winchester, Chauncy,
and Huntington, on the Atonement — Christ saves no one from
endless misery, or from deserved punishment — Nature of salvation
by Christ — The sufferings of Christ have only a moral effect —
No vicarious Atonement — No accounting for the Mosaic sac
rifices. . . . . 154
CHAPTER XIII.
THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST NOT PECULIAR.
No peculiarity in the sufferings of Christ — Atonement the work not
of Christ, but ofthe sinner — Christ suffered not as much as many
others ; and in the same sense as his apostles did — The nature of
his sufferings the same with theirs— He saved the world, just as
the American revolutionary fathers saved their country — Agree
ment with Thomas Paine— Christ only saves men from deserving
punishment — He is not therefore the Savior ofthe whole world-
Specimens of false reasoning from the fact that Christ died for
all. . . • 171

X CONTENTS.
CHAPTER XIV.
/- DENIAL OF THE TRINITY.
No need of an Incarnate God— Christ only a man— No truth in the
doctrine ofthe Trinity— Views of Murray— The Trinity exploded
by Hosea Ballou— Christ superior to other men only by office —
Christ not possessed of two natures, human and superhuman—
Socinianism favorable to devotion — They profess to honor Christ
more than others. .... 186
CHAPTER XV.
GOD'S FAVOR NEVER LOST.
Recapitulation — God's favor can neither be gained nor lost — God
never displeased with sinners — Not at all affected by our sins—
Never our enemy — All love — Prayer has no effect upon God —
These views popular with the vilest of men. 199
CHAPTER XVI.
THIS LIFE NOT PROBATIONARY TO ANOTHER.
Sense of accountability in a future state nearly universal — Effort to
get rid of this responsibility — Mortal life not probationary to an
other — Conduct here nothing to do with condition hereafter — Bos
ton Discussion— No punishment after death essential to the sys
tem — Folly to talk of securing an interest in Christ — Paul and
Nero fare alike hereafter. .... 208
CHAPTER XVII.
FAITH NOT NECESSARY TO FUTURE HAPPINESS.
Future happiness not dependent on faith — Faith is simply belief in
evidence — Faith not distinguished into various kinds — Religion
here not necessary to happiness hereafter — Faith not necessary to
justification — Universalism aims only to do men good here — Their
indifference to the woes of the heathen — Have much the same
anxiety as the apostles had — But never show it. . 223

CONTENTS. XI

CHAPTER XVin.

THE NEW BIRTH.
The New Birth — Not necessary to future happiness — Regeneration
not a change of nature — Not a superhuman work — No change but
that of the Resurrection needful for entrance to Heaven— The
New Birth really denied — Common doctrine ridiculed — Myste-
riousness of Regeneration denied — The fact of Regeneration easi
ly known — To be hereafter experienced by all — Regeneration
nothing more than Reformation, or a change of party — Experience
of all the saints contradicted. .... 236

CHAPTER XIX.
THE RESURRECTION-STATE.
Resurrection — Time of it indefinite — Its nature — Resurrection ofthe
whole man — At death man annihilated — Man and beast perish
alike — Resurrection is a new creatiou — Resurrection denied —
The same body not raised again — All equal in the Resurrec
tion. ..... 250

CHAPTER XX.
THE DAY OF JUDGMENT.
Accountability confessed, but not as to a future state — Views of the
Pharisees in the Savior's day — Scripture language about the Judg
ment — How understood at the time — The day of Judgment not in
a future state — Mr. Balfour's labors — Heb. ix. 27 — The common
doctrine discarded by them all. . . . 261

CHAPTER XXI.
DEVIL AND HIS ANGELS.
English Translation of the Bible — Mr. Kneeland's version— Neither
angels nor devils — Satan a symbolical being only — Angels only our
fellow-men — Devil is the camal mind — No agreement as to the
identity of the devil — Variety of definitions — Sadduceeans. 273

Xll CONTENTS.
CHAPTER XXII.
CHRISTIANS HAVE NO ORDINANCES.
Results — Christian Institutions — The Sabbath a human device —
Our Sunday not the Sabbath — The Sabbath ceased with the Mo
saic dispensation — Our Sunday a weekly festival, but not holy —
Sabbath-journeying — Baptism — Not indispensable to Church-
membership — A rite of initiation only — Never intended for our
observance — Lord's Supper — Various opinions — Not binding on
the conscience — Most of them repudiated — -Those who do believe
in it do not make it a test of fellowship — Churches rare — A matter
of expediency — More than two-thirds ofthe Societies have none
— They are never large. .... 284
CHAPTER XXIII.
FRUITS OF UNIVERSALISM.
Moral efficacy— Fruits of Orthodoxy — Ministry of Christ and Paul —
Such should be its fruits if true — Their own concessions — Want
of piety — No public measures of usefulness — Dark prospects —
Relish for piety not common — Disguised Infidels — Character of
leaders — Ropes of sand— A lifeless theory — Sleepy congregations- -
Hirelings poorly paid — Prayer-meetings rare — Disastrous tenden
cies —Hypocrites — A good description — Mr. Balfour's forebo
dings and experience — Philadelphia — New York — No memorials
of good done — Affinity with infidelity — No secret, nor family-pray
er — Too great a risk. .... 302
CHAPTER XXIV.
LEARNING OF UNIVERSALIST PREACHERS.
The work done — The charge conceded — Utterly unlike every other
scheme — A mass of heresies — A man's creed of no consequence —
Latitudinarians — A modern Pantheon — Is this the Bride ? — Their
peculiar claims on our confidence — Literary character of James
Relly — of John Murray — Of Hosea Ballou — Of Abner Kneeland
— Of Walter Balfour — Of the junior preachers — Qualifications
necessary to their preachers — Of A. B. Grosh — Of I. D. William
son — Oftheir whole ministry — Final appeal to the reader. 323

UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.

CHAPTER I.
PRIMITIVE UNIVERSALISM.
Rise of the Sect in America — Doctrine of their first Preach
ers — The original system abandoned — The new scheme
and its founder — Transition-state.
" Sing, muse ! (if such a theme so dark, so long,
May find a muse to grace it with a song,)
By what unseen and unsuspected arts,
The serpent, Error, twines round human hearts ;
Tell where she lurks, beneath what flow'ry shades,
That not a glimpse of genuine light pervades,
The pois'nous, black, insinuating worm
Successfully conceals her loathsome form." — Cowper.
" The Father of Universalism in America" was John
Murray. Born of pious parents in Alton, Hampshire,
England, at an early age he became a follower of
Wesley and a preacher of his views. Afterwards
brought, by a constant round of folly and dissipation
during a short residence in London, to the .borders of
starvation, he was again awakened by the preaching
of Whitefield, and soon became distinguished for his
fluency in prayer and exhortation. Shortly after, he
became a follower of James Relly, who was then
'2

14 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Winchester, Chauncy. Huntington.
preaching Universalism in London, and who appears
^to have been the originator ofthe sect in England. In
1770, Mr. Murray came over to America, and preach
ed his new faith. first at Cranbery in New Jersey, then
in New York and Philadelphia, and afterwards in New
England. At Gloucester, Massachusetts, he became
pastor of a Universalist Society, where he continued,
until, in 1793, he removed to Boston, and was installed
over the First Universalist Society in that town, where
"he died in 1815, in the 75th year of his age.
Early in' 1781, Elhanan Winchester, a popular
preacher connected with the Baptists, and settled over
the First Baptist Church in that city, adopted and be
gan to preach Universal Salvation. In 1784, appear
ed a work in favor of this doctrine, attributed by com-
mon consent to the Rev. Dr. Charles Chauncy, pastor
of the First Congregational Church in Boston, then in
[his 80th year. Forty years before he had distinguished
himself as a writer against vital religion, by the publi
cation of his " Seasonable Thoughts," in which he
endeavored to destroy the influence of Mr. Whitefield
and boldly maintained that " the great revival of
1740" was a wretched excitement, fraught only with
evil to the churches, and as such ought to be put down
by all well-wishers to society.
Another work in favor of this doctrine appeared in
1795, called " Calvinism improved," by the Rev.
Joseph Huntington, D. D., pastor of a church in Co
ventry, Connecticut. Though written many years pre
viously, it was not published until the author's death.

PRIMITIVE UNIVERSALISM. 15
Early views. Creed of Huntington.
These, and especially the two former, became the
principal pillars of Universalism in this country, until
the commencement of the 19th century. The views
which they embraced differed chiefly from those of the
Christian church generally, in the article of future end
less punishment. They believed, for the most part, in
the distinguishing doctrines of Christianity, with this
one exception. Their hopes of universal salvation
were based on the atonement of Christ, whom they re
garded as constituting, in his superior nature, with the
Father and the Holy Spirit, the one only God, or as
God himself. They expected to obtain eternal life,
only on the ground that Christ had died for all men,
and so had delivered them and the whole human family
from the condemnation of the law. They believed
most firmly in future punishment, and taught that the
misery of unbelievers in a future state would be, not
only unspeakably dreadful, but of very long conti
nuance. Dr. Huntington was originally a Calvinist, and at
tempted to deduce from those views the doctrine of
Universal Salvation. " It was not by giving up the
peculiarities of his former views (' Mod. Hist, of Uni
versalism,' p. 384,) that he became a Universalist, but
by grafting upon them the hypothesis of universal sal
vation, and by carrying through the system of Calvin
in regard to all mankind, as it had been generally done
in reference to the elect alone. He held to the sinner's
absolute depravity by nature ; the justice of the sen
tence of endless misery, which he saw plainly threat-

16 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Creed of Murray, and of Winchester.
ened in Scripture ; the doctrine of the Atonement,
whereby Christ suffered for us the penalty ofthe divine
law, our guilt having been set to his account, as our
federal head and sponsor, and his obedience in like
manner transferred to us, and thus proclaimed a salva
tion for man solely on the ground of free grace and
mercy." These, for substance, werealso the views of
Chauncy and Winchester.
Similar were the sentiments of a large proportion of
the early disciples of Murray. Their notions of reli
gion were derived, for the most part, from Calvinistic
preachers, and the Westminster Catechism ; and their
conversion to Universalism was, in' most cases,, a car
rying out of those ideas of the atonement, so as to in
clude the whole human family.
Mr. Murray believed that
" In Adam's fall
We sinned all,"
and so were brought under condemnation ; that in like
manner, all mankind were from eternity identified with
the second Adam, who, by his death, made an expiation
for the sins of every human being, and bore the penalty
of the law for all, and not the elect alone, so that all
are thereby exempted from condemnation, and made,
through him, partakers of endless life ; that those who
die in » unbelief will lie down in sorrow and dwell in
darkness, until the judgment to come. " Mr. Murray,
('Mod. His.' pp. 431-2,) was not a Unitarian. Mr.
Winchester maintained the doctrine of the trinity, per
haps in not a very dissimilar manner. They both held
to the existence of misery in a future state."

PRIMITIVE UNIVERSALISM. 17

Greed of Chauncy.

J)r. Chauncy, after making numerous " extracts from
the writings of ancient authors on his side 'of the ques
tion," makes this observation : — " It is fully and freely
acknowledged, by all the above writers, that many
among the sons and daughters of Adam will pass
through a state of unutterable misery, before they will
be prepared for, and admitted to the joys of God's pres
ence in the heavenly world. Would to God it might
be realized as an undoubted truth, that there is the same
reason, from Scripture, to beheve there is a hell as a
heaven. And those who are infidels as to the former,
would do well to take care lest they should know from
their own experience, the horrors of that dreadful
place." And, on another page, he distinctly states
that some of the wicked " will be tormented for ages
of ages." All that he contends for, in regard to the
duration of future punishment, is, that it will not be
strictly endless. ,
But Universalism is not what it was. They who
judge of it by the writings of either Chauncy, Hunting
ton, Murray, or Winchester, form a very erroneous idea
of the system. Since that period, it has undergone an
almost constant process of transition. This we learn
from the confession of its warmest friends. Mr. Whitte-
more in his "Modern History of Universalism," says,
(p. 431,) "The radical changes, which have taken
place in the opinions of American Universalists, consti
tute one of the most interesting traits in their history'."
Of course, therefore, the present system is not merely a
modification of the old, but radically different. It is
2*

18 UNIVERSALISM as IT IS.
Rapid changes. Early views discarded. '
based on other principles, and differs more from its ori
ginal self, than at first it differed from the prevailing be
lief of the Christian world.
These changes have been rapid. One by one, al
most every doctrine, heretofore regarded as essential to
Christianity, has, within a period of forty years, been at
first undermined, and then thrown away and treated
with contempt. The author of the " 'Modern Histo-
¦"ry," says, (p. 432,) " We apprehend that as early as
1800, very essential departures had been made ; and
| finally, the doctrines of the Trinity and atonement,
i with all kindred notions, were discarded by the whole
-^denomination, with a very few exceptions." The ut
most latitude of opinion appears to have been allowed
among both ministers and members of the sect, so
long as they agreed in rejecting the doctrine of end
less misery.
The Biographer of Murray says, (pp. 279, 280,) " his
views of the nature of salvation differ essentially from
those now entertained by Universalists. Indeed, it is
now well known, that the method by which "he proved
the final salvation of all men, and his interpretations of
Scripture, differed essentially from those of the denomi
nation generally." They, who now bear the name,
appear to have agreed with him in scarcely more than
the results to which he came. They have since discov
ered that he was all his life in the most essential error,
— that his views were unscriptural and unreasonable,
and are to be discarded.
These changes are to be attributed, in the main, to

PRIMITIVE UNIVERSALISM. 19
Hosea Ballou. ' System not complete. ,
the influence of Hosea Ballou, Sen., who more than I
any other man deserves the appellation ot the father qf
Universalism as it now is : (see ' Mod. Hist' p. 432.) /
Mr. Ballou began to preach about the year 1791, be
fore he had completed his tw,enty-first year. At this
early period, with but very limited opportunities and
attainments, he began his great work of reform. In a
letter, bearmg date, Nov. 25th, 1829, to the author of
the " Modern History,"' he gives the following account
of the dispatch with which he exploded o ne notion af
ter another ; — " I had preached but a short time before
my mind was entirely freed from the perplexities of the
doctrine of the Trinity, and the common notion of atone
ment. But in making these advances, I had the assist
ance of no author or writer. As fast as those old doc
trines were, by any means, rendered the subjects of in
quiry, in my mind, they Became exploded!" Like one
of old he could, therefore, say with great propriety,
" veni, vidi, vici :" I came, I saw, I conquered. Won
derful man ! and so very young ! who would have
thought it 1
Whether other changes as radical will yet be made,
or not, none can tell. That the system is now com
plete, none can pretend. There are questions of great
moment, to which no definite answer has thus far been
given. The utmost diversity of opinion prevails in re
spect to some important matters. Hosea Ballou is still ?
alive, and may yet make further discoveries. At his'
death some Ehsha may receive his mantle, and with
far bolder strides lead the way into some hitherto un-

20 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Sympathy of Infidels. Design of this work.
trodden field. Other striplings may explode many an
tiquated notions that still find a place in the belief of
these liberal Christians. Soon the very name of Chris
tianity may be discarded because of its opprobrious ori
gin. (" The disciples were called Christians first in
Antioch :" most probably by the heathen, in reproach.)
Aheady some have been bold enough to outstrip their
leader in this matter, and with Abner Kneeland, who
for more than twenty years was in high repute among
them, to cast away the Bible itself. Deists and Athe
ists, also, have, of late, so extensively made common
cause with them — many such holding offices of trust in
the societies — that they may yet become the majority.
I presume not to say what these transitionists will
yet become. It is proposed merely to make the inqui
ry — What is the present prevailing creed of Universal
ism 1 and to show that, in its' present form, it bears but
httle resemblance to what the wisdom and piety of the
Christian world, for nearly a score of centuries, have
united in exhibiting as the faith taught by Christ and
his disciples. In this exposition the appeal will, in
every instance, be made to their own writings, particu
larly those that are received with the greatest favor
'•among themselves. It will thus be shown that Uni
versalism has but little more of Christianity than the
name, is a crafty system of covert infidelity, and does
not deserve to be ranked as a Christian denomination.

CHAPTER II.
PREVAILING CREED OF UNIVERSALISM.
Progress in error — Essentially different from all other
schemes — Arrogance of wisdom — Not a Christian denomi
nation — Real and nominal Universalists — Formed into a
system — Embraced by Universalist preachers generally—
The Creed— Peculiar to this age and country.
" The breach, though small at first, soon opening wide,
In rushes folly with a full-moon tide ;
Then welcome errors of whatever size,
To justify it by a thousand lies." — Cowper.
Universalis!! began its career with a denial of thei
doctrine of endless punishment. It was enough, at firsj^
to promise heaven at last to all mankind without dis
tinction. It troubled itself but httle about other doc
trines so long as this was conceded.
But error is never stationary. The mind that embra- 1
ces it finds no rest. Dissatisfied with the ground on
which its hopes are based, it is constantly shifting its
position, or forming new entrenchments. One error
has a strong aflinity for every other. They can nestle |
together in the same bosom. Easy is the downward ]
path. They who enter it " wax worse and worse, de-
cieving and being deceived."
Falsehood never can harmonize with truth. If graft
ed thereon it is only an unsightly excrescence. The
whole scheme of rehgious truth must be remodeled be-

22 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Novelty of the system. Arrogance.
 ,  ». 
fore it can even seem to harmonize with a single error.
To make the Bible teach the final happiness of all the
human race, its threatenings must be silenced, or limited
in their application. Every opposmg doctrine.must be
made to bend, or be cast away. Philosophy and criti
cism must be called in to make the Scriptures speak, in
all then parts, but one voice. A theological system, al
most entirely new, is the product.
This system of behef, now openly avowed and pub
lished to the world, bears but little resemblance to any
other. It is neither Calvinism, Antinomianismj Ar-
minianism, nor yet Pelagianism. With Socinianism it
sympathizes to some extent, but never identifies itself.
It proclaims all other creeds to be the offspring of Igno
rance, Superstition, and Bigotry ; utterly unworthy to
be received by immortal beings. It speaks of Calvin
ism with unmeasured severity. The editor of the life
of Murray says, (pp. 275, 6,) that, when Murray be
gan to preach, " Calvinism, rank and impure as it came
from the hands of its author, was the prevailing doc
trine of this country. It was adapted to the stern and
unenlightened natures of our Puritan forefathers. Few
are sensible of its grossness and absurdity."
Thus even "the Pilgrim Fathers" were ignorant,
superstitious, and bigoted in the estimation of this new
sect. Calvin was " rank and impure," Wesley a babe,
and all the Christian world beside, both learned and un
learned, the victims of priestcraft or prejudice. The
progress of Universalism is called the triumph of reason
over bigotry and falsehood. " The strong energies of

PREVAILING CREED OF UNIVERSALISM. 23
Freethinkers. All else all wrong.
reason, (' Gospel Anchor,' II. 5,) gathering fresh im
pulse from revelation, have made sad havoc with the
forgeries of antiquity. Men have dared to think for
themselves, and some begin to claim the right of judg
ing for themselves. In proportion as man throws off
the manacles of bigotry, the faith ofthe impartial good
ness of their Creator will prevail." They are the only
Freethinkers in the world — none else dare to think or
judge, but as they are bidden !
. In thus arraying themselves against all other creeds, '
Universalists confess that they have no sympathy with
other religious systems. They stand alone in the reli
gious world. If any other creed is true, thehs is wretch-'
edly false. This they openly avow. In an " Exposition
and Defence of Universalism," by I. D. Williamson, of
New York, the writer states, ( p. 2 15,) " I have no disposi
tion to conceal the fact, that there is a wide and irrecon
cilable difference between us and our opposers ; nor can
it be denied that if we are right, they are wrong, not
merely in some small points, but radically, and, I had
almost said, totally wrong. This is a truth with which
we are well acquainted : and that man pursues a mis
taken policy, nay, even a wicked course of hypocrisy,
who attempts to conceal this fact. There is no man
ner of use in endeavoring to make it appear, that there
is but a shade of difference between us and other de
nominations, for there is a difference, high as heaven,
wide as the earth ; a difference as hopelessly and utterly
irreconcilable as light and darkness ; and there is no dis
guising the obvious truth, that, if one system is true the

24 * UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Anti-Christian. Whom they claim.
other is false, desperately and hopelessly false, I had
almost said, in its whole length and breadth." Either,
then, they, or • we, are utterly unworthy of the Chris
tian name. Theirs, or ours, must be a most unblushing
system of unbehef and falsehood.
In asserting that Universalism is an Anti-Christian
system, let me not, therefore, be charged with unchari-
tableness or bigotry. Its advocates themselves allow,
as appears from the above extract, that such is its
character, if our scheme, and the scheme of the Chris
tian world be true. The alternative is unavoidable.
Nor let the kind-hearted Christian be any longer im
posed upon with the idea, that the Universalist is as
. much a Christian as any one, only that he does not be
lieve in endless punishment ; and that, therefore, it is
not worth while to enter into any dispute with him. It
is often said, — " there are good people in all denomi
nations," and among these are reckoned Universalists.
But, by their own showing, they and we cannot be
members of the same household. Either they are the
church, wholly and entirely, or they have no part nor
lot in it. So entirely do they differ from all Christian
denominations, that it is no breach of Christian charity,
if our views are in the main correct, to expose and op
pose theirs with all our might.
I say not, that all who bear the name of Universal
ists have thus forsaken the ancient landmarks. This
name, it is claimed, belong to all who agree in the be
lief of the final happiness of all mankind. In " the Plain
Guide" (p. 15,) it is said, " The sentiments by which

PREVAILING CREED OF UNIVERSALISM. * 25
Motley aspeet. Two classes.
Universalists are distinguished, is this : that at last every
individual of the human race shall become holy and
happy." Again, (pp. 16, 17,) " all persons who truly
beheve in the eventual salvation of all mankind by the
grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, are Universalists." " It
makes no difference what are the individual's views
concerning punishment, if he holds the doctrine above
described." " We wish it distinctly understood, that
Universalists admit of no distinction in the denomination,
on account of difference of opinion on the subject of
punishment. They are all one — they all go for one
thing." Thus every variety of doctrine may find a home in
this motley sect, if it be hnked to the belief of Universal^
Salvation. To swell their number they welcome them
all. They search the records of the church from the
age of the apostles, and whenever they find one express
ing his doubts as to the endless duration of the punish
ment of the wicked, they forthwith proclaim him one of
them. In this manner they endeavor to show that their
secf is ancient and honorable.
But if one of these motley religionists renounces Uni
versalism, he and the world are at once told, that he
never was a Universalist, except in name. He never
received the system, and embraced it with all his heart.
In the ' Plain Guide' the writer says, (pp. 278, 9,)
" There are two kinds of Universalists — positive and ne
gative Universalists." " Negative Universalists are those
who merely assent to the doctrine. They beheve, they
say, that all men will at last be saved. They think the
3

26 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS,
The System. Important distinction.
doctrine of endless misery a very bad doctrine, and en
tertain no doubts of the final happiness of the whole
world. This is the amount of their religion. Now
there is a wide difference between these, and those we
are pleased to call positive Universalists."
None but those who receive the system, as now pro
fessed and taught by the leaders of the sect, are regard
ed as real Universalists. Let this distinction be careful
ly marked. After many and violent changes these doc
trines have been reduced to a system, distinct and inde
pendent, taught from the preacher's desk, and in nume
rous publications, occasional and periodical. The at
tempt has been undertaken to lead, not only nominal
Universalists, but the world, into the belief of a theo
logical system, which strikes a death-blow at all those
doctrines -which are dear to the hearts of Christians.
They call upon us to receive a system, as the substance
of what the Bible teaches, that is as unlike what we
and our fathers have believed, as day and night. This
they themselves confess. In the ' Expositor and Uni
versalist Review,' for September, 1839, appears an ar
ticle written by Mr. Sawyer, of New York, designed to
show that Professor Tholuck, of Germany, either is, or
was, a Universalist. " Of what avail is it, for instance,"
he says, (p. 341,) " to assert, ' that the whole spirit of
Tholuck's theology is as dissonant from that of Ameri
can Universalists, as music from discord V No one
ever pretended that Tholuck's theological system was
consonant with that of American Universalists. It was
asserted — ' that his belief was nothing less than that all

PREVAILING CREED OF UNIVERSALISM. 27
Should be known. Prevalence of the system. '
men will actually be saved.' His agreement with tis
was limited to this single point."
Now, before we embrace the doctrine of Universal
Salvation, it becomes us to look well to the end of the
way ; to ask, " where does this path lead 1" — " what
is the next step 7" Let us know the whole ofthe creed j
let us view it in all its nakedness, stripped of its orna
ments and borrowed garments, and ask, — " Is this the
daughter of Zion 1"
To a faithful exposition of this novel and strange
creed, I shall now direct the reader's attention.
Though but little understood, and less cared-for by
the great body of Universalists, it is received and ad
vocated by nearly every preacher in the denomination.
A. C. Thomas, in his ' Theological Discussion' with
the Rev. Dr. Ely, states, (p. 25,) that his " own views"
" are the views of a large majority of American Univer
salists." And of another system of Universalism, which
he calls " Calvinism Improved," he says that " Ed
ward Mitchell, of New York, is, I beheve, (1834,) the
only public advocate of this form of Universalism in the
United States."
The reader may, therefore, rest assured, that the sys
tem now to be exhibited is, with a few exceptions that
will hereafter be stated, the creed of Universalists in
this country, as taught by their standard authors, and
preached from their pulpits. In the form in which it is
now to be presented it is found in none of their publi
cations. And yet every article as here exhibited is
gathered from their writings, where it is plainly stated
and boldly defended.

28 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.

The Creed.

The following Synopsis may properly be called
y The Creed of American Universalism.
1. All mankind will eventually become holy and
happy. 2. Final happiness never has been, and never can be,
forfeited by sin.
3. Mankmd are born as pure as Adam was when he
was created.
4. Sin has its origin, not in the mind, but in the ani
mal nature.
5. Man never becomes totally depraved.
6. Sin is punished only in this life.
7. Sin ceases with the death of the body.
8. Mankind are naturally and originally mortal.
9. Man has no immortal soul.
10. Every man will inevitably suffer to the full ex
tent of his deserts.
11. Sin fully punishes itself.
12. There is properly no such thing as punishment.
13. Christ saves no one from any deserved suffering.
14. There was nothing pecuhar in Christ's death.
15. Jesus Christ was only a man of superior gifts.
16. There is no distinction of persons in the Deity.
17. The favor of God can neither be gained nor lost.
18. Mortal life is not, in any sense, a state of pro
bation for another state of being.
19. Faith has no connection with happiness in a fu
ture state.
20. Regeneration is merely a change of party.
21. All mankind will be equal in the Resurrection.

PREVAILING CREED OF UNIVERSALISM. 29
Peculiar to this age, and Country.
22. There will not be a day of general judgment in
the resurrection-state.
23. There are no merely spiritual beings, called an
gels, either holy or unholy.
24. The Christian Sabbath is a mere human device.
25. Church ordinances are of doubtful utility.
Such are some of the peculiarities of this novel sys
tem. The most of them appear in nearly all their sys
tematic exhibitions of their own faith, and are regarded
as essential to their scheme. One after another these
tenets have been put forth as circumstances required.
As they now appear they form a complete chain, the
links of which are mutually dependent ; — a chain most
difficult to break when once it has been thrown around
the heart. To most it proves to be an everlasting chain
of darkness.
This creed is peculiar to this age and country. It is
the production of men who are yet on the stage of ac
tion. It had no being fifty years since. There have
been those in former ages who denied that the misery
of the wicked in a future state would be strictly endless.
And so others of these articles have been maintained
singly in, perhaps, every age of the world. But we
search in vain for any evidence, that the system of mo
dern Universalism, here exhibited, had any existence
before it was devised, as occasion required, by Hosea
Ballou, Sen., of the city of Boston.
Nor is this creed now received by any religious so
ciety out of this country. The nearest approach to it
is found in that product of scepticism and " philosophy,
3*

30 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
The Sect abroad. Sir. Thorn.
falsely so called," which prevails in Germany, and has
received the names of Rationalism, Naturalism, and
Neology. But yet no one maintains that the two sys
tems are identical, or that there are not important dis
tinctions between them.
In Great Britain and Ireland there is neither a socie-
\ ty, nor preacher, that holds these views. The system of
I American Universalism has not a single defender in the
^British Isles, so far as is known in this country. There
are those who believe in the final happiness of all man
kind, but on far different grounds from what have been
presented above. In London there is not a society
that even bears the name. When Mr. Le Fevre, re
cently of New York, visited England, he had but one
opportunity of preaching during his abode in London,
and that was to a Unitarian congregation in Newing-
ton, near London, which at the time " did not exceed
thirty people."
In an article on " Universalism in Great Britain and
Ireland," by Mr. Sawyer, in ' the Expositor and Uni
versalist Review,' for May, 1840, the writer says, (p.
190,) " We know of but one flourishing society in Eng
land at the present time, that of Liverpool, under the
charge of the Rev. David Thorn." After reviewing
the Theological System of Mr. Thom, Mr. Sawyer says,
(p. 210,) that Mr. Thom " declares our views of the na
ture of Jesus Christ and of the atonement to be awfully
erroneous, and what is more, excessively superficial."
And then he adds, of Mr. T.'s system, " it seems to us,
in many of its prominent features, essentially erroneous."

PREVAILING CREED OF UNIVERSALISM. 31
 , 
Mrs. Sherwood. Britain and Ireland.
Yet, though so essentially different from Universalists
in this country, their number is very small. Mr. Thom,
in a letter to Mr. Sawyer, bearing date March 30,
1836, writes, " You cannot conceive the need which we
(Universalists) have on this side of the Atlantic of be
ing cheered on. A few stragglers, amounting in tUl to
some hundreds, is the sum qf our numbers."
I have been credibly informed, that, when it was an
nounced in this country, not long since, that Mrs. Sher
wood, of England, had become a Universalist, a box,
containing a copy of each of their principal publica
tions, was sent to this lady by some American Univer
salists ; which, however, much to their mortification,
was returned unopened.
" In Scotland," we are told, (' Exp. May, 1840,' p.
190,) "Universalists, considered as a distinct sect, are
scarcely more prosperous than in England." " They
(p. 211,) have generally adhered to that form of Uni
versalism, which, with some more or less important mo
difications, prevailed in England and America forty
or fifty years ago. , It embraces the doctrine of the su
preme divinity of Jesus Christ, the popular doctrme of
the atonement, and others of a kindred nature." " In
Ireland, (p. 190,) Mr. Whittemore mentions a society
of Universalists at Colerain. Of its present state we
are not informed ; nor, indeed, could we affirm its ex
istence." Such is the state of Universalism in the British Isles.
We look in vain among them all for the creed that is
so popular among the sect in this country. It has no

32 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Great Britain.
existence there. Hence the writer just quoted, re
marks, (p. 211,) "As Universalists now exist and be
heve in Great Britain, we do not flatter ourselves with
the expectation of much progress. If we turn to the
Unitarians, we shall find little more reason to be en
couraged." The reader will now perceive the propriety of the
phrase " American Universalism." The impropriety
of calling it Christianity, will, if not already seen, be
made apparent as we proceed.

CHAPTER III.
FINAL HAPPINESS OF ALL MANKIND.
Summary of the creed — Denial of every thing heretofore
thought sacred — Pretence of being the plain doctrine of the
Bible — Final holiness- and happiness universal — Does not
teach that men will be happy at death — Novel mode of inter
pretation — Bible a Jewish affair — Credulity.
They "the truth of God
Tum'd to a lie, deceiving and deceiv'd ;
Each, with th' accursed sorcery of sin,
To his own wish and vile propensity
Transforming still the meaning ofthe text." — Pollok.
It needs but a very moderate share of discernment,
in order to discover the almost total dissimilarity be
tween this novel system and those which have preced
ed it. Well may its advocates affirm, that between
them and other denominations, " there is a difference
high as heaven, wide as the earth." This strange creed
maintains, that neither temporal nor eternal death are
consequences of sin; that mankind are strangers alike to
native and total depravity; that the mind is not the
source of sin, and that all sin will cease with the de
struction of the flesh. It denies, that the death of Christ
was properly an atonement or satisfaction for the sins,
past and to come, of the children of men, or that there
was any peculiarity in the nature of his sufferings. It
denies the supreme divinity of our Lord, the distinct

34 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Summary of the Creed. Obviously taught in the Bible.
personality and divinity of the Holy Spirit, and the doc
trine of the Trinity. It teaches that the salvation of
the gospel, in no case, delivers men from deserved pun
ishment, that God regards both saints and sinners with
the same feelings, that his favor can never be lost, that
the actions of this life do not affect in the least degree
our eternal welfare, and that man needs no radical
change of nature. It denies that, at the resurrection,
any will be raised to ' shame and everlasting contempt,'
or that there will be a general judgment immediately
following that event.
Thus every doctrine, heretofore regarded as sacred,
and undoubtedly revealed in the Scriptures, with the sin
gle exception of the Unity of God, (a doctrine not pecu
liar to Christianity,) is unblushingly denied and ridicul
ed by these New Lights of the world. They are the
favored of heaven ! Hitherto darkness has covered the
earth, and gross darkness the people ! But the Lord
has arisen upon them, and his glory has been seen upon
them ! A most palpable blindness has afflicted alike
the learned and unlearned, the wise and the ignorant !
The Bible, that book given of God to be the light of the
world, has, till now, been shrouded in darkness ! The
book of revelation has proved to all the world beside,
and to every preceding generation, a sealed book !
But, what is most of all strange, Universalists main
tain, that this system, which they pretend to have gath
ered from the Bible, lies on the very surface ; is the
most obvious, most directly taught ; and that it argues
wilful blindness, and fear of the truth, if any expounder

FINAL HAPPINESS OF ALL MANKIND. . 35
Said to be clearly revealed. Con tempt of Orthodoxy.
of Scripture does not perceive it. Mr. Grosh, of Utica,
in the " Universalist Companion for 1841," says, " We
believe that in the Scriptures of the Old and New Tes
taments the foregoing sentiments are clearly revealed."
Speaking of " our common English version of the Bi
ble," the younger Ballou says, (' Exp.' I. 273,) " We
hazard nothing in repeating a statement in which all
good judges appear agreed, that on the whole it exhi
bits intelligibly, at least, if not with perfect clearness,
the general tenor and doctrines of the original text. So
far as it respects the means of understanding these, the
English reader need not much regret his ignorance of
the dead languages."
They can scarcely have any patience with those,
who teach the old-fashioned doctrines of the Trinity,
atonement, and endless punishment. In speaking of
the latter particularly, they can scarcely find words
strong enough to express their contempt and abhor
rence. It is a " wretched hypothesis ;" " a doctrine,
which, if true, would disgrace the benevolent author of
our being," " ascribes a character to God which no lan
guage can express — which, indeed, for innate and un
provoked ctuelty, infinitely surpasses the loftiest pow
ers of imagination," and "represents God as sustaining
a character compared with which, that of Nero is ex
cellence ;" " it is an insult ahke to reason, and every
sentiment of purity and reverence ; it is contempt thrown
upon the word of God and the character of its author."
It is therefore a "horrible dogma," " absurd and blasphe
mous," " bolstered up by horrid assumptions." (See

36 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
They only have eyes. Awful depravity of good men.
' Letters to Brownlee,' and ' Letters to Remington,'
by T. J. Sawyer.) " When," says this mild writer,
" will the Christian world have ceased to indulge in
these wretched peurihties, and be willing to interpret
the word of divine truth in a manner worthy of itself?"
Thus these very modest and unassuming reformers
maintain that the Christian world have heretofore in
dulged themselves in wretched puerilities, and that all
their show of learning has amounted to nothing more
than mere boys' play. Nay, it is gravely asserted that
they (i. e. all who have not adopted this new creed,)
have not been " willing to interpret the word of divine
truth in a manner worthy of itself." Having eyes they
would not see ! What a sweeping charge ! And this
is attributable to their depravity : " Among the most
astonishing facts of the moral world, stands this general
credulity in all that is dishonorable and blasphemous re
lative to the universal Creator. It furnishes one ofthe
strongest evidences of man's awful depravity !" (' Saw
yer to Remington,' p. 115.)
What awfully-depraved men, according to Mr. Saw
yer, were Luther, Calvin, Baxter, Hammond, Patrick,
Lowth, Whitby, Henry, Gill, Doddridge, Wesley, Scott,
Bloomfield, and Clarke ! How strange that such wick
ed men should have been selected to give tone to nearly all
the piety in the world by their " wretched puerilities !"
Stranger still that men of such profound and extensive
learning, such matured wisdom, and such penetrating
intellects, should not, with all their intimate acquaint
ance with the original language of Scripture, have dis-

FINAL HAPPINESS OF ALL MANKIND. 37
Superiority to the Apostle?. * Leading doctrines.
covered what the merest tyro in the Universalist ministry
can now see, without Greek or Hebrew optics, as plain
as day ! And stranger still, that the Savior, the pro
phets, and the apostles should have chosen to express
themselves in such phraseology, that, whether read in
the original, or in the numerous versions into which the
Scriptures have been rendered, it has never been known
until recently what was their true meaning ! What a
pity that Ballou, Balfour, and Kneeland had not written
the epistles of Paul, Peter, and John ! Then we could
never have doubted whether there were future and
endless punishment, or not.
But, lest the reader should imagine that I have
charged these modern interpreters of Scripture falsely,
I proceed, without further preface, to introduce the
requisite testimony. My object is not to enlighten the
informed 'Universalist, in regard to the items of his
creed, for none such will deny the charge. But I de
sign to show the unthinking many, who compose the
mass of the half-million claimed to belong to the de
nomination, what they must believe, if they become
" positive Universalists ;" and to undeceive others in
regard to the assumption Of the Christian name, by
those who " deny the Lord that bought them."
The great and leading doctrine of Universalism, and
that for which all its other doctrines were made, is that

38 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Resurrection-power. Distinctive doctrine.
I. ALL MANKIND WILL EVENTUALLY BECOME HOLY AND
"HAPPY.
In this they are all agreed. " The sentiment," says
the author of the e Plain Guide,' (p. 15,) " by which
Universalists are distinguished is this : that at last
every individual of the human race shall become holy
and happy. This does not comprise the whole of their
faith, but merely that feature of it, which is pecuhar
to them, and by which they are distinguished from the
rest of the world." And such is the beginning and
end of all their writings.
The text book of Modern Universalism is ' a Trea
tise on Atonement' by Hosea Ballou, in the preface to
which he remarks, (p. 6,) " Perhaps the reader will
say, he has read a number of authors on the doctrine of
Universalism, and finds considerable difference in their
systems. That I acknowledge is true ; but all agree
in the main point, viz. that universal holiness and hap
piness is the great object of the gospel plan."
At what time this anticipated result will take place
does not fully appear. All, however, agree in the be
lief that it will not be delayed beyond the resurrection.
I say, all ; for I cannot learn that any of them believe
that the misery of the wicked will continue beyond the
resurrection of the dead.
" In the resurrection," says A. C. Thomas, (' Theo.
Discus.' p. 281,) " universal humanity shall walk
forth in the beauty of holiness, redeemed and regene
rated by the quickening Spirit of the living God."
Mr. Ballou says, (' Expositor' I. 78,) " that the resurrec-

FINAL HAPPINESS OE ALL MANKIND. 39
None happy at death. Resurrection indeterminate.
tion-power, which brought again from the dead the
Lord Jesus Christ, will finally, in him, make the whole
human family gloriously immortal and incorruptible."
But, how long a time will elapse before the resurrec
tion, they pretend not to say. " Whether the resur
rection instantly succeeds the death of the body, or
whether it is a progressive work in the hands of God,
performed upon different individuals at different times,
as he shall please to raise them, or whether it is to take
place with all simultaneously at some future time, Uni
versalism, as such, does not decide." ('Expositor,'
ILL 31.)
That all, or any of mankind will be happy at death,
will then enter into bliss, forms no part of this creed.
" We do not presume," they say, " to know that men
by shortening their days upon the earth, will hasten
their entrance into heaven  As it respects the
hastening of an introduction into another hfe by the
shortening ofthe present, (i. e. suicide,) we would state
distinctly, that no particular speculation upon this
point is any essential part of the Universahst system."
(' Exp.' IB. 22, 31.)
It is true, that we often see, in their ephemeral pub
lications, much that would imply^that the departed had
gone to glory. But the Universalist preacher can hold
out no such hope to his dying disciple, and be honest.
He cannot assure the trembling sinner that he will en
ter into the joy of his Lord, until, it may be, thousands
of years have rolled around, and ushered in the resur
rection-morn. No wonder that, with such instructions,

40 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Old Testament. Silent as to a future state.
the wretched man clings to life, and shrinks back from
the dreary prospect of long-continued darkness and
death. Their views on this point will be given in another
place. But let me add a word of caution to those who
have blindly adopted this creed, that they no longer
flatter themselves that they will be happy at death. I
know of no Universalist writer, or preacher, that main
tains such a doctrine. Look before you take the final
leap. The reader, however, who has not made himself
familiar with this crafty system, will, doubtless, be
ready to ask, how do these preachers dispose of those
numerous passages of Scripture which affirm the ever
lasting punishment of those who die in their sins V In
the first place, then, they maintain, that the Old Testa
ment says but little, perhaps nothing, of the future im
mortal state. The younger Ballou says, (' Exp.' I. 182,)
" The future state of existence was not clearly revealed
till the time of our Savior." " The views which the Old
Testament had afforded of this most interesting sub
ject were faint and indistinct, like a prospect amid the
obscurity of night." Mr. Sawyer, in his sermon on the
' Penalty of Sin,' (p. 15,) quotes with implied appro
bation this remark of Dr. Jahn ; " We have not author
ity decidedly to say that any other motives were held
out to the ancient Hebrews to pursue the good, and to
avoid the evil, than those which were derived from the
rewards and punishments of this life." And again,
(p. 22,) " Indeed, as I have before suggested, the Old

FINAL HAPPINESS OF ALL MANKIND.

41

Jewish ignorance.

A Dilemma.

Testament is confessed by many eminent divines, to
contain no hint of future rewards and punishments."
" Where in the Old Testament," asks the same wri
ter, (' Universalist Union,' TV. 213,) " are to be found
any thing but mere temporal sanctions." And after
quoting several very learned and orthodox divines to
the same effect, he adds, — " Now if these several wri
ters are correct" (and of course he thinks them so,)
" mere temporal sanctions were the only sanctions of
the Old Testament known to God's favored people, the
Jews." But why not quote Heb. xi. as in point 1
Such is the opinion of their leader also. " It is
worthy of special regard," says the elder Ballou,
(' Lecture-Sermons,' p. 274,) " that the divine pro
mises and threatenings recorded by Moses- and the pro
phets, with which God was pleased to signify his ap
probation of righteousness, and his disapprobation of
sin, relate to blessings and punishments which have been
enjoyed and suffered by the house of Israel in the earth."
Again, he remarks, (p. 275,) — " We have no more
authority for applying either the promises for obedi
ence, or the threatenings for disobedience, to a future
state, than we have for believing that the Jews, for
their obedience in this world, will be blessed in the future
state in the quiet possession ofthe land of Canaan ; and
for their disobedience will be visited with sickness, and
be carried away into captivity by their enemies."
Now it happens, very unfortunately for these inno
vators, that some of their most important proof-texts
are derived from the Old Testament ; e. g. Gen. xxii.
4*

42 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Destruction of Jerusalem. Apocalypse.
18. " In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be
blessed." To be consistent, they must admit, that
here is no hint of future rewards except in this world.
The same must be admitted of Psalm xxii. 27, and Isa.
xxv. 8. Before appealing to these again, I would ad
vise them, first to settle the question, whether or not
the Old Testament sheds any light on the immortal
state ; and if so, how much 1
But the New Testament is not liable to this objec
tion. There, confessedly, " life and immortality" ure
brought to light. Yet who does not know " that most
of it was written under the very shadow of an impend
ing judgment which was about to sweep the holy eity,
the Mosaic system of worship, and a large part of the
Jewish nation from the face of the earth, and to scatter
the broken remnant in everlasting dispersion V " A re
collection of these facts will prepare the reader to trace
the reference of many passages in the gospels and epis
tles, which would otherwise be dark and perplexing."
So says the younger Ballou, (' Exp.' I. 280,) and who
cannot see, in the light of this new luminary, that every
threatening of the New Testament, that seems to look
to a future world, must have had its fulfilment, in the
destruction of Jerusalem ? These new interpreters af
firm it, and it would be very impolite to call in question
their infallibility.
As to the Apocalypse, or Revelation of John, of
which orthodox writers make such frequent mention,
and which most of them say was written after the de
struction of Jerusalem, inasmuch as there are a few ex-

FINAL HAPPINESS OF ALL MANKIND. 43
Apocalypse. Credulity.
positors who give it a date prior to that event ; there
fore, they say, we do not know certainly that it refers
to any other destruction, than what takes place in this
world. Thus Mr. Sawyer remarks, (' Penalty of Sin,' p.
16,) " It has been, and may well be, doubted, whether
any part of the Apocalypse relates to the future and
eternal world." Besides, it is a very obscure book, at
least in some respects. The same writer says, (' Letters
to Remington,' p. 131,) " I do not profess to understand
that book." Mr. Balfour, in his '.Reply to Professor
Stuart,' remarks, (p. 205,) " If you can say in truth,
that you understand the book of Revelation, and can
explain it, you are the first man whom the world has
furnished since it was written, of whom this could be
said." And, because Dr." Lardner included the Apoca
lypse among the books which cannot " afford alone suf
ficient proof of any doctrine," Mr. Balfour casts it aside
as irrelevant to the controversy. Therefore, though
some of its language is very fearful, " I can see no pro
priety," says Mr. Thomas, (' Theo. Discus.' pp. 37,
38,) " in referring such language to a future state. Nor
do I see the propriety of urging so confessedly hyperbo
lical a book as the Apocalypse, in proof of any impor
tant doctrine." And Mr. Le Fevre says, (' Gospel An
chor,' II. 62,) " The book of Revelation is manifestly
obscure, and its authenticity and genuineness having
been disputed from the earliest ages of the church, we
agree with the sentiments expressed by Dr. Lardner,
' that it may be well to read it in churches for edifica
tion, but it ought not to be brought forward as sufficient

44 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Bible antiquated. Labor-saving course.
authority to establish any doctrine.'' " The easiest way
to dispose of some of its fearful language is undoubtedly
to deny its authority. - It may be read for amusement,
or entertainment, but not for doctrinal instruction !
If now a man can be so credulous as to believe that
the Jews were more ignorant than the Heathen, and
that their Bible contained not even a " hint of future
rewards and punishments," though coming from God
himself ; that neither Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses,
Samuel, David, nor any of the prophets expected to
live again after death; if he can also believe that
" most" of the New Testament relates simply to the
destruction of Jerusalem, and that the Apocalypse is
no authority at all, he is in a fair way to become a
Universalist. But, in the language of another I would
add, if he succeeds " in digesting the monstrous absur
dity, let him be honest enough to call things by right
names, and label the New Testament " Jerusalem's
destruction foretold ;" and then lay it aside as a
book which interests him no more than any other trea
tise upon times and events so remote, — as fit only for
antiquarian purposes ; — lay it aside on the ground that
what was written mainly, and so exclusively, for the
men that hved 2000 years ago, claims little authority
and influence over him."
The reader surely must admire the wonderful and
labor-saving simplicity of this course. All that is
needful is, in the first place to throw away the Old
Testament and the Apocalypse, and then, in the second
place, to refer every fearful threatening in the remain-

FINAL HAPPINESS OF ALL MANKIND. 45
A Jewish affair.
der of the New Testament to the destruction of Jerusa
lem, and not a passage remains that even hints at a
retribution in the future immortal state.
" What doth the man deserve of human kind,
Whose happy skill and industry combin'd "
have thus proved the Bible to be, at the best, a mere
Jewish affair, of but little use to the world, since the
end ofthe Hebrew commonwealth, save as a .history of
interesting events ? What, but
" The praises ofthe libertine confess'd,
The worst of men, and curses ofthe best."'

CHAPTER IV.
PENALTY OF SIN.
Penalty of Sin — Once universally supposed to be endless death
— This position denied — Final happiness never forfeited by
Sin — How regarded by Murray, Chauncy, and Huntington
— Views of this penalty expressed by Modern Universalists
— Strange interpretation of ' eternal life' — 'Eternal death'
not mentioned in the Bible.
" The heart surrender'd to the ruling pow'r
Of some ungovern'd passion ev'ry hour,
Finds by degrees the truths, that once bore sway,
And all their deep impressions, wear away ;
As coin grows smooth, in traffic current pass'd,
Till Csesar's image is effac'd at last !" — Cowper.
It would be impossible to persuade all men, at once,
to adopt the novel mode of interpretation, by which the
Bible is made to keep a profound silence respecting
punishment after death. "After all that has been said
(' Exp.' I. 283,) it will require probably about a quar
ter qf a century to induce people generally" to believe
that the passage in Mat. xxv. 31 — 46, and kindred de
clarations, refer only to the destruction of Jerusalem ;
that it was mainly to save the Jews, tens of thousands
of whom would then be in their graves, from premature
and violent death, that the Savior and his apostles
" ceased not to warn every one night and day with
tears." If this proceeding had been confined to Jeru
salem and Jews, these views would be more readily
credited. But, when in the cities of Syria, Asia Minor,

PENALTY OF SIN. 47

Limited Penalty. Starting point.
and Greece, the Apostles are seen pursuing the same
course " both to the Jews and also to the Greeks," or
Gentiles, the mind needs a long schooling before it can
give credence to such strange assumptions.
In order to meet this emergency, it was discovered,
not long since, that the world had made a gross mis
take about the penalty of sin! Mankind, it is true, have
transgressed the law of God, and incurred the penalty
of the law, but the law never meant to inflict endless
punishment on the transgressor ! Sin is not so great an
evil as men thought that it was ! It is not possible for men
to sin so greatly as to deserve endless death ! Therefore
it cannot be taught in the Bible, and the doctrine is
only the product of a horrid fancy ! If so, the question
is settled at once. " What need we any farther wit
ness 1" The building must now rise, for a limited pen
alty has " become the head-stone of the corner."
Here is the starting point. The attempt is made un-
blushingly to unsettle the foundations of ages. Every
scheme of doctrine, heretofore received as taught in the
Bible, both conceded, and was based, on the supposi
tion or belief, that endless punishment was the proper
penalty of transgression. And, however the patrons
of these schemes may have differed in the extent of the
application of the atonement, in this they were all
agreed. They, who first embraced the doctrine of Uni
versal Salvation, based their hope of escaping endless
death, on fhe ground that Christ had redeemed all men
from the curse of the law. But it was replied to such,
that if Christ had redeemed them from unending pun-

48

PENALTY OF SIN.

Eternal life never lost. Murray and Chauncy.
ishment, then they would have suffered such a punish
ment, had he not have redeemed them ; and that such
suffering would consequently have been just. Thus the
justice of 'endless punishment would be, at once, conced
ed. This ground, therefore, proving untenable, it was
abandoned, and a bolder position taken.
Modern Universalism teaches that
II. Final happiness never has been, and never can be,
FORFEITED BY SlN.
Mr. Murray held that our loss in the first Adam, and
gain in the second were the same ; that what we have
procured through the atonement of Christ, and union,
with Him, we forfeited by the sin of our first parents ;
that, therefore, final happiness was forfeited by sin.
Dr. Chauncy, too, though his scheme differed much
from Murray's, agreed "with him in this particular. He
seems to have wavered much in regard to the true na
ture of the penalty threatened by the divine law. He
labors hard, indeed, in his book on ' the Salvation of
all men,' to establish the point that the law did not
threaten eternal death, or " everlasting destruction."
But that he did not feel secure on this ground appears
from what he says, (p. 282,) of annihilation : — " If the
foregoing scheme should be found to have no truth in
it, and the wicked are sent to hell, as so many incura
bles, the second death ought to be considered, as that
which will put an end to their existence, both in soul
and body, so as that they shall be no more in the crea
tion of God." By falling back on this scheme, after

PENALTY OF SIN. 49

Huntington. Ballou's discovery.
admitting, as he does, that the reward of obedience was
to be endless happiness, he admits that such happiness
was forfeited by sin.
Dr. Huntington seems not to have questioned the
point at all. He " maintained that endless punishment
was a doctrine ofthe Scriptures," "and in reference to
the question, ' does the Bible plainly say that sinners of
mankind shall be damned to interminable punishment V
he answered, ' it certainly does, as plainly as language
can express, or any man, or even God himself can speak.'
Nor did he deny that endless misery was consistent with
divine justice. On this subject he was perfectly plain.
' The endless duration of punishment,' said he, ' appears
obviously just, no more than we deserve, and not in the
least cruel for God to inflict. To argue, as some do, '
that it is not just for God to punish eternally, for tran
sient sins in this world, is the perfection of absurdity,
and arises from a total ignorance of God, and ourselves,
in the true character and relation of each." (' Mod. His.'
pp. 385, 6.) He doubted not that, by sin, future end
less happiness had been justly forfeited.
Not so, however, with the degenerate, or, as they
would call themselves, perhaps, — the regenerate, disci
ples of Murray and Chauncy. They are " wiser than
their fathers were." Mr. Ballou had the goodness,
nearly forty years since, to inform the Christian world,
that what they called law, was " only a creature of false
education." In his ' Treatise on Atonement,' (pp. 127,8,)
he says, " Before you found peace, you thought you
could see the justice of God in your eternal exclusion
5

50 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Prayer ridiculed. Presumption.
from heaven and -happiness. Now we ask, can you
find, that God ever gave a law to man, which required
endless misery, in case of disobedience 1 Sure we are,
the Scriptures speak of none, neither do the dictates of
good reason admit of its existence." "A false education
has riveted the error in the minds of thousands, that
God's law required endless misery to be inflicted on the
sinner. How often do professed Christians address the
Almighty, and say — 'Hadst thou been just to have
marked iniquity, we should long since have been in
the grave with the dead, and in hell with the damned.'
This address amounts to nothing more nor less, than a
complimental accusation against God of injustipe ! It
surprises us to think how professed Christians will con
tend for the honor and glory of God, in a way that
renders his character infinitely inglorious and dishon
orable." That Mr. Ballou, without the aid of a liberal educa
tion, should understand, at the age of somewhat more
than thirty years, so surely both what " the Scriptures
speak," and " the dictates of good reason admit," as
to call in question the wisdom and discrimination of
nearly all the wise, and good, and great, who preceded
him, may appear very plausible to himself, if not to
others. It seems not have occurred to him, that, in
charging the people of God, with bringing, in their
prayers, " a comphmental accusation against God, in
finitely inglorious and dishonorable," he might be only-
exposing his own ignorance of the true nature of sin;
or, that their feelings might be owing to their superior

PENALTY OF SIN. 51

Christian Experience. Divine Psychology.
light, and greater love of a holy God. It is well known,
that as Christians increase in holiness, they acquire a
vastly greater abhorrence of the evil of sin, leading
them often to express themselves in the language, at
which Mr. B. so contemptuously sneers. The more
that one sees of the hohness of God, the more he will
be induced, with Job, to abhor himself, and repent in
dust and ashes.
Since the pubhcation of the ' Treatise on Atone
ment,' every Universalist preacher, with here and there
an exception, can see with perfect clearness, that " there
is not the slightest intimation given in the Scriptures,
that this death was endless death." So says Mr. Whit-
temore in his c Plain Guide,' p. 56. But has he at*
tained to a perfect acquaintance with every text of
Scripture, not forgetting what Mr. Thomas calls that
" hyperbolical" book, the Apocalypse 1 If not, how can
he know that there is no such intimation 1 Has it
never entered into his mind, that possibly his sight may
be imperfect, so that what he beholds on the page of
inspiration, is sometimes warped by reason of a very
common disease, called prejudice ?
It is worthy of remark, that these men manifest, not
only the most intimate acquaintance with every part of
the Bible, but also with the psychology, or spiritual pro
perties of the Most High God, so as to be able to deter
mine infallibly what God can, and cannot do, what
course it would be proper, or improper, for him to pur
sue in the treatment of offenders. Thus Mr. William
son, in his 'Exposition and Defence of Universalism,'

52 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Modest assertions ! A striplings blustering.
(pp. 15, 16,) puts the matter to rest : " The dogma of
endless wo we reject, as unmerciful, unjust, and cruel ;
a penalty which a just God never did, and never can,
annex to his law." " I am not speaking at random, but /
know whereof I affirm, (how modest !) when I say that
no living man can take up the Bible, and find a place
where God gave man a law, and annexed to it the pen
alty of endless misery. Hence, I say, that man needed
not to be saved from such an evil, for the best of all
possible reasons, that in the economy of God, he never
was exposed to any such calamity." The reader cannot
fail to perceive how minutely Mr. W. has acquainted
himself with " the economy of God," or the principles
of the divine government : and with what entire confi
dence in his own judgment he avers both what God
can, and cannot, do. Wiser men are more humble.
They go to the Bible, and ask — ' What has God de
clared, in this sacred Book, to be his purpose concern
ing the wicked who continue in unbehef?' and thus
they learn what God " Can" do.
Lu like manner, Mr. Sawyer, of New-York, says,
('Letters to Brownlee,' X. 13,) "here I meet the
popular but monstrous idea, that the penalty of the di
vine law is endless misery. Beware, sir ! how you trifle
with the divine attributes." A httle more humility,
in addressing one so much his senior and superior, would
have been more becoming in " one of so humble attain
ments as himself." To hear a stripling, just out of
college, calling thus on a learned divine, who began to
study divinity before he was born, to beware how he

PENALTY OF SIN. 53

Unlimited penalty. Not found in the Bible.
" trifles with the divine attributes," is truly pitiful. And
yet it is of a piece with the whole course of his com
peers, in then assaults on those of another creed.
So, too, in his sermon on the 'Penalty of Sin,' he tells
us, (p. 21,) that " if God may be allowed to be his own
interpreter, Adam was not threatened with endless
misery as the consequence of sin; at least no intimation
of such a penalty is ever given." In the ' Universalist
Union,' (VI. No. 4,) he uses similar language : — " I
hazard nothing in saying that there is not in all the
books of Moses — bringing down the history of our race
and of God's revelation to, and dealings with it, for
more than twenty-five hundred years after the creation
— there is not in all the books of Moses one single pas
sage, upon which the doctrine in question can be main
tained, with even a tolerable show of fairness and truth."
" But I need not confine these observations to the books
of Moses. They apply with equal force, if I mistake
not, to the whole Old Testament. Where is the evi
dence they furnish that endless punishment is the proper
penalty of the divine law ? I believe it is not to be
found." " What has God revealed on this subject in the
New Testament 1 There are a few passages, and but a
few, where the word everlasting or eternal is applied to
punishment ; and on this circumstance must the ad
vocates of endless misery chiefly rely. Yet this word
is confessedly ambiguous, and its corresponding word
in the Old Testament is known to be repeatedly used
in relation to punishment which is clearly national and
5*

54 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Redemption simplified. Offer of Eternal life.
temporal. Why shall not the word be understood in
the sanie manner in the New Testament V
Other examples of the kind, touching the matter in
hand, might be given, showing the entire unanimity of
the sect in occupying this ground. Its influence, in
modifying their views of the whole system of divine
truth, will very readily be perceived. It makes sin a
very trifling evil, easily recompensed, and requiring no
vicarious atonement, or satisfaction to justice by a di
vine person. It simplifies vastly the great plan of re
demption, so that we can scarcely suppress our wonder,
that it should have been said of it, by so judicious a
writer as Simon Peter, " which things the angels de
sire to look into."
It follows, as a matter of course, from this view of the
penalty of sin, or the curse ofthe law, that eternal life,
or endless happiness, never has been forfeited by sin.
No amount of guilt can deprive a human being of this
inheritance. " I maintain," says Mr. Balfour, (' Letters
to Hudson,' p. 36,) " that no man by his unbelief and
disobedience can forfeit a future immortal life, and sub
ject himself either to a limited or endless punishment in
a future state."
But it will doubtless occur to the reader, that the
Savior addressed his hearers in a manner that seemed
to imply that they were destitute of any good hope of
eternal life. Nothing was more frequently on his lips
than the offer of everlasting life to those who would be
come bis followers. Nicodemus was told, " that who
soever believeth in him should not perish, but have

PENALTY OF SIN. 55

Eternal life has been forfeited.
everlasting life ;" i. e. should have this everlasting life
as a reward of his faith. The Jews were exhorted to
" labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that
meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the
Son of Man shall give unto" them. In other words,
the Savior promised to bestow on them the gift of ever
lasting life, if they would strive for it. In like manner
the Savior says of his sheep, " I give unto them eternal
life, and they shall never perish." Eternal life is here
equivalent to never perishing ; and it is implied, that
without this gift from the hands of Christ, they would
inevitably perish.
In these and similar passages, it is in the clearest
manner taught, that final happiness, here spoken of un
der tbe figure of ' everlasting,' or, ' eternal life,' is the pe
culiar privilege of those who believe in Christ, and that
it was to bestow this happiness on all who should be
heve in him, that he came into the world. For how
could the Savior make such an offer, and propose it as
a reward of his service, if those to whom he spake were
aheady possessed of endless happiness, or if they had
never forfeited it by sin 1 That this eternal life had
been forfeited, appears to have been the understanding
of those who heard him. The young ruler asks, " Good
Master! what shall! do that I may inherit (procure)
eternal life ?" " To whom shall we go 1" says Peter,
" thou hast the words of eternal life."
If, now, those who obtain eternal life through Christ,
would, but for him, have been destitute of it — and no
thing is more clearly taught in the Bible — it follows

56 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.

the same os temporal life.

inevitably that their portion would have been eternal
death ; and that this is the portion of all by nature.
Eternal life is equivalent to endless bliss, and conse
quently eternal death can mean nothmg more nor less
than endless misery. But if man " never was exposed to
any such calamity," how could the Redeemer promise
to save men from it by the gift of endless bhss 1
It is manifest, that it must be admitted that the penal
ty of sin, from which Christ came to save men, was end
less misery, unless it can be shown that ' everlasting-
life' is not endless life. But what is too hard for a
Universalist 1 All that he has to do is to deny, and
require others to prove. You would 'not require him,
surely, to prove a negative. Accordingly, it is most
boldly denied by these new expositors of Scripture, that
the phrase ' everlasting,' or ' eternal life,' relates to
another world. It simply means, happiness in this
world ! " It is believed by Universalists," says Mr.
Lewis, (' Mag. and Adv.' VIII. 26,) " that there is apre-
sent salvation, (also denominated ' everlasting,' or ' eter
nal life,') which it is our duty to seek and cherish."
But Mr. Sawyer is " much more bold." In his ' Letters
to Remington,' (p. 93,) he' says — " The fallacy in which
you indulge yourself, begins by assuming that eternal
life means endless felicity in heaven, and of course con
cludes that eternal torment means nothing less than
endless misery in hell. I deny your premise, 
and call upon you for proof. You cannot be ignorant
that these words are often employed in the New Testa
ment to express the life and peace which the Christian

PENALTY OF SIN. 57

Eternal life has nothing to do with heaven.
enjoys in the Gospel, here in this world." Is there,
then, no assumption and presumption in calling that a
"fallacy," which has obtained the ¦ almost unanimous
assent of the wisest of men — men, who surely have had
as good opportunities to know the truth as Mr. S. him
self 1 But the conclusion is irresistible, unless the pre
mises are disproved. Therefore ' eternal life' cannot
refer to another world !
In like manner Mr. Skinner, of Boston, tells us, in
his ' Universalism Illustrated and Defended,' (p. 241,)
" that the phrase, ' eternal life,' is a common expression,
to denote the enjoyment experienced in this world,
through the influence of the Gospel on the heart." In
other words, ' eternal' is the same as ' temporal !'
How then, are we to understand that declaration of
Paul — " For the things which are seen are temporal ;
but the things which are not seen are eternal 1" What
an outrage on common sense do these writers commit !
But the learned Mr. Balfour, of Charlestown, Mass.,
does not hesitate to limit every passage, in which the
phrase, ' eternal life,' occurs, to this world. In his
'Reply to Professor Stuart,' (p. 60,) he says-^-"I
should think the texts need only be read, to see that
they do not say anything about then endless happiness
in heaven. On the contrary, the texts speak for them
selves, that ' eternal life' is enjoyed on earth, and is en
joyed by every believer." Again, (p. 74,) — " You as
sume, that ' eternal life' refers to the future endless
happiness of the righteous." "This I deny." "'Eternal

58

UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.

An Experiment.

life' designates indeed the happiness of the righteous,
but it is their happiness in this world."
Let us now try the experiment of ' only reading'
some of the texts which speak of ' eternal,' or ' ever
lasting life.' Mr. B. refers us to Luke xviii. 30 : " Who
shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and
in the world to come life everlasting," or " happiness
in this world /" The passage in John xii. 25, is also
referred to. Let us read it according to Mr. B.'s defini
tion : " He that loveth his hfe shall lose it ; and he
that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life
eternal," or, unto " happiness in this world /" But, per
haps, we shall be more fortunate with John vi. 27 ;
" Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that
which endureth unto everlasting life," or, unto " hap
piness in this world !" And does not the happiness
enjoyed in this world perish 1
What complete nonsense should we make of the
Scriptures, if we should consent to be led by such inter
preters ! Who cannot see, at once, that they are de
termined that the Bible shall not be so read or under
stood, as to speak of future punishment in the immortal
state 1 At one time we are told, that the word ' hell'
does not refer to another world, because ' everlasting'
is not connected with it ; and at another, because it is.
Mr. Balfour, in his ' First Inquiry,' in order to prove
that the word ' hell' does not signify a place of end
less misery for the wicked, says, (p. 222,) — "that
none of the original words translated in the common
version, ,' eternal,' ' everlasting,' and ' forever,' are

PENALTY OF SIN. 59

Absurdity. Torturing criticism.
once connected with Gehenna, or hell." But on p.
153, he remarks, " If it should be said, that ' it is the
word ' everlasting,' ¦ apphed to the punishment of hell,
that proves that hell is a place of future misery,' to this
I answer, that it is this very word ' everlasting,' being
applied to Gehenna or hell-fire, that convinces me that
hell has no reference to a place of eternal misery for the
wicked ! !"
What cannot such men prove, or rather, disprove ?.
" It is the very word ' everlasting,' apphed" by the
Savior to the word life, that convinces them that it has
no reference to another world ! This life is nothing
more than a temporal life ! Why % Because the Savior
calls it ' eternal' " ! ! ! Admirable ! Who can now
question the doctrine thus established 1
There are forty passages in the New Testament,
where this phrase is used. And these have usually
been regarded as proof-texts for the hope of heaven
after death. In no other passages is the doctrine of
endless blessedness more clearly taught. Take these
away and what remains 1 What else can endure the
torture of this unsparing criticism 1 And yet, rather
than admit, that ' eternal' or ' everlasting destruc
tion' means endless misery they, are wilhng to give up
every passage in which the word translated ' eternal,'
or ' everlasting' occurs, though thereby they tear
away the most solid foundations of a happy immortali
ty beyond the grave. What reliance can be placed on
such interpreters ? Is it not a venture, too fearful, to
trust the soul in such hands, — to rest our hopes of hea
ven on such evident wresting of Scripture 1

60 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
An empty assurance. Eternal death.
Some of them appear to be sensible themselves of
this difficulty. And so Mr. WhittemOre,- in his ' Notes
on the Parables,' is constrained to assure his readers,
that he is not wholly an infidel. " Notwithstanding,"
he says, (p. 262,) " the everlasting life spoken of in
the New Testament is applied in these pages to that
state of rest, purity and joy into which believers of the
Gospel entered, whenever they embraced the Gospel,
the author takes this opportunity to say that he undoubt-
ingly believes that a future state of immortality is re
vealed in the New Testament !" But where, if not
there, where, he says, it is not found 1
If, however, our Universalists are so confident that
the word in question does not properly mean " endless,"
why are they so often heard exclaiming with exulta
tion, and quoting Macknight for the purpose (Sawyer on
the ' Penalty of Sin,' p. 18,) " that although in Scrip
ture the expression ' eternal life' is often met with, we
no where find ' eternal' joined with ' death.' " Do not
such remarks betray an apprehension that ' eternal'
may mean ' endless' ? And of what avail would it
be, if such a passage were found 1 They would tell us,
just as they now do in regard to the phrases, ' everlast
ing punishment,' and ' everlasting destruction,' that
they refer only to suffering before death. So that such
an omission on the part of the sacred writers, according
to their own showing, does not prove that endless pun
ishment is not the proper penalty of the divine law.

CHAPTER V.
NATIVE DEPRAVITY.  ORIGIN OF SIN.
Sin not an infinite evil — Native Depravity denied — The ac
count of the Fall fabulous — Man by nature as good now
as Adam ever was^Origin of Sin — God not the lawgiver,
but the mind itself— Sin fulfills the will of God — The mind
not the sinner, but the fiesh— God the author of sin — Men
not totally depraved.
" But what is man in his own proud esteem f
Hear him — himself the poet and the theme :
A monarch cloth'd with majesty and awe,
His mind his kingdom, and his will his law,
Grace in his mien, and glory in his eyes,
Supreme on earth, and worthy of the skies,
Strength in his heart, dominion in his nod,
And, thunderbolts excepted, quite a God !" — Cowper.
The penalty of a law should manifestly bear some
proportion to the evil of transgression. If sin be an
evd of infinite magnitude, it cannot be unjust for God
to attach to his law the penalty of endless misery. —
But the Universalist denies that the penalty of the di
vine law is misery without end. He must, therefore,
show, that sin is not as great an evil, as has commonly
been supposed, and that mankind deserve not an unlim
ited punishment.
In this manner Mr. Ballou begins his ' Treatise on
Atonement' He first inquires into the nature of sin,
6

62 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Sin a finite evil. Fall of man denied.
and attempts to show, (p. 15,) " that sin, in its nature,
ought to be considered finite and limited, rather than
infinite and unlimited, as has by many been supposed."
This common supposition he proceeds in a very sum
mary manner " to explode," and then remarks, (p. 19,)
" enough, undoubtedly, is said to show the egregious
mistake of supposing sin to be infinite." And as to what
the Temanite said to Job, (xxii. 5,) " Is not thy wick
edness great 1 and thine iniquities infinite ?" — he thinks
them not worthy of attention because they " are neither
the words of God, nor of one whom he approved."
The nature of sin being thus disposed of, and shown,
as he thinks, to be limited and finite, the way is pre
pared for his views of the penalty of the law, and of
the atonement. Sin being a trifling evil, it can be easi
ly removed. And, hence, he conceives an exalted
opinion of man's moral worth. The sin of Adam be
ing limited, he cannot conceive of it as affecting his
posterity. Therefore it becomes an established doc
trine with him and his disciples, that
III. Mankind are born as pure as Adam was when he
was created.
"Mr. Ballou cannot admit the common doctrine of
man's fall, and the consequent corruption of his*hature.
He treats the account in the third chapter of Genesis
as fabulous, or, at least, figurative. " Should it be said,"
he remarks, (p. 35,) " that this garden was a literal gar
den, that the tree of life was a literal tree, and that the
tree of the knowledge of good and evil was also literal;

DENIAL OF NATIVE DEPRAVITY. 63
All men born as pure as Adam ever was.
I should be glad to be informed, what evidence can be
adduced in support of such an idea." In this manner
he gets rid of " the old serpent," and all tempters, save
fleshly appetite. And what was effectual then in lead
ing man to sin, he maintains, is the same that " now
worketh in the children of disobedience." We come
into the world with animal natures, such as Adam had,
and these are sufficient in his opinion to account for all
sin. " These conflicting laws of flesh and spirit," he
remarks, (p. 34,) " have always existed in man from his
first formation, and so long as they both continue to
exert then powers in opposition to each other, so long
will sin remain, and continue to produce condemnation."
The way being thus prepared for exploding the an
cient dogma of original sin, or native depravity, it is
now boldly asserted that we are as good by nature as
Adam ever was. " In our opinion," says ' the Univer
salist Expositor,' (I. 248,) " every man, from the first
to the last, comes into the world under moral circum
stances precisely the same. We are ushered into be
ing in the state of- perfect innocency, with no guilt or
vice whatsoever ; and from all that we can learn, this
was the condition of the parents of our race, when they
came from the forming hands of their Creator."
In former days, there was no better authority among
Universalists than Aimer Kneeland, now, and for some
time past, an avowed Atheist of the worst stamp. I
can remember well to have heard a friend, who attend
ed his mmistry in this city, and greatly admired him,
remark to myself, " Don't you think that Mr. Kneeland

64 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
-. *  ___
Abner kneeland. The mind as pure as white paper.
knows what the Scriptures mean better than you do —
a man that can read fourteen languages 1" He was
an oracle indeed, and wielded a power so great that
when he fell off to infidehty he drew scores, not a few,
with him into that vortex. " His tongue
Dropp'd manna, and could make the worse appear
The better reason, to perplex and dash
Maturest counsels."
When his star was in the zenith, he published a vo
lume of ' Lectures' which were then regarded as unan
swerable, as well as accurately expressive of the tenets
held by the sect. In the second edition of those ' Lec
tures' he informs us, (p. 62,) " that man is born into the
world totally destitute of a moral or religious character,
as pure, in every moral or religious sense, as a clean
piece qf white paper; without a single impression, but
capable of receiving many; and also susceptible of
blots and stains." Again, (p. 78,) he adds — "he
comes into the world perfectly innocent, in which state
he is a fit subject for the kingdom of heaven ; he is
morally inclined to good, but, nevertheless, prone to
evil." The same is taught by 0. A. Skinner, of Boston. He
maintains, (' Universalism Illustrated,' pp. 80, 81, 78,)
that " every child is born into the world with as much
qf the image of God as Adam had when he was cre
ated." " We have the same natural and moral con
stitution which he had ; and consequently, the common
opinion about the fall is altogether imaginary." " Such

DENIAL OF NATIVE DE

\ 1 — "" — ' "

Adam's sin nothing to us.

a fall could not affect his posterity, in any different way
from what the sin of a parent will now affect his chil
dren." " Adam had the same appetites and passions, the
same propensities to sin, that his posterity have." Here
it is unblushingly maintained, that mankind now have
no more " propensities to sin," than Adam had before
his fall ! The same writer informs us, (p. 91,) what
" views of the natural state of man" are held by the
denomination : — " We believe — That man is by na
ture, i. e. as he is born into the world, equally free from
sin and destitute of holiness, no more inclined to vice
than to virtue, and equally capable, in the ordinary use
of his faculties, and the common assistance afforded
him, of either."
Mr. Le Fevre says of man, (' Gospel Anchor,' II.
289,) that his " moral character is the result of educa
tion and is not an innate principle. When he comes
into the world, his mind is unsullied as a sheet of white
paper, without a single impression as to what is good
or what is evil, and consequently capable of receiving
good impressions or of being stained with blots."
And so say they all. With no claim to originality,
they scarcely ever pretend to strike out a new path for
themselves. While they pretend to be the only ones
who dare to think for themselves, they allow Messrs.
Ballou, Balfour, and Co., to do all their thinking for
them. As these, their captains, lead, they follow,
though often much beyond their depth.
If these men are parents, they must have been bless
ed with remarkable children, or they would have found
6*

66 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
The true Bible-doctrine. Shi defined.
their own offspring giving the lie to their doctrines.
And not only they, but their hearers, must in this res
pect have been privileged beyond all the world, if they
can discover in their children no more " propensities to
sin," than Adam had before his fall. I have hitherto
believed it to be invariably true, as taught in Scripture,
that " a child left to himself bringeth his mother to
shame," and that every child " goes astray as soon"
as it is capable of doing it. But, if the Universalist
doctrine is true, how happens it, that every individual,
of every generation, race, clime, and condition, is just
as sure to sin, when he comes to the knowledge of good
and evil, as he is to breathe ? Why is it, that no pos
sible change in the circumstances of men in the least
degree yary this result 1 Such a uniform result argues
a uniform cause — a cause commensurate with the effects.
The Bible says, " by one man sin entered into the
world ;" " by the^offence of one judgment came upon all
men to condemnation ;" and that " by one man's diso
bedience many were made sinners." Which now shall
we beheve 1 Judge ye.
Closely allied to this doctrine of native purity is their
account of the origin of sin. They profess to beheve
that
IV. SIN HAS ITS ORIGIN, NOT IN THE MIND, BUT, IN THE ANI
MAL NATURE.
Let us see how they define sin. " Sin," says Mr.
Ballou, (< Atonement,' p. 15,) « is the violation of a
law which exists in the mind, which law is" — not the

ORIGIN OF SIN. 67

God not the law-giver ! Man his own law-giver !
ten commandments, nor any other express statutes, but
— " the imperfect knowledge men have of moral good.
This law is transgressed, whenever, by the influence of
temptation, a good understanding yields to a contrary
choice." Who now, is it, that gives or makes this
law 1 Who is the legislator ? Common sense would say,
that the law, the transgression of which is called ' sin'
in Scripture, proceeds from, and is enacted by, God.
But this they deny. The legislator in this case " is a
capacity to understand, connected with the causes and
means of knowledge ;" i. e., in plain words, it is the
mind itself, in which this capacity resides. It cannot
be, they say, that God is the lawgiver, for (pp. 16, 17,)
" the intention of a legislature, in legislation, must be
thwarted, in order for the law to take cognizance of
sin. Now if God, in a direct sense of speaking, be the
legislator of the law which is thwarted by transgres
sion, in the same direct sense of speaking, his intentions
in legislation are thwarted ;" then " the design of the
Deity must be abortive ;" but, " if God possesses infi
nite wisdom, he could never intend any thing to take
place, or be, that will not," else " we admit of a disap
pointment to the Supreme Being," and " it follows
that we have no satisfactory evidence whereby to prove
that any thing, at present, in the whole universe, is as
he intended." " The admission of this error would
sink the mind to the nether parts of moral depravity,
where darkness reigns with all its horrors."
Such is the reasoning, by which God is deposed
from his law-giving throne, and man is made his own

68 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Conviction of guilt excluded. Mind not the source of sin,
law-giver ; sin, too, is deprived of its malignity, and
made to coincide perfectly with the will of God. It
follows, most surely, from such premises, that every
sinner, in every act of sin, does exactly what " the All-
wise deshes him to do ; as perfectly fulfills the will of
his Maker, as if in all things he conformed precisely to
the dictates of law. Hence the Universalist's self-com
placency. It is impossible for him to feel a sense of
guilt, if such sentiments take possession of his mind ;
for how much soever he may violate the law of his
mind, he cannot by such transgressions violate or
" thwart" the will of God. How can he be Drought
under conviction of his guilt 1 By no possible means,
as long as he holds to such infidel absurdities.
But the error stops not here. Sin is not the act of
an independent mind, free to choose or refuse ! It is,
as they say, merely a want of conformity between the
choice of a man and his judgment ; which choice re
sults inevitably from, or is determined by, the propen
sities or passions of his amiable nature. The mind has
no sympathy with sin, — never consents to it, — is a
poor helpless creature, under the yoke of a hard task
master, from which it would gladly be delivered, and
so at once be pure again. I ask not — ' does this re
presentation accord with Scripture V — for I would not
insult the reader so much as to suppose that he could
have such a thought, unless he be a perfect stranger
to the Bible. But the reader may be allowed to ask
for the evidence of such charges. Let him then read
the following :^-

origin of sin. 69

Moral evil caused by natural evil.
Mr. Ballou, in the treatise already referred to, (pp.
24, 31, 32,) thus plainly speaks : — " The origin of sin
has, among Christians in general, been very easily ac-,
counted for ; but in a way, I must confess, that never
gave me any satisfaction, since I came to think for
myself on subjects of this nature."* " It may assist us in
arriving at a satisfactory solution of our subject, to con
sider, in the first place, the origin of natural evil. This
is unquestionably the necessary result of the physical or
ganization and constitution of animal nature." " It has
long been the opinion of Christian divines, that natural
evil owes its origin to what is denominated moral evil
or sin." " We feel fully convinced that the very reverse
ofthe opinion is true." " The ground we shall take is,
that natural evil owes its origin to the original consti
tution of our animal nature, and that moral evil or sin
owes its origin to natural evil." " From our natural
constitution, composed of our bodily elements, we are
led to act in obedience to carnal appetites, which justifies
the conclusion that sin is the work ofthe flesh."
That these views are not confined to the breast of a
single individual, but are popular in the denomination,
appears from the fact that the ' Treatise on Atonement'
has " probably been circulated more than any other
Universalist work in America." If it be said, that its
popularity is owing to his views of the Atonement, it
may be replied, that this account of the origin of sin is
essential to those views.
But this is not the only work, in which this doctrine
of the nature of sin is defended. Abner Kneeland, as

70 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Mistake about sin. Sin the fufillmentof God's law.
will be seen in his ' Lectures,' embraced these views
most cordially, and acknowledged himself indebted for
them to " that excellent and unanswerable work —
Ballou on Atonement." He declares, (p. 81,) " that
God cannot be considered, in any direct sense, the legis
lator qf that law which is transgressed by sin." In an
swer to the objection, that in this case " there is not,
neither can there be, any such thing as sin in the uni
verse," he asks, — " Would it not be more rational to
say that sin is something very different from what has
been generally supposed 1" He then proceeds to re
mark, (p. 82,) that " the law of a man's own under
standing is the law which is transgressed by sin ;" and
that " man is not amenable" to " any other law."
To the question, " who is the law-giver 1" in this case,
he replies (p. 83,) that " a man's own conscience, which
is the result of all the knowledge he possesses, from
whatever source obtained, is the legislator of that law
which is violated whenever he commits sin." " This
law may be, and often is transgressed by the very acts
through which the perfect law of God is fulfilled." So
that sin is often obedience to " the perfect law of God !"
On such an absurdity I need not remark. The advo
cate of such sentiments has found his proper place.
Such views accord well with the teachings of the
Wright and Owen-school.
The following extracts, on the same subject, are from
the pen of Mr. Austin of Danvers, Mass., and are ta
ken from the ' Universalist Expositor,' a theological
review, recently suspended for want of support, but re-

ORIGIN OF SIN. 71

Mind no power to sin. Never prompts to it.
garded in the order as of the highest authority for ex
position of doctrme. He remarks, (II. pp. 295, 6,) that
" sin does not, and cannot originate in, or proceed from,
the mind, spirit, or soul — that portion of our nature
which is from above, and which constitutes the image
of God." " What faculty or power does the mind
possess, by which it can be the source of sin V " We
may enumerate all the capabilities that properly con
stitute the mind, and I greatly err, or we search in vain
for one that is the source of sin." " The inquiry is,
c Do the powers qf the human mind sin ? do they prompt
to known and wilful wrong-doing ,?' How can they do
so 1" " This would seem to be as impossible, as for the
sun to send down floods of darkness intermingled with
its light. Does the reader inquire — ' If the mind, or
soul, forms no portion of the source of wickedness,
whence does it proceed V I answer, it is very evident
to me, that sin proceeds — not necessarily, but inciden
tally — from the passions, propensities, appetites, and im
pulses, of the lower, the animal or bodily portion of
our nature, as existing in this life."
Having laid down this startling proposition, and, as
he thought, established it, the writer waxes bold, and
takes 'still higher ground. Read the following para
graph, (pp. 297, 8,) and learn how completely the hu
man " mind, spirit, or soul," is freed from the imputa
tion of sin : —
" May I not with propriety proceed another step,
and assert, not only that sin does not proceed from the
mind, but that the mind or soul, so far as it is enlight-

72

UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.

Mind never consents to sin. God the author of sin.
ened, never consents to wickedness 1 When uninstructed
in regard to the nature and influences of a certain ac
tion, the mind, of course, is not competent to decide
upon its character, or determine whether it is right or
wrong. Its assent to sin, under such circumstances, is
unintentional and guiltless. But when the mind is
clearly instructed in the principles of morality, — when
it is fully prepared to decide whether a deed is proper
or sinful, does it then ever give consent to the sinful ?"
. . " NEVER !" . . "Although, in these circumstances,
the mind is in bondage to the propensities, and its
higher promptings are lost sight of, in the whirl of
unbridled appetites, still it participates not in their
wickedness, but retains the integrity of its purer nature."
And was it thus, that Hosea, and Amos, Isaiah, Je
remiah, and Joel, Ezekiel, Zechariah, and Malachi
preached 1 Does this style of address bear any resem
blance to the Savior's in his discourse to the Pharisees,
Peter's on the day of Pentecost, Stephen's on the eve of
martyrdom, or Paul's at Antioch in Pisidia and in his
epistle to the Romans 1 And yet they call this — Chris
tianity !
As already intimated, these men do not hesitate, not
only to make all sin to be agreeable to the will of God,
but, to make him the author of sin. " Perhaps," says
Mr. Ballou, (p. 23,) " the reader, by this time, is ready
to say, according to this reasoning, ' there can be no
such thing as real evil in the universe.' If by ' real
evil,' be meant something that ought not to be, in re
spect to all the consequences which attend it, / cannot

ORIGIN OF SIN. 73

God himself, the source of all moral evil.
admit-qfits existence." Then, having shown what he
thinks to be the " cause, or origin", of sin, he adds, (p.
36,) — " But, perhaps the objector will say, ' this denies
the liberty of the will, and makes God the author of
Sin.' To which I reply, — that God may be the innocent
and holy cause of that, which, in a limited sense, is sin."
"If it should be granted, that sin will finally terminate
for good, in the moral system, it will then be necessary
to admit that God is its first cause." " If God, (p. 37,)
produced an agency, and that agency produced sin, it
argues that God is the first cause. — If this mode of
reasoning be faulted, I ask, ' Is not God the origin and
cause of all moral righteousness V None can be per
verse enough to say — ' No.' Then I ask again, ' If
moral agency, created by God, be not the original
cause of moral righteousness, by what rule of reasoning
can it be made the original cause of transgression V "
Thus in the same sense in which God is the source
of all moral righteousness, is he the source of all
moral evil! Thus sin is the work, not of the hu
man mind or spirit, but, primarily, of God ; and second
arily, of the animal nature ! The reader cannot fail to
perceive how completely this view of the origin of sin,
puts to flight the orthodox notion of its being so great
an evil ; and how cruel and unjust it would be, if God
should punish with endless misery, a poor unfortunate,
whose faults were entirely attributable to that animal
nature, which was God's own workmanship !
I need not spend time, after such an exhibition of the
integrity and purity of the human mind, or soul, to
7

74 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Man not totally depraved. They cannot be convicted of guilt.
show, that they all sneer at the idea of the entire de
pravity of man, and maintain that
V. Man never becomes totally depraved.
" The opinion of our doctors," says Mr. Ballou in
his ' Notes on the Parables,' (p. 89,) " that the very
nature of man is so depraved that there is nothing
morally good in it, and that it is totally averse to the
nature of God, is doubtless erroneous." A writer in the
'Magazine and Advocate,' maintains, (VII. 11,) that
" of all the absurd notions which characterize the
creeds of Partiahsts, the doctrine of total depravity is
among the most inconsistent with reason and revela
tion." Another, who has since given unequivocal
evidence in his own conduct of possessing a heart in
clined to evil lusts, declares, (p. 75,) that the doctrine
" is iri violation of the whole tenor of the Scriptures, — a
reproach upon the Creator, — and opposed to all known
facts." Mr. Skinner, of Utica, declares, (p. 303) " that
the doctrine, being opposed to reason and common
observation, is false and untenable." And we are as
sured by Mr. S. R. Smith of Albany, (VIII. 197,) " that
the doctrine of the total moral depravity of mankind
is neither agreeable with reason and experience, nor
taught in the Bible."
With such views of the nature and origin of sin, as
have obtained currency among Universalists, it would
indeed be impossible to convince them, that " there is
none righteous, no, not one ; there is none that seeketh
after God ; they have all gone out of "the way, they

MAN not totally depraved. 75
Bible-doctrine unintelligible to them. A matter of wonder.
are together become unprofitable, there is none that
doeth good, no, not one. The heart is deceitful above
all things and desperately wicked ; the heart of the
sons of men is fully set in them to do evil ; is not sub
ject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." Surely,
all this, and much more to the same purpose, must be
unintelligible to men, who maintain that the human
mind or soul has no affinity for sin, and that sin it
self is nothing more than the workings of the animal
nature !
It will cease to be a matter of surprise to the read
er, that such teachers should not be able to see the jus
tice of God in punishing sin for ever, nor that the
Bible teaches that there will be such punishment in a
future state. It is of no use to argue with them,
about the meaning of the words translated, ' everlast
ing,' ' eternal,' ' forever and ever.' They are deter
mined to make them suit their theory of sin, and when
you have exhausted your proof, they are more confirm
ed than before.
But it must be a growing matter of wonder, that
men, who thus unsettle the very foundations of human
accountability, subvert the plainest doctrines of Scrip
ture, and maintain, in opposition to universal experience,
the integrity and purity of the human mind, should not
blush to call themselves Christians. That they are ut
terly unworthy of such an honorable name, will most
fully appear, as we dive deeper into their corruptions
of sacred truth.

CHAPTER VI.
no Punishment after death.
Is sin punished after death? — Views of Relly, Murray, and
Chauncy — Sin punished only in this life — No punishment
after death, a novel sentiment, not 25 years old — Secession
of the Restorationists — Evasion of the question of no pun
ishment after death — Culpable indifference to the question
of a future punishment — Appeal to their preachers, and to
the people themselves.
" Go, riot, drink, andev'ry ill pursue,
For joys eternal are reserv'd for you :
Fear not to sin till death shall close your eyes,
Live as you please, yours is th' immortal prjze :
Old Serpent ! hail ! — thou mad'st a just reply
To mother Eve, — ' Ye shall not surely die ." "
Man is too good a being to be lost forever. So
says Universalism. He comes into the world as pure
as a piece of white paper, and if he becomes defiled, it
is more owing to his circumstances than his own ex
alted nature. Consequently, it would be wrong in
God to afflict him forever, for the misfortune of being
made a creature of flesh and blood. It cannot be.
God is too good. ' Ye shall not surely die !'
But that man suffers for sin, no one doubts. That
he suffers until the close of his earthly life is equally

NO punishment after death. 77
Belly's views of future punishment. Views of Murray.
obvious. Will he continue to suffer after death1? —
And if so, how long 1
To the first of these questions an affirmative answer
has ever been given by all believers in the' Bible, until
these last days of the world. Even Universalism did
not venture to deny it, until it had gained a standing
among Christian denominations. Mr. Relly, the foun
der of the sect, " admitted the doctrine of partial suf
fering in the future state — on the principle, that, while
in unbehef, men know not, nor believe, that Jesus hath
put away their sins by the sacrifice of himself; and,
therefore, they are oppressed with guilt and fear; and
these are in proportion to their use or abuse of know
ledge ; to their receiving or obstinately rejecting the
divine evidences and demonstrations of grace and sal
vation. But he looked beyond all evil and misery,
whether in this or the future state, to a time of univer
sal restitution." (' Mod. Hist.' p. 279.)
Similar were the views entertained by his disciple
Murray, through whom Universalism was imported to
these shores. "He did not believe, (' Life' pp. 281,3,)
that the wicked would be immediately, at death, intro
duced into the enjoyments of the heavenly kingdom.
His belief, in relation to this subject, is thus expressed
in his own language : ' He who dies in unbehef, lies
down in sorrow, and will rise to the resurrection of
damnation.' " " If, in the article of death, every one for
whom Christ died were made acquainted with him,
and consequently, with the things that made for their
peace, why trouble mankind in hfe, about these mat-
17*

78

UNIVERSALISM as it is.

Views of Murray and Chauncy. Early views of Ballou.
ters ?" " If death destroys all distinctions, would it not
be well to say — ' Let us eat, drink, and be merry ; for to
morrow we die V " " If every one of the ransomed race
are to be equally happy in death, then, although they
did not live by faith, they nevertheless finish their
course with joy, nor shall any individual arise to the
resurrection of condemnation. This may be consola
tory, but it is not scriptural." " Not having put on
the Lord Jesus, the unbeliever dies in his sins ; and
where Christ is, where is fulness of joy, he cannot
come; when he dies, he lies down in sorrow; he
leaves all his happiness behind him. Death and the
grave, darkness and hell, receive him ; and when the
trumpet, destined to raise the dead, shall be sounded,
he will rise to the resurrection of damnation or con
demnation." The views of Chauncy, as we have seen in part,
were still more decided. " Many men will be mise
rable in the next state of existence," he remarks in his
book on ' Universal Salvation,' (p. 9,) " in proportion
to the moral depravity they have contracted in this."
" In the collective sense, (p. 307,) they will be tor
mented for ages of ages ; though some of them only
should be tormented through the whole of that period ;
the rest variously as to time, in proportion to their
deserts." Even the great exploder, Hosea Ballou, had preach
ed more than twenty-five years, before he " was fully
satisfied that the Bible taught no punishment in the fu
ture world." In a letter to the author of the ' Modern

NO punishment after death. 79
Ballou's former views. Recent discovery.
History,' he says, (p. 437,) " Respecting the doctrine
of a future state of retribution, there was, in my youth,
but little said. Universalists having obtained satisfac
tion that none of the human race would suffer endless
punishment, though they had sufficient reason to rejoice
with exceeding joy, and to glory in the mercy of God.
J never made the question a subject of close investigation
until lately." In the preface to his work on ' Future
Retribution,' first pubhshed in 1834, he -tells us, (p. 8,)
that he renounced " nearly eighteen years ago, the
doctrine of punishment in the future state."
Since that eventful period, both he and his disciples
teach, that VI. Sin is punished only in this life.
Modern Universalists have thus made rapid strides in
regard to the doctrine of future punishment. Their
predecessors had no idea, that the Bible would warrant
them in rejecting the doctrine of punishment in another
state ; or if they had any such idea, they seem not to
have thought that they could make the world beheve,
that all suffering would end with death. Nay, at the
commencement of this century, and for 15 years after
wards, it is not known that any man professing to be,
and received by the people as a Christian minister, had
the boldness to avow, that man had nothing to fear be
yond the grave — that all suffering would end with this
mortal life.
Let it, then, be remembered, that the doctrine of no
PUNISHMENT AFTER DEATH IS NOT YET TWENTY-FIVE YEARS

80

UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.

Not 2o years old. Generally received.
old. An old book may perhaps be found, in which
this doctrme is expressed. And Mr. Whittemore of
Boston professes, after, I suppose, a very close scrutiny,
to have found one in the library of Harvard University,
among the scores of thousands there, that taught this
doctrine more than 180 years ago. If Mr. Richardson,
to whom he refers as the author of that book, did mean
to teach such a doctrine, (and this has been denied,)
it argues but httle for its reasonableness, that it should
have slept more than a century and a half from its first
avowal, until Mr. Ballou brought the dead to life
again. But, whether it is contained in Mr. Richard
son's book or not, there is no proof that the doctrine
was incorporated into any creed called Christian, until
its adoption by Mr. Ballou and his disciples in 1816-18.
Previous to that period, American Universalists were
all Restorationists. But so fully were they prepared
for these new views, and so eager were they to em
brace them, that in a few years the new doctrine was
almost universally received into the order. And now
almost every Universalist preacher can sneer at the
idea of " Hell and Damnation."
In 1829, the results of an extended correspondence,
by the author of the ' Modern History,' showed, that a
majority of the denomination openly avowed their be
hef in no punishment after death, while a large part of
the remainder " would not affirm positively, as then
settled behef, that there will or will not be punishment
hereafter." In 1834, Mr. Ballou maintained, " that
the doctrine of a future state of punishment is generally

NO PUNISHMENT AFTER DEATH. 81
A Schism. Discussion avoided.
disbelieved by Universalists qf our connection." (' Fut.
Retrib.'.p. 10.)
To understand this last remark, it is proper to state
that so generally was the idea of retribution in a future
state discarded by the whole sect, that Restorationists
began to be a very small minority. And those who
were left, alarmed at these inroads, determined in 1832
to withdraw from the connection, and form one of
their own.
This last step, or some other demonstration of pub
hc feeling, seems rather to have alarmed the great re
mainder. It arrayed against them a band of men,
fully acquainted with their views, and prepared to com
bat successfully their darling dogma. And some of the
most powerful attacks, that have been made upon their
most glaring errors, have come from this quarter. Lat
terly, therefore, they have very wisely avoided contro
versy on the subject of a limited future punishment.
Those of them, who are ever ready to debate the doc
trine of endless misery, are utterly averse to enter on a
discussion of the simple question of punishment after
death. They insist upon it, that this is a question to
be settled among themselves. We have nothing to do
with it ! All that we have to do is to take care of the
" horrid dogma" of endless torments. " Let them,"
says the ' Trumpet,' (XLTI. 102,) " settle the question of
endless misery ; and Universalists will settle the matter
of future limited punishment among themselves without
any foreign help." It is surely very kind of them to
take this labor off from our hands !

82

UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.

The people's favorite. Adroit management.
But how do they " settle this matter among them
selves V Verily by suffering it to sleep almost undis
turbed. Those who profess to believe in no future pun
ishment are often bold to preach it. This is the favor
ite doctrine of their people. Very few of their societies
will endure any other. Again and again they have
said, ' if our minister should preach any other we would
leave him at once.' Hence many of their preachers,
who cannot deny that the Bible teaches that there will
be punishment after death, and secretly, or, in private
circles, admit it, dare not openly avow it, lest they should
be abandoned by their disciples. They speak, there
fore, very cautiously, whenever they approach this de-
bateable topic.
In his ' Discussion' with Dr. Ely, Mr. Thomas, though
he admitted his belief in the doctrine, that " the Bible
furnishes no evidence of a punishment beyond the pres
ent life," (p. 18,) when he found it necessary in one
instance to consider a passage having a bearing on this
point, evidently manifested his unwillingness to enter
upon a full discussion of this question, and says, (p. 69,)
"Allow me to observe that the question is, simply, ' Is
the doctrine of endless punishment taught in the Bi
ble?' " Mr. Sawyer devotes four of his ' Letters to
Remington,' to an examination of the nine arguments
advanced by the latter in favor of future punishment,
and yet manages so adroitly as to keep the reader per
fectly in the dark as to his own views on the subject.
" Future punishment," he says, (p. 53,) may be true,
but I do not believe you have proved it." And at the

NO PUNISHMENT AFTER DEATH. 83
Concealment. Evasion.
close of this examination, he says, (p. 80,) " I did not
commence this review of your arguments in favor of
the doctrine of future punishment because I wished to
deny that doctrine ; nor because it was necessary to
deny it, in order to sustain Universalism."
Mr. Sawyer is evidently unwilling to have it under
stood that the doctrine of no future punishment is com
mon among Universalists. Speaking of an opponent,
he says, (' Union,' Vol. VI. No. 2,) — " The writer as
sumes that the doctrine of no future punishment has
been the " common doctrine" of Universalists. This is
not true. It was never our common doctrine. The
denomination has always been made up of believers in
future and no future punishment ; and it is so still."
Again, he says, (No. 3.) " the only question to be dis
cussed between Mr. J. and myself, is that of the strict
eternity of punishment. If he can prove this at all, he
can prove it directly, and without going through the
beaten path of seeking it in future punishment." This
path he evidently intends not to pursue himself.
In the year 1833, Mr. Braman, of Danvers, Mass.,
proposed to Mr. Whittemore, of Boston, at the instiga
tion of the latter, to enter into a pulpit-discussion of
Universalism ; and, that the subject of discussion should
" be divided into two propositions ; viz.; first, Will any
ofthe human race be punished after death ? — and second,
Is this punishment eternal 1" Mr. W. could not by
any means be brought to discuss the former of these
questions, and replied, " The question for discussion
must be the one I proposed — Is the doctrine of endless

84

UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.

Gross assumption. Criminal indifference.
misery revealed in the Holy Scriptures 1" " Nothing
else can be intruded into this discussion by my consent."
" If you will accede to these conditions, well. — If not,
nothing further need be said about the discussion." —
(' Danvers' Discussion,' pp. 8, 10, 17.)
It appears, thus, to be a settled point among them,
that the only controversy between them and us, and
the only one into which they will enter, is, whether fu
ture punishment be strictly endless or not. To such
a statement of our differences we can never assent. By
the showing of their own writers, (see page 23,)"the dif
ference between us is " heaven-wide," and we cannot
consent, that they should any longer blind the eyes of
the people, as some of them have done, with such gross
assumptions. The indifference, which they affect to feel in regard
to a future hmi ted punishment, is worthy of distinct
mention ; and the coolness with which they regard the
settlement of the question, of the utmost reprobation.
Many of them believe that their readers will endure in
describable wretchedness for, perhaps, thousands qf
years ; and yet never warn them to escape, do not
even announce to them the fact, and affect to treat it
as a matter of httle consequence. Mr. Thomas, after
stating in his ' Discussion' that the question of " our fi
nal destiny is unquestionably the most important," ad
vances the idea (p. 26,) that his readers " feel compara
tively little interest in minor points of theology ;" and
one of these points to which he refers is the condition
of man in " the intermediate state." Mr. Whittemore

NO PUNISHMENT AFTER DEATH. 85
Mere trash. Criminal ignorance.
assures us, (' Mod, His.' p. 434,) that " the doctrine of
a limitedfuture punishment, as a distinct question, has
never excited a very general interest." Mr. Skinner,
of Utica, having occupied about three-eighths of the
36th No. of the 7th Vol, ofthe ' Mag. and Adv.' with
a discussion on this subject, says, (p. 287,) that these
articles " occupy more room than we ever have at one
time [allowed,] or probably ever shall, at any one future
time, allow to this subject. We have generally, for
reasons that must appear obvious to our readers, avoid
ed the direct discussion of this subject to any consider
able extent." And to show how much better he felt
by unburdening his mind, he refers to the anecdote of a
servant of a New-England divine, who, to the remark
of his master who had been quite ill on the Sabbath
morning, that he felt much better for preaching, re
plied — ' Yes, Massa ! me tink you feel great deal bet
ter after gittin so much trash off your 'tomach." In
other words, the question of future punishment is MERE
TRASH !
Much in the same way Mr. Williamson disposes of
the matter in his ' Exposition,' (pp. 97, 8.)"- In favor of
future punishment there are some plausible arguments,
which may be drawn from reason and analogy ; and as
a philosophical speculation,! would not strongly object
to that doctrine." " But on this point, I will not dwell,
for it is one of minor importance."
Now how can Universalist societies allow themselves
to remain ignorant of the views of their pastors respect
ing a future state ? If there be punishment after death,

86 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Balfour's admissions. Appeal to their preacheis.
and until the resurection, ought not the people to know
it ? to demand of their teachers either a confirmation
or denial of it 1 " Even allowing this httle eternity of
punishment is at last to end, the thought is enough to
take sleep from our eyes, lead us to weeping and wail
ing ; and to warn each other, lest we come to this place
of torment." So says Mr. Balfour, on supposition of a
limited future punishment, and declares that then, " a
new era ought to commence amqng Universalists, in
their zeal and exertions for the salvation of immortal
souls. No sect in the community acts so inconsistently
as they do, if this opinion is true. What domestic or^
foreign missions are they engaged in for the salvation
of men's immortal souls 1 But why not engage in
them with great zeal, unless some thousand years pun
ishment in hell is all a farce ? Religion out of the
question, common humanity says — save them from so
many years mental misery, if money, zeal, and exertion
can affect it V (' Letters,' p. 11.)
If my voice could reach such preachers, I would ask
them, — On what principle of " common humanity" do
you justify your silence on this subject, before your
congregations 1 Do you certainly know that their suf
ferings for sin are to continue after death 1 And why,
in the name of God, I ask, do you not tell them so 1
Why will you suffer them to leave the world blinded
and deluded 1 If, on the other hand, you cannot come
to a conclusion about it for yourselves, why not inform
them that the probabilities, that they will suffer for
their sins after death, are so great, that, with all your

NO PUNISHMENT AFTER DEATH. 87
Their preachers warned. Appeal to the people.
prepossessions against such a doctrine, you cannot cer
tainly say that there will be no such punishment 1 Mr.
Thomas asks, (' Discussion,' p. 286,) " Is it strange
that the inspired servants of the Most High God should
devote their lives and all their energies to the promo
tion of human happiness in the earth 1" But, I ask,
' Is it not both strange and cruel for you to see your
fellow-men exposed to sufferings in another state that
may last for thousands of years, and yet not even warn
them V They appeal to your silence as proof that
there is no such punishment. They and we have a
right to demand of you, who presume to be so much
wiser than all others on the subject of a future state, to
be no longer non-committal in relation to a matter that
so deeply affects our future well-being. Settle this
question speedily. No longer exclude it from the col
umns of your reviews and weekly prints. Give your
views of it from the pulpit. Let the people know your
sentiments without the least concealment. "If thou
dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that
wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood will
I require at thine hand."
To the people I would say, Do not be sure that you
will not suffer for your sins after death. The doctrine,
which you have embraced so eagerly, is not yet twen
ty-five years old. It has not even the recommenda
tion of antiquity. It is too slender a reed to lean upon.
It may pierce you through with many sorrows. At all
events, it will be time enough for you to receive the
doctrine, when your ministers have embraced it with

UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.

The people admonished.
all their hearts. In the meantime a dreadful uncer
tainty must afflict you. If you have any confidence in
yom own clergy, you can never be at peace, while so
many of them are either in doubt of, or opposed to, the
doctrine of no punishment after death. It is a hazard
ous venture to stake your eternity on a doctrine denied
by all the Christian world, and even by many of your
own authorized expounders of scripture. Wait at least
before you believe it, until I shall exhibit to you some
of the consequences, into which those of your teachers
are led who embrace this doctrine, and into which you
must follow them, if you would be consistent. "I speak
as to wise men ; judge ye what I say."

CHAPTER VII.
SIN CEASES AT DEATH.  DEATH NOT THE
FRUIT OF SIN.
New Rule of Faith — No common ground in controversy — Sin.
ceases at deaths-Mankind naturally mortal — Yet they in
terpret most qf the threatenings of the Bible, of natural
death — Inconsistency — Scripture-account ofthe matter'.
'' Aut beattis, aut nullus." — Seneca.
Take which you please, 'tis all the same to us —
Bliss, or Extinction : for pur creed runs thus : —
All are receiv'd to endless bliss at death,
Or lose their being with their mortal breath.
The Bible must, at all events, be so interpreted as to
exclude the doctrine of endless misery, or it will not
please a Universalist. He has determined that so it
must be ; and who can say him — ' Nay V I do but
advance the openly-avowed purpose of their great
Rabbi. Hosea Ballou, in his ' Lecture-Sermons,' says,
(p. 193,) " The fact is, there is no such testimony in
the Scriptures, which can, with the least degree of
fairness, be apphed to a state of never-ending misery.'
" Moreover, we feel it to be a duty to state, that, in
room of straining particular passages, which speak of
the punishment of the wicked, so as to favor the idea
of unlimited punishment, we should feel justified in re
straining any passage, could such be found, that should

90 UNIVERSALISM as it is.
Bible not the rule of faith. Controversy precludedi
seem to favor an opinion, so dishonorable to God, and so
revolting to our best feelings."
Let it never be said, after this, that the Bible is the
Universalist's Rule of Faith. Every thing in and out
ofthe Bible must be made to bend to his own ' feel
ings.' He has already decided the question, before he
opens that blessed book. And, if he finds there any
thing that does not accord with that decision, it must
be warped, and twisted, and wrested, and compressed,
or spirited away, so as to suit the ' feelings' of not the
learner, but, the judge. I need not say, that all the
writings of these learned divines are a perfect illustra
tion of this process. If any one wishes to amuse him
self with some rare specimens of this art, (if amuse
ment can be found in such woful exhibitions,) let him
read Ballou's ' Notes on the Parables,' or Whittemore's
' Notes and Illustrations of the Parables,' or ' The
Plain Guide to Universalism.'
Thus are they armed at all points. They will hold
no argument respecting a finite punishment, with those
who believe that punishment is to be infinite. And when
we attempt to prove it infinite, and make our appeal to
the Bible, they are determined to restrain any and
every passage that seems to favor such an opinion.
Of what use then is it to enter into controversy with
them on such terms 1 It is a complete waste of words.
Let the world know the length and breadth of their
departures from the faith, and let them judge whether
such men are to be entrusted as expounders and de
fenders of " the faith once delivered to the saints."

SIN CEASES AT DEATH. 91
An argument sought. SirrJimited to this life.
Those of them, who believe that punishment ceases
at death, are determined that the Bible shall sustain
their views in the manner already stated. They must
have it all their own way in the other world, as well as
in this. Having found that they* could dispense with
endless punishment, they learned, a few years since,
that they could do without any punishment at all be
yond the grave ; that it was by far the most pleasant
and comfortable doctrine, to believe that all their sor
rows would cease at death. They therefore set them
selves to work to prove it, or, as their manner is, to
deny that the contrary can be proved.
Some show of argument was necessary in order to
establish the wavering. This, however, was not so
easily found. Some novel principles must, in such an
emergency, be devised, that would serve the purpose.
Reasoning from the premises laid down by Mr. Ballou,
and adopted so generally, that sin is the work of the
flesh, or man's animal nature as it exists in this life, it
was easy to see that
VII. SIN CEASES WITH THE DEATH OF THE BODY.
If man ceases to sin, then, say they, he ceases to
suffer ; therefore, there is no punishment in a future
state. The very thing that was to be proved ! It will
not answer, to allow that men have any thing to do
with sin after the destruction of the body. This,
therefore, is a cardinal point, and much they labor to
establish it. The doctrine is thus stated by Mr. Le
Fevre, in the ' Gospel Anchor,' (II. 289 ;) " Man's

92

UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.

The sinner as righteous as the saint after death.
sins, like himself, are of a mundane or , earthly charac
ter. Man dies, and with him die all those temptations
which have led him astray from the path of duty, and
constituted him while here a wicked man. When he
is raised from the state of death, he will be raised im
mortal and incorruptible." Thus he attempts to show
that a man's wickedness — all that ' constituted him a
wicked man' — ceases at death. After that, he is just
as righteous "as the holiest saint that ever walked the
earth. His wickedness being limited to this world,
how, then, can it be punished, in another 1
These views are, doubtless, derived from Mr. Bal
lou's on the ' Atonement.' In that work, he says,
(p. 7,) that " in order to prove that a man will be
miserable, after this mortal life is ended, it must first
be proved that he will sin in- the next state of exist
ence." This he argues from" the supposition, (p. 6,)
" that a perpetuity of punishment must be connected
with an equal continuance of sin," and (p. 7,) " that
as long as men sin, they will be miserable, be that time
longer or shorter : and that as soon as they cease from
sin, they begin to experience divine enjoyment." Just
as if it was necessary for a murderer to continue to
commit murder daily and hourly in order to be wretch
ed ; and as if the remembrance of one murderous act
was not enough to embitter the whole future life ! In
the preface to the fifth edition of the same work, he
informs us, that, when he pubhshed the first edition, he
was not " so fully satisfied, that all which the Scrip
tures say about sin, and the punishment of it, relates

SIN CEASES AT DEATH. 93
Sin impossible after death. It ceases with the lusts of the flesh.
solely to this mortal state, as he now is." This, of
course, was after he had made the wonderful discovery
of no future punishment.
In a sermon on the second death, from Rev. xxi. 8,
he says, (' Lect. Sermons,' p. 217,) " Another very
great inconsistency in the common use of our text is,
that it supposes that after people shall have ceased from
all the sins which are enumerated in the text, and are
in a constitution qf existence in which no such crimes can
ever be committed, they are then and there to be tor
mented for what they did in this world." " What
reason, then, is there in supposing that, in a world where
no crime can ever be committed, crimes will be eter
nally punished 1" " What is this punishment for in
the eternal world, in which no one (?) pretends that any
crime can ever be committed ?" Again, " The hearer
is cautioned (p. 370,) against supposing that we allow
that the next state will be subject to sickness, or to
sin ; 'we distinctly say that the evidence of this is want
ing both in scripture and reason."
, A writer in the ' Universalist Expositor,' for Sept.
1838, is still more explicit. " We have seen, (p. 303,)
that all the sin that mankind commit, proceeds from
the unnatural activity, the unrestrained indulgence, of
the propensities and appetites pertaining to the flesh
and blood of which our bodies are composed ; and that
fhe soul or mind properly speaking, never is the source
of iniquity, and, so far as it is enlightened, never con
sents to it Now, if the body, with all its appetites
and propensities, perishes in its mother-earth, as the

94 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Doesthe flesh think 1 Spiritual beings cannot sin.
Scriptures emphatically declare, is it not very evident,
that sin cannot exist beyond the death qf this body and
the extinction of its hists 1" " Can sin continue in
being after the annihilation of those passions which
are its sole and only source?" "Sole and only!"
One sole is not strong enough : so he must have two,
lest, after all, his reader should suspect, that as a man
" thinketh in his heart, so is he." Does the flesh
think 1 Who is it that tells us, that " unto them that
are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure, but even
their mind and conscience \s defiled 1" — and of some,
" that were alienated and enemies in their mind by
wicked works V Is fiesh identical with mind and con
science ? - Or are the latter destroyed with the former 1
But I must not press this question yet.
One more extract will suffice on this point. Mr.
Williamson says, (' Exposition,' p. 18,) " We believe,"
(and here he speaks for the denomination) "that the
lusts of the flesh, and all the evil passions that distract
and torment man on earth," (poor innocent sufferer !)
"will be left, in the earth where they originated, that
God will not transplant them to another world to nou
rish them there."
It is thus more than intimated, that a mere spiritual
being cannot sin. So they would have us believe,
whether they teach it in so many words or not. But,
" hie labor, hoc opus est ;" this is a work of painful toil.
They can scarcely convince themselves of its truth.
How then can they hope to succeed with others ? The
world has too long been taught in the school of expe-

DEATH NOT THE FRUIT OF SIN. 95
Another subterfuge The body originally mortal.
rience, not to know that sin is the product qf mind, and
only of mind — that flesh and blood, or mere animal
functions, however much they may serve as occasions
for sin, never can themselves sin ; — sin cannot be pre
dicated of a finger, tooth, or toe ; never of the animal
juices, or secretions ; never of the bile or gall ; but
only of " the mind, spirit, or soul."
What, then, is to be done 1 -It will not answer to let
man sin after death, for then he must suffer, and the
" darling doctrine" of no punishment after death comes
to nought. But when, and where, was a Universalist
ever at a loss for a subterfuge 1 Imperturbable to the
last, he hits at once on some expedient, and then sets
his wits to work, to make the Bible foster his own
banthng. The whole difficulty is removed by the dis
covery, that the pretensions of mankind to an inherent
immortahty are all wrong, — based on mistaken notions
of human nature, and unwarranted by Scripture.
VIIL — Mankind are naturally and originally mortal.
It is maintained very strenuously by this sect, that
physical death is not the fruit, in any sense, of sin ; —
that man would have died, had he never sinned at all,
and that, when he dies he ceases to be, as far as all
consciousness is concerned ; so that the idea of his sin
ning after death, and previous to the resurrection, they
regard as in the highest degree absurd. This theory,
moreover, answers an admirable purpose, in the argu
ment against the common notion of " the fall of man,"
native and total depravity, and some other similar ideas

96 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Mortality natural- Man's death not because of sin.
- of the ancients. It must not, therefore, be passed over
¦lightly. In this instance, as in others, Mr. Ballou is entitled
to the distinguished honor of being the first of the
order to discover a doctrine, which they have since
turned to so good account. " God saw fit," he informs
us, (' Atonement,' p. 35,) " in his plan of divine wis
dom, to make "the creature subject to vanity ; to give
him a mortal constitution." Again, (p. 59,) "Men
die natural deaths because they are naturally mortal ;
but they are not mortal because of sin, for man was
mortal before he sinned, if he were not, he never could
have sinned." " Sin cannot be said to be the cause of
natural death, any more-than of natural life." In the
'Lecture-Sermons,' we are told, (p. 62,) "that the
opinion that man was constituted in flesh and blood,
first a perfectly holy being, but was made subject to
vanity by sin, is as contrary to the plain declaration of
our text, as it is repugnant to the dictates of reason."
A pretty compliment, truly, he pays to the reason of
all the Christian world who have differed from him,
from days with which the memory of man runs not
parallel ! Hence, he says, (p. 64,) " that the fact is,
we have no authority for this doctrine which is called
— ' the fall.' " How can we express our obligations
for this wonderful discovery 1 especially since he tells
us, (p. 65,) that " it seems impossible to avoid this con
clusion concerning the imperfect state of man in the
beginning." If now we turn to other authors of this name, we

MATH NOT THE FRUIT OF SIN. 97
Not made mortal by sin. Adam not made immortal.
find them making a plentiful use of Mr. Ballou's " old
notes that he delivered almost" forty years ago. Mr.
Balfour, in his ' Three Essays,' (p. 96,) maintains that
" to say an immortal being became mortal by sin, is a
contradiction in terms : nor is it intimated that the en
trance of sin produced such a change among mankind."
Mr. Skinner of Boston remarks, (' Univ. 111. and Def.'
p..77,) that "it is contrary to the account of Moses, to
say, that a change was produced in the constitution qf
Adam, by the first sin." " The very nature of the hu
man constitution shows, that it was not designed for an
endless existence on earth." " Sin does not make us
mortal ; we were originally constituted mortal." Mr.
Sawyer finds fault with Mr. Remington, for attributing
to him (' Letters,' p. 42,) the assertion " that temporal
or natural death constituted a part of the penalty" of
sin ; and adds, (p. 44,) " that my ' brethren generally,'
do not adopt such an opinion, your friend Mr. Lee would
have informed you, had you read him with due care.
He says — ' It is probably generally known that modern
Universalists deny that the death of the body is an
effect of sin, and maintain that Adam was created
mortal, and that he and all our race would have died, -
if sin had never entered the world.' "
Similar language is used by B. Whittemore, of Bos
ton.—" Reason will not admit (' Gospel Anchor,' II. p.
385,) that all mankind were rendered liable to death
by the fall. Had the AU-wise God, in the creation of
man, designed him to live forever, neither the fall nor
any thing else, would have occasioned his death — no
9 '

98

UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.

Bible-threats referred to natural death. Premature death.
power in the universe would be able to take his life.
If we view the organic powers of man, we shall dis
cover that they were composed of such materials, that
in the very nature of things, they must wax old and
decay — of course could not have been intended as the
home of endless life."
Now it seems very strange, that while these writers
so positively deny that natural death is a consequence
of sin, they so frequently maintain that the threatenings
of the Bible refer only to the cessation of natural life,
thus making natural death the greatest punishment to
which mankind are liable. Mr. Sawyer admits (' Pe
nalty of Sin,' p. 14,) that " a premature, violent, and
ignominious death inflicted for crime, has always been
regarded both by God and man, as the greatest punish
ment that mortals can suffer ;" and asks — " Who can
be so ignorant as not to know, that under perhaps every
government on the globe, temporal death is regarded as
the severest punishment which can be inflicted 1" And
yet, in the face of these well-established facts, he has
the boldness to deny, that natural death is properly a
consequence of, or punishment for, sin ! Instances of
the same inconsistency abound in the writings of these
renowned reformers !
It will be said, perhaps^ that these admissions relate
to ' premature' death — to the shortening of a man's
life, as in the case of the Antediluvians, the Sodomites,
and the Jews of Jerusalem. But if the shortening of a
man's life but a few years is spoken of as a testimony of
the divine displeasure for sin, how much more must we

DEATH NOT THE FRUIT OF SIN. 99
Mortality the fruit of God's anger. Paul's opinion.
regard that as a consequence of, or punishment for, sin,
which consists in cutting down human life from a dura
tion of nearly a thousand years to an average of only
about thirty ! — and especially in making man mortal at
first, debarring him from immortality on earth, and
making him inevitably subject to that death from which
his whole nature instinctively recoils ! If it is spoken
of as a mark of God's anger, that he should consume
a few hundreds, or thousands at most, on the plains of
Sodom, how much more does he display his anger in
sweeping away, in about thirty years, nine hundred mil
lions " as with a flood !" In Job, (xxiv. 19,) we are
told " drought and heat consume the snow-waters ; so
doth the grave those who have sinned." And after
the same manner, " Moses, the man of God," whom
these writers claim as with them, accounts (Ps. xc. 3,
7, 8, 9,) for the prevalence of natural death : " Thou
turnest man to destruction : for we are consumed by
thine anger, and by thy wrath are we troubled ; thou
hast set our iniquities before thee, our secret sins in the
hght of thy countenance : for all our days are passed
away in thy wrath, we spend our years as a tale that is
told." Man's mortality is thus attributed to the anger
of God, consequent upon the iniquities of the sinner.
But Paul is much more exphcit, and seems to put
the matter beyond controversy. To the Romans he
says, (v. 12,) " as by one man sin entered into the
world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all
men." That death in this last clause refers to the body
is made plain by what he says, v. 14 : " Nevertheless

100  UNIVERSALISM AS IT 13. 
Death the fruit of Adam's sin. Bible the best standard.
death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that
had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's trangres-
sion." Still more apparent is his meaning in 1 Cor.
xv. 21, 22 ; " For since by man came death, by man
came also the resurrection of the dead ; for as in Adam
all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." The
sense ofthe word, ' death,' in this passage, no Universal
ist will pretend to dispute. They all mainiain that this
passage speaks of a physical resurrection. The Bible,
therefore, teaches that, had not man have sinned, he
would not have been mortal ; natural death is the fruit
of sin. Far distant be the day, when men shall forsake
the authority of Moses and Paul, speaking " as they
were moved by the Holy Ghost," for such self-consti
tuted standards, as Ballou, Balfour, & Co.

CHAPTER VIII.
MAN HAS NO IMMORTAL SOUL.
What becomes of man at death? — Poetic effusions — Mind not
immortal — Man has but one nature, and that material and
mortal — Mr. Ballou's ignorance — Sketch of Mr. Balfour
—His exegetical labors — Man, has no immortal soul, exe-
getically considered — These vieivs generally received —
Source, of the doctrine — Materialism — Death the great
Savior, " One doubt
Pursues me still, lest all I cannot die ;
Lest that pnre breath of life, the spir't of man
Which God inspir'd, cannot together perish
With this corporeal clod : then, in the grave,
Or in some other dismal place, who knows
But I shall die a living death ? O thought
Horrid if true ! Yet why ? It was but breath
Of life that sinn'd ; what dies butwhat had life
And sin ? The body properly hath neither,
All of me then shall die ! let this appease
The doubt, since human reach no further knows." Milton.
How shall we dispose of man after death and until
the resurrection 1 Where is his resting-place 1 Does
he go immediately to heaven when he ceases from
earth, or what is done with him ? That he goes into
a place of punishment, or of suffering, is either posi
tively denied, or greatly questioned, by the expounders
9*

102 untVersalim as it is.
State ofthe dead. Fictions of poetry.
of Universalism. They seem determined that their suf
ferings shall end with mortal life. But, after all, is it
not possible that, if man continues to exist, he may con
tinue to sin 1 And if to sin, then must he continue to
suffer. Now, as it cannot be proved that it is impossi
ble to sin in another state of existence, it becomes ne
cessary to deprive man of all conscious existence at the
moment of death, and until the resurrection.
A silence, like that ofthe grave, is observed by the
greater part of Universalist writers respecting the state
of the dead. Now and then a sentiment appears in the
dying sayings of some of their number, and in their
fugitive poetry, which would seem to imply that the
departed are happy in heaven. A correspondent of the
! Gospel Anchor,' for example asks, (LI. 166,)
" How is the spirit prone to break its chains.
And struggle out beyond its narrow bounds !
Why isitthus ? If wedded to the dust,
And ofthe dust a part, and doom'd to die
And with the body filter through the earth,—
Why, where, or whence derives its other thoughts ?
Say, does the body ask for Wings 1 . . . .
No ! 'tis the soul — th' immortal part — the mind,-
Which, not of earth, delights not in it."
The following from a contributor to the ' Universalist
Union' is ofthe same import. (IV. 308:)
" O grave ! terrific thou to human pride ;
Yet o'er the spirit 's light, thou'st no control ;
However near is flesh to earth allied,
Thy bars, O death ! cannot confine the soul !"

MAN HAS NO IMMORTAL SOUL. 103
The dying Universalist. Mind perishes with the body.
Again (p. 124,) another says,
" When the dustsinksto dust,
Then shall we come,
Where we free shall ever be,
In Heaven our home."
Such poetic effusions are not uncommon. Now and
then, too, the experience of some dying Universalist is
given, in which he is represented as longing for death,
that he may fly away to Heaven, and be happy there,
while his body is mouldering to dust.
But the creed of the Universalist recognizes no such
hope. And, sometimes, the editor, who admits such
articles into his columns is honest enough to avow it.
In the case of the article, quoted above from the ' Gos
pel Anchor,' Mr. Le Fevre, one of the editors, first re
marks, (p. 244,) " We do not hold ourselves responsible
for the sentiments of our correspondents, or for extracts
which we may select, especially in poetical produc
tions !" — But we may ask, " if the trumpet give an un
certain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle 1"
He then proceeds to say — " We have no reason to
believe in the immortality ofthe mind. As far as facts
weigh any thing in the argument, they all stand oppos
ed to such an hypothesis." " We are irresistibly led to
believe that mind depends on organization, and where
that is impaired, the mental capacity is destroyed. Con
sequently in the article of death, we should say, that the
mind perishes with the body. Whether the scriptures
teach the immortality of the soul is a question perhaps

104 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Immortality of the soul denied. Ballou's ignorance.
not so easily decided." " We have given considerable
attention to this subject, and we do not hesitate to say,
that in our humble opinion the testimony against the
doctrine of the soul's immortality appears to preponder
ate." This is the opinion not of one individual alone. " The
junior editor, (Mr. Williamson, now of New York,)
concurs with us in these sentiments." And these stand
not alone. There are others, " who have boldly ac
knowledged their disbelief of the soul's immortality."
But ".there has been exhibited by many editors an un
willingness to approach this subject ;" because those,
who have denied the immortality of the soul, " have
been subject to much reproach, and been stigmatised as
deists, materialists, &c."
I am prepared to show, that though, " on this ques
tion Universalists are divided in opinion," according to
Mr. Le Fevre, it is yet their prevailing belief, that-
IX. Man has no immortal soul.
On this subject Hosea Ballou is very equivocal. Af
ter so much dogmatism as he has exhibited in relation
to the doctrines of future and endless punishment, the
reader will hardly be prepared to hear him confess
TOTAL IGNORANCE OF A FUTURE STATE.
Let his deluded followers know that even their great
Rabbi can give them no assurance respecting the state
beyond the grave. His language is this : " As amazed
as any one may be at my ignorance qf a future state,
I have no pride in pretending to know that qf which I

MAN HAS NO IMMORTAL SOUL. 105
Dreadful uncertainty; Want of discernment:
am totally ignorant. After all that has been said by
our doctors of divinity on the subject of a future state,
reason will acknowledge that they have no more know
ledge concerning its particulars than an infant child.
No, they do not know for certainty that man will exist
in another state. I am happy to believe in the doctrine
of the scriptures, and to hope for immortality beyond the
grave ; but as to any knowledge concerning that state
I havenone." (' Future Retribution,' p. 127.) Speak
ing in another place, (p. 172,) " of everlasting con
demnation in the future," he says, '? we must wait until
we are introduced into the other world, before we can
certainly know." What a sandy foundation ! Is this
all? Lu the same volume he tells us, (pp. 182, 183,) that
" this subject, (the intermediate state,) has never been
much agitated among brethren of our order, until quite
lately. Dr. Priestly's views of an unconscious state
after death were not known to me when I wrote my
treatise on atonement, nor had this subject then ever
been considered by me. This accounts for my silence
on it." (Admirably qualified be must have been for a
reformer !) " Of late I have endeavored to know what
divine revelation has communicated on this subject ;
but, owing to my want qf discernment," (an honest
confession, truly,) " I have not been able to reconcile
all the passages, which seem to relate to the case, to a
fair support of either side of the question. My efforts,
I acknowledge, have not been made with that intense-
ness of application, respecting this matter, as they would

106 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Question of no great consequence. Sketch of Mr. Balfour.
have been, had I been persuaded that the question was
of any great consequence." Of no great consequence
what becomes of man for thousands of years ! Does
he, — can he believe it 1 Is not this a mere evasion of
the whole question 1 Nay, is it not a confession of the
feebleness of his own system ? But let us hear him
further. " Being fully satisfied that the scriptures teach
us to believe no moral state, between the death of the
body, and the resurrection-state, — it seemed to me im
material whether we enter, immediately, after the dis
solution ofthe body, on the resurrection-state, or sleep in
unconscious quietude any given time before that glo
rious event shall take place." The sum, then, of what
Mr. Ballou has said, is that all mankind are imme
diately at death received to bliss, or are extinguished
in the grave, no more to exist until the resurrection.
The former he dare not assert. The latter he does not
deny. Let us now turn away from the darkness of the mas
ter to the blazing light of the disciple. In 1819, a
few straggling doubts, concerning the truth of the doc
trine of endless misery, found their way into the mind
of Walter Balfour, of Charlestown, Mass. This gen
tleman " was brought up in the doctrine of the church
of Scotland." " When I came to judge for myself,"
he says, " I became an Independent or Congregational-
ist ; I then became a Baptist ; and am now a Univer
salist, and one of those who have no faith in future
punishment." (' Letters to Hudson,' p. 22.) In 1820,
he proposed his difficulties to a distinguished Professor^

MAN HAS NO IMMORTAL SOUL. 107
Balfour's First Inquiry. Second Inquiry.
as an " Inquirer after Truth." It appears that he still
remained unsettled in his views as late as 1821, (see
' Reply to Stuart,' p. 5.) Either in that or the follow
ing year he became a true disciple of Ballou.
Full of his new views, Mr. Balfour set himself to
work with all the zeal of a new convert ; and, early in
1824, produced a work of 448 pages octavo, devoted to
a determination of the meaning of four words, " all
translated Hell, in the common Enghsh version." To
the inexpressible joy of the whole body of Universalists
in this country, he claimed for himself the distinguish
ed credit of having " shown *by irrefragable proof, that,
by Hell, the sacred writers meant either the state ofthe
dead in general, without reference to either the good
ness or badness of the persons, their happiness or mise
ry ; or else a state of unhappiness in the present life."
In other words, he ascertained that there is in existence
no " place called hell, in a future state, prepared for the
punishment of the wicked," and that, therefore,, all
fear of hell torments is wholly imaginary.
In his second edition of the same " Inquiry," pub
lished in 1825, he goes farther, and maintains that the
doctrine of a future retribution must be given up. A
' Second Inquiry' followed soon after, in which he show
ed conclusively to his own mind, and his brethren-be
lievers, that no word or phrase, expressive of endless
duration, is applied to the punishment of the wicked,
and " in which the common doctrine of a super-human
devil is exploded." The way being thus cleared, by
exploding the devil, and abolishing hell, the same in-

108 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Intermediate state. None go to heaven at death.
defatigable writer proceeded to show in " Three Es
says" pubhshed early in 1828, that, there being no
place for the keeping of the sphits of the departed, the
grave is man's only resting-place until the resurrection.
It is " generally believed by Christians of all sects,"
he remarks, that the sphits, or souls of men " survive
death and enjoy happiness, or suffer misery, in a disem
bodied state between death and the resurrection." In this
respect, however, he differs from them all ; for he de
clares (p. 12,) " that the common opinions on this sub
ject are unscriptvral ; have their origin in heathenism ;
and have proved a fertile source of superstition and im
position in the Christian church." In the course of his
' Inquiry' he remarks, (p. 97,) that " man comes into
the world, and dies similar to the brute creation ;" and
he asks, (p. Ill,) " of what real benefit can it be to
man, to cheer him with the prospect of immediate hap
piness after death, if it is not taught in Scripture 1
After examining this subject with all the care and atten
tion I am able to give it, I must say it is only ideal
cheer." Again, (p. 117,) " J send no man, either good
or bad, to heaven at death, nor at any period after it, un
til the resurrection of all the dead." How, after this,
can any Universalist indulge the delusive hope of being
happy when he dies 1 Mr. Balfour, the scholar and
the divine, erudite and profound, has pronounced it a
hopeless, " ideal cheer."
In his ' Letters to Hudson,' he denies (p. 32,) " that
the intermediate state has any existence, except in the
imaginations of men." He assures us (p. 243,) " that

MAN HAS NO IMMORTAL SOUL. 109
World of spirits a mere fiction. Man has but one nature.
man at death just returns to his original condition ;"
he returns to dust. That all life, according to Mr. Bal
four, becomes extinct at death, appears further from his
assertion (p. 261,) " that the only hope revealed to man
of future life is in being raised from the dead in the re
surrection at the last day." In this he is followed by
Mr. Sawyer, who, speaking in his ' Letters to Reming
ton,' (p. 104,) of all men being made ahve in Christ at
the resurrection of the dead says, " for myself, I am
frank to confess that I know of no life beyond the present,
save as conferred by Jesus Christ."
Mr. Balfour, in his 'Reply to Professor Stuart,'
asks, (p. 11,) " Does the gospel, sir, bring to light any
other life and immortality, but by a resurrection from
the dead 1 If it does, I will thank you to show this,
for here I confess ignorance." " I know, (p. 87,) of
no other future life the Bible reveals," Speaking of
" a world of souls, naked, helpless, disembodied spirits,'*
he says, (p. 115,) "I honestly believe it has wo existence
except in men's imaginations."
The natural inference from all this is, that man is not
immortal — that he has not a nature distinct from, and
independent of, the body. The doctrine of two co-ex*
istent natures in man—body and soul-^-maintained by
a1 ' the Christian world, with rare exceptions, must be
given up, if Universalism prevails. Mr. Balfour
both denies and ridicules such a doctrine. In his* ' Let
ters to Hudson,' he says, (p. 33,) " If any believe in
the doctrine of immortal souls, and take them all. to
heaven at death, it is no concern of mine." From
10

110 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Man is only body aud breath. Heathen chaff.
the frequent use of the qualifying word immortal, it
might be thought, that the existence of the soul was
admitted but not its immortality, We are not, how
ever, left to such a conclusion. "The thing God
breathed into Adam was (p. 239,) ' the breath of life ;'
which was no more a thinking, conscious being than the
body into which it was breathed. It was this breath
of life, breathed into the body and in union with it, both
were constituted a living soul, or person." With his
grammar here I have no concern, but with the senti
ment ; and that plainly is, that man has no thinking
soul distinct from the body and animal hfe — that these
two constitute what is called the soul, the person, the
man. That this is his meaning appears from his call
ing on Mr. H. (p. 240,) to " show how the mere union
of life with the bodily frame transforms life into an im
mortal soul, a thinking conscious being, which is to
suffer or enjoy in a disembodied state." Again he asks,
" When does your immortal soul first become a think
ing, conscious being 1"
As usual, he is exceedingly positive and certain that
all the world are wrong, except himself and his follow
ers. Hear how he speaks ; " I travel," he says, (p. 243,)
" through both Old and New Testament in search of evi
dence for your immortal soul ; but J can find none, that
either such a soul was breathed into man, or is breathed
out of any one at death." " Your doctrine of an im
mortal soul, (p. 339,) and its punishment after death, is
of heathen origin;" "is but heathen chaff ', (p. 342,)
which the wind of free inquiry and investigation into

MAN HAS NO IMMORTAL SOUL. Ill
Effects of free inquiry. Doctrine of the common people.
the scriptures must ere long blow away. — Go it
must, unless free inquiry is retarded, or some very new
discovery is made from the Bible. The very rage for
immortal soul-saving, in the present day, is calculated
to hasten this desirable event." "It is a doctrine,"
(p. 353,) " not only at war with the j rincicles of the Bi
ble, but with that of reason, justice, and common sense."
That the Christian world have been until the days of
these very sensible men, lamentably deficient in " com
mon sense," we have already learned from from others
of Mr. Balfour's coadjutors in the work of demolition.
Of course, we must, hereafter, give up all claims to its
possession. The amount of these declarations is, that the com
mon notion that man has an immortal soul is all a hea
then delusion, that there is no soul to survive the de
struction or cessation of animal life, that at death the
whole man dies, and that there never would be a con
scious existence again, but for the resurrection. If it
be said that these are the views of Mr. Balfour alone,
I ask for the proof. They have never been disowned
by the order, and his works are every where for sale
in their book-stores as " Universalist publications."
That the common people maintain them, I do not be
lieve. They hope to go to heaven as soon as they die.
And their dishonest teachers have not benevolence
enough to undeceive them, and to introduce them to a
full acquaintance with their more refined and atheisti
cal speculations.
But we learn, not from this inference alone, but from

112 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Man possesses nothing immortal. Departures from Murray.
their own avowals, that these are the views of the sect
generally. That " Mr. Le Fevre does not believe in
the common doctrine of the immortality of the soul,"
has aheady been shown. " He says, (p. 289,) there
is no evidence of man possessing any thing about him
immortal. He does not consider the mind to possess
the attribute of immortahty ; because, like the body, it
may be destroyed by accident." " The future state of
man, he considers, based on the resurrection, and
that state will, according to the Apostle, be glorious
for all."
Another writer in the ' Gospel Anchor,' (LI. 305,)
avows the same sentiments. He says that " it is im
possible to deny that all" our " intellectual phenome
na, are properties of the body. When the body dies,
and the nervous system with it, all these phenomena
cease and are irrecoverably gone. We never possess
after death, so far as our senses can inform us, the
slightest evidence of the existence of any remaining be
ing, which, connected with the body during life, is
separated from it at death." " If the intellectual pheno
mena is the soul, and dependent upon corporeal organ
ization, when the body dies, it will, of course, cease to
exist." The editor of the ' Life of Murray,' in commenting
on the differences between the faith of the father of
Universalism, and that of his children, fully admits that
these views are general among them. " Nor is it now
admitted," he remarks, (p. 279,) "by Universalists
generally, that man possesses two natures ; and their

MAN HAS NO IMMORTAL SOUL. -113

Ideal cheer. Death the extinction of being.
views necessarily conflict with many of Mr. Murray's
interpretations of Scripture, in which he fully express
ed and maintained, that human beings were thus con
stituted." Though we find Mr. Ballou asking, (' Lecture-Ser
mons," p. 328,) " What can give more rational con
solation to those who mourn, than to realize that the
spirits of their departed connections are with God 1 or
what thought can possibly contribute more to tranquil-
ize our minds, and to prepare us to meet our own dis
solution, than a confident belief that we shall be with
God 1 — and of this we may be safely persuaded ;" — in
another place we find him declaring that he is " fully
satisfied that the scriptures teach us to believe no moral
state between the death of the body and the resurrec
tion-state." (' Fut. Retrib.' p. 183.)
That Mr. Kneeland, and the large portion of the
sect, who regarded him then as an oracle, had no faith
in the immortality of the soul, is made clear by his own
confession. "It will be perceived here," he says,
(' Lectures,' p. 48,) that the author does not beheve in
an intermediate state of conscious existence between
death and the resurrection ; and of course death, to him,s
is an extinction of being ; and all his ideas of a future
state of existence are predicated on the glorious doc
trine of the resurrection."
These sentiments they have been driven to adopt, in
order to save the labor of proving that man will not
sin, and so suffer after death, and until the resurrection.
The course, it must be confessed, is very simple. It is
10*

114 UNIVERSALISM AS IT t^.
On a level with-brutes. Thought accounted for.
only to deny that the soul survives the body, and then,
that man has an immortal soul that can think, or feel,
or exist, except as it is connected with the animal
frame. All this they have done. They have degraded
themselves nearly to a level with the brutes, and de
nied that in which the glory of man has been heretofore
thought to consist. All this they have been compelled,
they have been willing, to do, and much more they
would do, if necessary, to maintain their favorite and
much-loved doctrine — no punishment after death. The
Lord deliver his people and the world from such un
principled teachers !
It may yet be asked, ' How do these men account
for the exercise of thought, if man has no distinct spir
itual nature V Mr. Ballou shall give the reply, in his
own words. "A careful examination ('Atonement,' p.
31,) of our natural senses, as mediums of pleasure and
pain, and health and sickness, will very naturally lead
to a consideration of these same senses as being the ori
gin, as far as we can see, qf our thoughts and volitions.
With these senses are necessarily connected all the vari
ous passions which we possess, and which are ever in
accordance with the ideas or thoughts by them created.
From the ever-changing combinations, and various ev
olutions of these our senses, thoughts, ideas, appetites and
passions, are found to originate all that variety of moral
character which is found in man." Here is Materialism
with a witness ! Here, after all, I am inclined to think,
Mr. Balfour took his text, when he proved, as he

MAN HAS NO IMMORTAL SOUL. 115
Materialism. ~ Death the great Savior.
thought, that man had no immortal soul. Mr. Ballou
is a Materiahst, and of the worst kind, notwithstanding
that he has elsewhere told us, that he could not satisfy
himself about the intermediate state.
It is not wonderful, that, as says Mr. Le Fevre,
some of Mr. Ballou's disciples are afraid to avow their
sentiments, and keep silence lest they should be called
Deists, &c. They may well be ashamed of a doctrine
that makes Death, and not Jesus, the great Savior from
sin. Where Christ saves one from sin in this life,
Death saves its thousands, if this doctrme be true.
Where can we find a perfect man — one entirely free
from sin 1 But death puts an end to sin and sinners
too. This is Mr. Ballou's language. " It (the pun
ishment) evidently accomplishes this design — putting a
stop to the practice of vice — by the death of the subject."
(' Fut. Retrib.' p. 126.) In the ' Magazine and Ad
vocate,' (VII. 284,) it is maintained that death is the
grand instrument by which Christ frees men from sin.
" How then is it impossible," asks the writer, " that
men should be saved from their sins by Christ, if death
is the grand instrument by which he saves them, or
frees them from then sins 1 I can conceive of nothing
that will subdue, even annihilate every fleshly passion
and appetite that leads to sin, like the all-conquering
power of death." All that a man has to do, then,
according to this, in order to put an end to his sins,
is to put an end to his life — or to commit the awful
sin of suicide. Thus he becomes his own savior,

116 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Death of Christ, not needful.
through the grand instrument — death. Sin saves him
from sin !
Of what use was it, then, for Christ to come into
the world and endure such sorrows and pains to save
men from sin, when death could do it effectually with
out him 1 And yet the authors and abettors of this
heaven-daring and insulting scheme call themselves
CHRISTIANS ! !

CHAPTER IX.
NO ESCAPE FROM PUNISHMENT.
Nature of suffering for sin — God all just and inexorable — Sip,
invariably punished in full — Zeal for God's justice — No re
mission of punishment by forgiveness — Views of Zophar,
David, Ezra, and the pious in our day — Question of Suicide
— Denial of its criminality — The mercy of God excluded.
" My firm persuasion is, at least sometimes,
That heav'n will weigh man's virtues and his crimes
With nice attention in a righteous scale,
And save or damn as these or those prevail.
I plant my foot upon this ground of trust,
And silence ev'ry fear with — God "is just.
But if, perchance, on some dull drizzling day
A thought intrude, that says, or seems to say,
' If thus th' important cause is to be tried,
Suppose the beam should dip on the wrong side ;'
I soon recover from these needful frights,
And — God is merciful — sets all to rights." — Cowper.
The views thus far presented relate chiefly to the
question ot the continuance of punishment er suffering
for sin. Let us now inquire into their notions respect
ing the nature of this suffering.
When this sect first became known they were accu
sed of setting aside the justice of God, while they mag
nified his mercy out of all proportion. Said Dr. Young,

118 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
The scheme remodelled. A very Shylock.
" They set at odds heav'n's jarring attributes,
And with one excellence another wound,
Till mercy triumphs over — God himself."
Nor could they, according to the scheme then in vogue
among them, and still supposed, by the larger part of
the Christian church, to be still their current doctrine,
escape the imputation. They felt it, and set them
selves to work, in order to rid themselves of the diffi
culty. Their whole scheme was professedly remod
elled ; and at length came forth with an entire new
dress. From having pushed the doctrine of the divine
mercy to an extreme, at the expense of justice, they
now cast mercy aside, and maintain that justice will be
exacted, even to the uttermost farthing, of every trans
gressor. The God, whom our modern Universalists profess to
worship, is a God inexorable, as determined to exact
and obtain, to the very letter of the law, all that jus
tice demands of the sinner personally, as the veriest
Shylock. Let the world fully understand that this
scheme of " Universal charity," as it has been called,
shuts up the bowels of divine compassion, and pro
claims that,
X. Every man will inevitably suffer to the full
EXTENT OF HIS DESERTS.
Whatever a man deserves for his transgressions he
will invariably receive, and, as most of them think, in
this world. They are determined that justice shall have
no claim upon them in another world, or state of being.

NO ESCAPE FROM PUNISHMENT. 119
Sin punished to the full. No escape from deserved suffering.
Thus they hold out to the world the idea that they pay
the highest regard to the justice of God : while, after
all their pains to deceive themselves and the people, it
turns out, as I shall presently show, that this very' suf
fering required by justice they represent as only the
highest exercise of mercy.
Since they have adopted this modification of their
creed, they appear to be wonderfully pleased with their
own ingenuity in devising it. They can scarcely be
lieve or admit that any one, who is not a Universalist
of the latest type, believes at all in the justice of God.
It is claimed by Mr. Wilhamson, in his ' Exposition of
Universalism,' (p. 15,) " as one of the peculiar doc
trines of Universalism, that no man can, by any possi
bility, escape a just punishment for his sins." " Neither
forgiveness, nor atonement, nor repentance, nor any
thing else, can step in between the sinner and the
penalty of the violated law." " It is a remarkable
fact," he says, " that we — are the only denomination
who beheve that all sin will be punished."
In the ' Universalist Companion' for 1841, we are
told, (p. 6,) in a statement, by Mr. Grosh of Utica, of
their creed, that " Universalists believe that there are no
means whereby the guilty can be cleared from proper and
necessary punishment ;" and that they " hold to the ab
solutely certain and positively adequate punishment of
sin." As on this point their sentiments are extensively
misunderstood, it is proper to go somewhat into de
tail, and by abundant reference show what they do
believe.

120 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Repentance clears no one. Retribution inevitable.
They start with this proposition — " There is no one
truth more fully and unequivocally taught in God's
word, than that he will ' render to every man accord
ing to his deeds.' " (' Exp.' IH. 66.) Therefore, they
maintain, that no man can possibly escape deserved
punishment. A writer in the ' Magazine and Advo
cate,' ( VH. 10,) declares, " that punishment is absolute
and unavoidable — that it cannot be escaped by repent
ance or any other means." Mr. Sawyer is ofthe same
opinion. He says to Mr. Remington, (p. 29,) " It
is supposed to be the chief glory of the Christian reli
gion, — that it reveals the grand panacea by which the
sinner can easily escape the punishment of his sin.
Notwithstanding the popular nature of this doctrine, — I
cannot shake off the conviction which the united testi
mony of experience and revelation have impressed
upon my mind, that a just God will reward every man
according to his works, and that he that doeth wrong
shall receive for the wrong which he hath done with
out respect of persons." Mr. Sawyer's scheme, as
appears from this extract, admits of no escape from
punishment. In the endeavor to show that Universalism is not of
corrupt tendency, Mr. Whittemore says, (' Plain Guide,'
p. 263,) " So far from destroying the fear of retribu
tion, Universalism quickens it, by showing that the pun
ishment of sin cannot be avoided." He avers, (p. 262,)
that Universalists teach that " all men shall be re
warded according to their works, that the punishment
of sin is — swift, sure, and inevitable."

NO ESCAPE FROM PUNISHMENT. 121
Justice inexorable. Forgiveness denned.
Says Mr. Skinner, in his ' Univ. Illustrated', —
" Justice will have (p. 249,) all its demands : every
man shall suffer to the full extent of his deserts. There
is no remission of punishment, either on account of the
Savior's death, or the sinner's penitence."
" I have shown," says Mr. Williamson, (' Exposi*
tion,' p. 65,) " that it was no part of the object, either
of the labors, sufferings, or death of Christ, to open a
way by which the guilty could evade the rod of his
Father's justice." " I have more than once said, that no
man can escape the just punishment of his sins."
From such a punishment, as they think, there can be
no deliverance, even by forgiveness. Though the Bible
every where speaks of forgiveness, they will have it,
that pardon never frees the transgressor from the suf
fering deserved by his sins. These were the views- of
Abner Kneeland, as early as 1818. " Forgiveness,"
he says, (' Lectures,' p. 40,) " in imperfect and chan
geable creatures, i. e., in man, may be a real relin
quishment of a punishment which was absolutely in
tended to have been inflicted ; but not so with the
Deity. He changeth not. Therefore, forgiveness in
him can be nothing more than a manifestation of his
unchangeable nature to the sinner!" " Forgiveness
(p. 41,) does not militate against the idea of the sinner's
being punished according to strict justice." Who won
ders that such a man should become an Atheist 1
" We learn" from the ' Univ. Expositor,' (I. 153,)
" that the gospel is not a scheme which God has con
trived for clearing sinners from suffering what his own
11

122 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Forgiveness clears no one. Sin, not punishment, forgiven.
word solemnly pronounced upon them." "Accord
ingly, (p. 155,) the person who has been forgiven has
suffered the proper punishment of his sins ; even as the
man who has been healed of a bodily disease, has suf
fered the natural evils of that disease." No forgive
ness until the full punishment has been inflicted ! Is
this the kind of forgiveness that is enjoined on man in
relation to his fellow-man 1 " The lord of that servant
was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and for
gave him the debt." (Matth. xviii. 27.) Whatl
Did he exact the whole debt first, and then forgive it 1
Absurd. " The common opinion, that forgiveness is a remis
sion of punishment, is altogether incorrect," says 0. A.
Skinner, (' Univ. 111. and Def.' p. 250.) " How," he
asks, (p. 251," can the common doctrine of forgiveness
be correct ? There is not a syllable concerning it in
the Bible." " Accordingly," he adds, p. 252, " the
person who has been forgiven, has suffered the proper
punishment of his sins." Lie suffers none the less in
consequence of being pardoned.
Mr. Fernald, of Newburyport, in his ' Universalism
against Partiahsm,' (p. 259,) has this language ; — -
" The forgiveness which our Christian clergy preach is
generally represented, and generally understood, to be
the forgiveness or remission of hell-torments. But the
Bible knows nothing about such a doctrine. It never
teaches the forgiveness or remission of punishment for
sins committed. It is the forgiveness of sins; by

NO ESCAPE FROM PUNISHMENT. 123

' Amazing grace.' Paid m we g0 along.
which is understood, the blotting out, or cleansing
from, after due justice is administered."
' Is this the meaning of forgiveness V a stranger to
these views at once will ask ; — ' Who ever attached
such a meaning to the word in common life 1 Surely
I must go to school again to learn what the most com
mon-place words mean, and have a dictionary too,
compiled by one of these knowing ones.' They who
teach these things, know and admit that their sense of
the word is peculiar, and so they call the other sense
the common one, and strive hard to subvert it, and sub
stitute their own. According to their views of the
matter, God never abundantly pardons until he has ex
acted the utmost farthing from the poor debtor — never
says to the prisoner ' Go free !' until the whole debt
has been discharged ! ' Amazing grace /' If this be
forgiveness or pardon, then Rathbun and every other
criminal in Auburn will yet receive a full pardon !
And that without asking for it. Let them serve their
time out, and they will be pardoned ! It is time that
our governors were better instructed in the true im
port of the word ' forgiveness.'
Universahsm, then, maintains that every sin of every
sinner will be followed by its appropriate and full pun
ishment. That we receive our punishment ' as we go
along,' is a very common and favorite doctrine with
them all. Those who deny future punishment profess,
of course, to believe, that every sin is punished in this
life in exact ratio to its eriniinahty; and that it is

124 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Scripture-doctrine. Confessions of the pious.
utterly impossible for the sinner to escape in a single
instance. True, Job's friend, the Naamathite, could say to him,
(Job xi. 6,) " Know, therefore, that God exacteth qf
thee less than thine iniquity deserveth ;" but Zophar
lived too soon to understand much about theology, and
was entirely ignorant of neology. David too could say,
(Psalm ciii. 10,) " He hath not dealt with us after our
sins, nor rewarded us according to our iniquities." But
David was a little ' hyperbolical' in his language on
that occasion, and " we are not to take an expression
of self-reproach, which one utters under a deep sense
of ingratitude and shame, and employ it as if it dis
proved the well-supported and abstract doctrine of the
Bible concerning the retributive government of God !"
So says the ' Univ. Expositor,' (I. 159.) The same
remark is applied to what Ezra, (ix. 13,) upon his
knees before God, poured forth from his burdened
heart : — " After all that is come upon us for our evil
deeds, and for our great trespass, seeing that thou, our
God, hast punished us less than our iniquities deserve."
There are, at this day, some very good people that
are just as weak as Zophar, David, and Ezra were ;
and simple enough most honestly to beheve, that the
Lord has actually punished them far less than their sins
deserve ; who are accustomed to say in the language
of the good old Psalm, (cxxx. 3, 4, " If thou, Lord !
shouldest mark iniquities, 0 Lord ! who shall stand ? —
But there is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be
feared." Thus they set punishment and forgiveness

NO ESCAPE FROM PUNISHMENT. 125
A stubborn fact . The suicide.
over against each other. And what is somewhat re
markable, the more they seem to have of the Spirit of
Christ the more are they possessed with this notion ;
particularly as -they survey their life from the brink of
the grave. But we must conclude that they are all'
wrong, David, Daniel, Ezra, and all of them, for " Gash-
mu saith it."
The principal difficulty, however, lies not in the
counter declaration of Scripture, (for he is a poor Uni
versalist preacher that will stumble at a text, however
hard, — that cannot '* darken and put out
Eternal truth by everlasting doubt,") —
not in proving that ' everlasting,' or ' eternal,' means
temporal, but in the stubborn fact that some men die in
the very act of crime. It has always been a difficult
matter for men of this sort to dispose of the suicide. In
this case the crime is not consummated until life is ex
tinct. The individual is tiien, if in conscious existence,
in the future state. It is evident that he cannot be
punished in this hfe, and if punished at all, must be in
the life to come.
But the doctrine under consideration allows no sin
ner to escape, and not a single sin to be passed by.
He must receive in the body according to the deeds
done. How then can fhe suicide, or the high-way
robber,, who is killed in the very act of robbery or
murder, be a subject of punishment in this sense ? It is
impossible. It cannot -be that, death itself is the pun
ishment, for many a righteous man is killed as suddenly
11*

126 UNIVERSALISM AS IT JS.
Various devices. Suicide no crime.
and as violently. Moreover, the crime, in the case of
the suicide, consists in putting an end to his life — that
which, in most cases, is sought as the least of two
evils. How can it be the punishment then 1 Or, how,
after the crime is committed, can there be any sense of
suffering, if, as they maintain, there is no conscious ex
istence after death until the resurrection 1
Various devices have been sought out and adopted to
meet this exigency. They think on the whole, that it
is not best ' to dogmatize upon it.' Each is left to
manage it as well as he can. I will give the reader a
sample of the manner in which they meet it. Aaron
B. Grosh, editor of the ' Magazine and Advocate,'
published in Utica, meets the whole difficulty by at
tempting to show, that
Suicide is no crime.
As this individual exerts a commanding influence
over the denomination, particularly in Central and
Western New York, his opinions carry weight with
them, and, doubtless, pass current among the unedu
cated. To the question, — " How do you reconcile
cases of suicide with your doctrine of all-sufficient
punishment 'in this life !" he replies, (VILI. 358,)
thus : —
" I suppose that the Scriptures regard it under one
of the following heads : —
" 1. Either, they class it under the head of murder,
— ' thou shalt not kill,' — in which case, the penalty,
the whole penalty, the only penalty, after the act, I

NO ESCAPE FROM PUNISHMENT. 127

can there find on record against murder, is inflicted on
the criminal in the very act qf transgression ; Viz. by
man his blood is shed. I am not very sanguine in this
opinion," (i. e. that it is murder,) " inasmuch as there
is no appearance of malice in the offender against
himself; for the apostle Paul says, ' no man ever yet
hated his own flesh ;' consequently, the act is scarcely
murder. " 2. Or, the Scriptures consider it as the act of none
who are of sound mind, and therefore, accountable
beings,. In the cases where suicides are recorded, the act
itself is never condemned, nor even named as a crimi
nal one. — It seems entirely omitted in the various and
frequent lists of actions forbidden to be practised."
" 3. In conclusion, believing the object of punish
ment to be salvation from sin, I can conceive of no use
for it for this act more than for any other. There is
no danger that suicide will ever be committed in the
immortal state. As to the mental guilt, let it be
shown that the suicide had an evil intention, and that
he was of perfectly sane mind in forming it, and that
it is necessary for his salvation to be punished after
death, — and there is no one that will object to his re
ceiving all that is necessary. As this cannot be done,
no more than I can prove the negative of the proposi
tion, and above all as the Bible is silent on the subject,
I think it best becomes us not to dogmatize upon it."
To such results are they unavoidably driven in the
support of a doctrine, contradicted on almost every
page of Scripture, and directly subversive of the whole

128 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Fearful doubt. Mercy excluded.
gospel-plan of salvation. And yet a fearful doubt
hangs over the whole subject. Mr. Grosh admits that
he cannot prove that the suicide is not punished in a
future state, and, therefore, knows not that he will es
cape. Still he is wilhng to risk it, and thinks his dis
ciples may.
Who could beheve that men, with the Bible in then
hands, would teach that suicide is either no crime, or so
slight a one as to demand but a momentary punish
ment ? If so, men may commit it, whenever they are
tired of life, without dread. What, then, is to hinder
fhe frequent commission of the act in that happy day,
predicted by these prophets as soon at hand, when all
sects shall be merged in theirs 1 It is not because the
doctrine does not lead to it, that such acts are now
rare among them, but for want of faith in their own
dogmas. Let the Christian community look at this one result
of the system, and say, can that be from Christ which
thus encourages men to rush out of life, whenever they
care to live no longer 1 — to run away from all the du
ties required of them by God, whenever those duties
become too burdensome ? Surely Universalism hinders
no one from death, if he wishes it.
And let them also determine, whether or not there
is any room for the exercise of mercy, where " every
transgression and disobedience receives a just recom
pense of reward" — where not the slightest punishment
is ever remitted, — where the sinner cries in vain even
for a drop of water to alleviate the torments endured

NO ESCAPE FROM PUNISHMENT. 129

Mercy defined.

in consequence of his sin. Does not mercy, when pre
dicated of the Divine Being, always imply such a treat
ment of an offender, as is better than his sins deserve 1
or, in other words, the exacting less in the way of punish
ment than justice demands ? If so, let the whole scheme
be judged by a rule laid down by Hosea Ballou him
self. It may be found in the ' Trumpet' of October 3d3
1840 : — " There is no better rule to try a doctrine by,
than the question ' Is it merciful, or is it unmerciful V
If its character is that of mercy, it has the image of
Jesus, who is the way, the truth, and the life." But
this doctrine has nothmg to do with mercy. Therefore
it is false, or Anti-Christian.

CHAPTER X.
SIN ITS OWN PUNISHMENT.
Nature of Punishment — Sin fully punishes itself — Human
penalties should be abolished — The Mosaic Law unjust —
The more sin, the less punishment — The doctrine a mere
hypothesis — Its truth cannot be known.
" A dark confed'racy against the laws
Of virtue, and religion's glorious cause ;
They build each other up with dreadful skill,
As bastions set point-blank against God's will,
Enlarge and fortify the dread redoubt,
Deeply resolved to shut a Savior out." — Cowper.
If man receives all his punishment in this world, sin
must be very easily recompensed. Punishment cannot
be the dreadful thing which some have deemed it.
Some men, at least, have a very easy time of it, or seem
to have. In pursuing our inquiries, therefore, it be
comes important, that we should know what Universal
ists understand by punishment. If they differ essen
tially from the Christian world in their views of the na
ture and the design of punishment, it is not strange that
this difference should also extend to its duration.
What, then, is the punishment of which the Scrip
tures speak as due to sin 1 To this question no uniform
answer is given. When pressed by the arguments of

SIN ITS OWN PUNISHMENT. 131
Sin its own avenger. Sin and misery inseparable.
their opponents, they seem to admit that it refers to an
actual infliction of pain, independent of the crime itself,
as. a testimony of the divine displeasure against sin
But the favorite doctrine of the sect is, that
XI. — -Sin fully punishes itself.
By- this they mean, that there is such a necessary
connection between sin and misery, that every sin
brings with it enough of misery to serve as an adequate
punishment. It is asserted by Mr. Ballou, (' Treatise on
Atonement,' p. 6,) that " the punishment, or sufferings,
which we endure in consequence of sin, is not a dispen
sation of any penal law, but of the law of necessity, in
which law, as long as a cause continues, it produces
its effects." It is here declared, that punishment is not
a penal infliction of suffering, but a natural and neces
sary consequence of sin. So also we hear him saying,
(' Lect. Sermons,' p. 157,) " Sin and misery are insepa
rably united in the nature of cause and effect. When
and where we are sinful, then and there we are our
own tormentors." In other words the sinner punishes
himself. We learn from Mr. Wilhamson, {' Gospel Anchor,'
II. 70,) that " there are those who contend that sin
and misery are inseparably connected, and that the act
qf transgression induces its own punishment, as a ne
cessary and unavoidable consequence. These," he adds,
" are our views of the subject. We beheve that pun
ishment and sin are related as cause and effect, and that
they are, as closely and intimately as cause and effect

132 UNIVERSALISM AS if IS.
Punishment the natural fruit of sin. The doctrine illustrated.
can be, under any possible circumstances." Referring
to the sin of our first parents, he says, '" There was no
need, if we may so speak, that God should take a rod
and smite the sinner in order to punish him ; for the act
of transgression would necessarily involve the very
penalty annexed. The punishment for sin is death —
spiritual death. And this punishment flows as the
legitimate effect of the act of transgression." Mr. W.
adopts the opinion of Seneca, " There is no greater
punishment for sin than sin itself."
In a discussion held at Boston, in 1834, between
Mr. Adin Ballou, a Restorationist, and Mr. Daniel D.
Smith, a modern Universalist, the latter remarked, (p.
46,) " Punishment is a natural, inevitable consequence
of sin, which cannot be avoided by any means. And
so the Scriptures speak. They do not threaten condi
tionally. They speak of the punishment of sin as
something which naturally grows out of sin, and which
cannot by any means be avoided. There is no clause
put in about repentance, and an escape by this means
from the consequences of transgression."
The inseparable connection between sin and its pun
ishment they are accustomed to illustrate in the follow
ing manner : — " We know (' Exp. of Univ.,' pp. 68,
69,) that there are physical laws which must be obeyed,
if we would preserve the health of the body. If we
put our hand in the fire, it will be burned. If we ex
pose our bodies to the cold they will freeze." " So
it is with the mind : it has its laws written upon it by
the finger of the Creator, and these laws must be

SIN ITS OWN PUNISHMENT. 133
Punishment is to sin, as pain to disease.
obeyed or we must suffer." " I say then", (p. 70,) that
the very constitution of man is proof that there is no
escape from the punishment of our sins." Punishment
is just as sure to follow sin, as physical suffering a burn.
This is the same as to say that sin invariably punishes
itself. Such is the language of Mr. Ballou. In relation to
the prodigal son he states (' Expos.,' I. 167,) that " the
father did not punish his son after he had done commit
ting sin : but that the sinner punished himself, by walk
ing in that way in which there is no peace."
A writer in the same volume, (p. 151,) informs us
that "the just punishment of sin is the tribulation and
anguish which the disobedient suffer in their sins. —
Consequently men must be punished with misery just
as long as they walk the sinner's way." Of course,
any thing else than this is unjust ; as, for example, any
extraneous judgment from the hands of either God or
man. Thus the same writer remarks, (p. 155,) " The
sick man is freed from pain by being freed from the dis
ease by which the pain was produced. And" this " is in
accordance with, and not opposed to, that organic law
of the corporeal system which connects pain with dis
ease. — Even so, when the man who is reformed and
forgiven experiences a freedom from the evil or pun
ishment of sin, — this is in accordance with, and not op
posed to, that divine moral law which connects punish
ment with sin." Punishment is thus made to bear the
same relation to sin, that pain bears to disease.
After the same manner, Mr. Whittemore represents
12

134 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Sin is itself hell. A Savior shut out.
(' Plain Guide,' p. 262,) punishment as " swift, sure,
and inevitable ; that sin goes hand in hand with wo
throughout its whole duration ; that it is itself hell."
If sin is itself hell, and hell is the punishment of
sin, then sin is its own punishment, and every thing
additional lis manifestly, and in the highest degree,
unjust. That the natural pain consequent on sin is its punish
ment, is also the opinion of Mr. Skinner, as exhibited
in ' Univ. 111. and Def.,' (pp. 190, 191.) " Every pas
sion of our nature," he says, " carried to excess is cri
minal ; every passion carried to excess is painful. This
pain is said to be the punishment of the passion. — The
same is true of every evil propensity and habit what
ever. All are attended with pain or inconvenience,
which increases in proportion to the enormity of .the
evil." Sin, therefore, punishes itself in proportion to
its own enormity or guilt.
This is the meaning which Mr. Fernald gives to
punishment, when he says, (' Univ. against Partialism,'
pp. 261, 262,) "Repentance will not absolve from the
punishment of sins committed." " It never will atone for
what is past. If an individual sins, he has got to suf
fer for it the whole penalty of the law. There is no
remedy for him. — He may repent in dust and ashes ;
but this will never satisfy justice for the sin he has com
mitted." " You may talk about sorrow and contrition,
but this is nothing to the purpose." How completely
does such a scheme " shut a Savior out !"
It is thus made plain, that it is extensively, if not uni-

SIN ITS OWN PUNISHMENT. 135
Human penalties unjust ; and perfectly useless.
formly, held as sound doctrine among Universalists,
that sin adequately punishes itself. On this, in fact,
they rely to uphold the doctrine that justice will have
all its demands in this life. This last cannot be given
up, or justice will punish in another world, and perhaps
forever. So that the doctrine that I have1 now exhibit
ed is essential to their scheme. They must defend it
and abide by its consequences, or then whole system is
defective— ^-is falsa
It follows inevitably from this doctrine that all the
PENALTIES OF HUMAN LAWS OUGHT TO BE FORTHWITH
abolished. If punishment is inseparable from sin, as
its necessary consequence, then it is impossible for the
sinner to escape his full deserts. Let him do what he
will, he must suffer — must pay the very last farthing.
It needs not the interference of another power. The
robber who goes " unwhipt of justice,"— human jus
tice^ — till his last moment, is just as sure as any other to
reap his full reward. If, when he dies, he has received
his full deserts, as this system maintains, then if he had
been apprehended, imprisoned, and tortured, he would
have received more than he deserved. And so in every
other case where the penalties of "human laws are in
flicted, had the sinner escaped such infliction, he would
nevertheless have suffered his full punishment.
Now, if sin thus inevitably punishes itself, if the sin
ner can by no means escape his just punishment even
if he be above or out of the reach of human laws, what
need is there of these laws 1 Axe they not perfectly
useless t And are not the penalties which they inflict

136 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
All penal statutes should be annulled. Two-fold results of sin.
unjust in the extreme ? What right has human autho
rity to punish a man who has already been fully pun
ished, or who will be fully punished, whether human
power interferes or not, and none the less for such in
terference 1 To be honest and consistent, therefore,
Universalists ought to demand that all penal statutes
should be at once repealed, and that society be left to re
gulate itself. Mr. Sawyer says to Mr. Brownlee, (XIX.
13,) " The time, I trust, is not far distant, when the vin
dictive and sanguinary penalties yet remaining on hu
man statute-books shall be blotted out forever."
Yes, if Universalism is true, every positive infliction
of suffering by any human authority, whether parental,
or magisterial, as a punishment for wrong doing, is un
just and cruel. Yea, the statute-book of heaven needs
revision. How is God to be justified in enacting such
a code of laws as that given to the Hebrews, in which
he required the parent and the magistrate to inflict pe
nal suffering on the transgressor 1 This system either
denies, that God ever does visit men with positive in
fliction of pain, other than the natural effects of sin, or
maintains that he is guilty of the most outrageous in
justice in exacting double for their sins. I leave the
abettors of this scheme to settle their account with the
Bible, on either supposition as they best can.
But another consequence that flows from this doctrine
is worthy of serious attention. The natural results of
sin are its just or adequate punishment. These results
are two-fold ; bodily and mental, or disease and misfor
tune on the one hand, and on the other remorse. Tbe

SIN ITS OWN PUNISHMENT. 137

The more one sins the less he is punished.
latter occupies by far the largest space in their views
of punishment. The former is almost overlooked. If
now sin punishes itself according to its desert, then the
greater and more frequent the crime, the greater is the
remorse. But is this true in fact as well as in theory 1
Does not this scheme naturally lead to the conclusion
that THE MORE ONE SINS, THE LESS HE IS PUNISHED 1 I
say not, that they hold, or that their system teaches,
that the body will suffer less as crime increases ; but
that they do hold a doctrine, which implies that the
more a man sins, the less he will be punished mentally,
— the less will his mind be afflicted with remorse
This is so manifest that it scarcely needs to be argued.
We know, many of us by our own experience, that what
gave us at first great distress, because of the remorse
that we felt in consequence, has afterwards, when it
became habitual, lost its power to disturb our minds.
The annals of our penitentiaries will show, that the hun
dreds who are yearly imprisoned for some glaring act
of transgression, and have become hardened in crime,
actually suffered less from their seared consciences be
cause of the act which brought them to prison, than on
the occasion of their first infraction of the oivil law.
Crime hardens the heart, and sears the conscience.
Such, as all history shows, is the case in this world.
How then can it be maintained, with any 'show of rea
son or truth, that the sinner is sure to suffer in physical
anguish, a full recompense for every sin ? How can
that be called an adequate punishment which decreases
in severity as the sinner increases in guilt 1
12*

138 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
. Hypothesis and not fact. It never can be known to be true.
The doctrine, however, is held as a mere hypothesis.
It is a device by which to get rid of future punishment.
The abettors of this device are not able to show that
it is a fact. They cannot prove that men do invaria
bly suffer as much from disease, misfortune, and re
morse, as their sins deserve. There are some noto
riously wicked men that are greatly prospered in this
world. They are almost strangers to disease and mis
fortune. " There are no bands in their death ; but
their strength is firm. They are not in trouble as
other men, neither are they plagued like other men."
(Ps. 73 : 4, 5.) It is as true now as it was in David's
time. How then are these men punished 1 The com
mon reply to such a question is, " We cannot tell how
much such men suffer from remorse." True, we can
not tell how much or how little. You and we are alike
ignorant. You do not know that they suffer much, if
any thing ; much less that they suffer all that their sins
deserve. Thus these views are based on ignorance, and are a
mere assumption of the whole ground in dispute. In
order to determine that all men suffer here all that they
deserve, we must first be able to determine the full de
sert of sin, and then that every individual does actually
thus suffer, in this present life. Otherwise, we must,
at - all events, be left in doubt and fearful apprehension
that punishment will be inflicted in another world;
doubt, lest some, who had their good things here, will
have then evil things hereafter ; lest while the right
eous,, who suffered here, will there be comforted, the

SIN ITS OWN PUNISHMENT. 139
Dreadful want of assurance.
wicked who were here " not in trouble like other men,"
will there be tormented. Such are the delightful as
surances of this new sect. - Such are their joy and peace
in beheving. They never can know that they have
suffered, or will suffer, in this present hfe all that their
sins deserve. Well may we exclaim, in view of such
boastings and such miserable uncertainties, in the lan
guage of the poet, —
" Oh ! star-eyed Science ! hast thou wandered there,
To waft us home the message of despair V

CHAPTER XI.
NO SUCH THING AS PUNISHMENT.
Design of punishment — A carnal scheme — Danger of misap
prehending their admissions — What does sin deserve — De
nial of all punishment — All suffering for sin is the fruit of
God's love, and designed only for the sinner's highest good-
Its removal, and not its infliction, a cursed—All men the
children of God — Mankind not divided into two distinct
classes — Fearful language of Scripture.
" While man exclaims — ' See all things for my use !'
' See man for mine !' — replies a pamper'd goose !" — Pope.
It appears to be the constant aim of these writers to
make their system as palatable as possible to a de
praved heart. For this they make the fall of our first
parents nothing more than a beautiful allegory, never
meant to be regarded as a relation of actual occurren
ces. Thus they rid themselves of the original curse, or
give themselves all the latitude that they can desire in
interpreting its allegorical meaning.
For this, too, they discard original sin, or native de
pravity, and flatter poor man by assuring him that he
comes into the world as pure as an angel. Instead of
showing, as do all the sacred writers, that sin is " ex-

NO SUCH THING AS PUNISHMENT. 141
Admissions. Very incongenial.
ceeding sinful," they will scarcely allow that the human
mind, (or " intellectual phenomena," as they call the
soul,) ever consents to sin. Sin is simply the want of
conformity between a man's choice and his judgment,
which; choice results from the animal appetites, as God
created them, and is to be regarded as a fulfilment of
his will.
Having thus converted sin into righteousness, it
seems rather strange that they should ever admit that
man is liable to any punishment at all for doing that
which he cannot help — to which his mind never con
sents, which is only the working of the animal nature,
and accords perfectly with the Creator's design. But
the Bible too expressly speaks of the punishment ofthe
wicked, and gives too many fearful examples of it, for
them boldly to deny in so many- words all punishment.
Perhaps, I may add, there is a voice within, a con
science, that, after all their refined speculations, accu
ses of guilt, and convinces of ill-desert. To save appear
ances, therefore, they must admit punishment of some
kind; but only on two conditions: viz. the limitation
of it to mortal life, or at most, the ante-resurrection
state, and the absence of all penal inflictions.
In making these admissions, — so strangely incon
genial to their whole system, — in order to blind the
eyes of the people, they insist upon it, as has been
shown, that all sin will receive its full deserts — that
there shall not be the least abatement, on any account
whatever, of the just punishment of sin. If now the
reader, who has been accustomed to regard sin, as an

142 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Caution to the reader. What does sin deserve ?
unmixed evil, in the highest degree offensive to God,
deserving the most signal manifestations of his displea
sure and wrath,(and if he has gathered his theology
from the Bible alone, he cannot but thus judge,) he will
be liable utterly "to misapprehend the meaning of these
admissions. Let him first unlearn the lessons of his
childhood and youth, and then let him be taught to re
gard sin, as an infraction only of the law of one's mind,
the resistance of an innocent animal appetite to the bet
ter judgment of a pure and noble and almost godlike
mind; in short, let him learn that what they call sin is
only a carrying out of the divine purposes of good, — a
part of his glorious plan of benevolence, and indispen
sable to the greatest good both of the sinner and the
world ; — let him thus become a proficient in the art of
making black white, and he will at once perceive that
these new expounders of scripture venture nothing in
admitting, that every sin will inevitably be punished to
the full extent of its desert.
But what is that desert ? What evil, after all, has
the sinner done 1 Whom has he injured 1 Not God,
they say, for this is impossible. Whom, then ? Not
his fellow-men, for " all things work together for good to
them — ." His sin injures only himself; and even this
injury God is bound to make good, since he brought
the man into being and gave him such a body of sin
and death. How much then, does sin — thus understood
— fully deserve 1 Who can believe that it deserves
any punishment at all 1 How safe is it, therefore, for
those, who have thus diluted sin until it can scarcely

NO SUCH THING AS PUNISHMENT. 143
An easy way to pay debts. All suffering the fruit of love.
be distinguished from righteousness itself, to admit that
everj' man will inevitably suffer to the full extent of
his deserts, for every sin that he commits ! A very easy
matter it is, truly, for a man to pay all his debts when
he owes nothing !
It will thus be seen, that this strange system, after all
its boasting about the full exaction of punishment, does
actually deny all punishment, in the proper sense of
the word. Such is the necessary inference from those
parts of their creed which have already come under re
view. We are not left, however, to inference alone,
in order thus to understand them. I shall now attempt
to show that it is an essential part of their system, and
an avowed article of their creed, that
XLI. There is properly no such thing as punishment.
The sufferings which mankind endure, they regard,
or profess to regard, as an expression, not of God's an
ger, or displeasure, but of , his love. They are all fruits
of a Father's tenderest concern for the welfare of his
children, designed not as a judicial infliction of punish
ment, but for the good, the personal good in every case,
and the very highest good, of the sinner himself.
They are exceedingly tenacious of these views.
They introduce them on every occasion. No matter
what is the text, they are sure to evolve from it this
doctrine. Take a few examples. In. a sermon from
Mai. iv. 1, — "For, behold! the day cometh that shall
burn as an oven," &c, — Hosea Ballou remarks, (' L. Ser
mons,' p. 91,) " Now we know, that it is not the nature

144 universalism as it is.
New idea of regeneration. Happy issue of all judgments.
of goodness to harm any creature, but to, do good to all.
l/rom these plain self-evident 'facts we infer, that God
will never administer any kind of affliction to any of his
creatures, which is not designed for their benefit."
He then proceeds to show, (p. 92,) that by the burning
up of the wicked is indicated their regeneration. So
he explains the text ; (p. 96 ;) " In the character of the
proud and the wicked they must be destroyed, root and
branch, and be translated into the kingdom of God's
dear Son !"
In another sermon on the destruction of Sodom, he
asks, (p. 283,) — " Why should our heavenly Father
manifest any disapprobation of sin 1 Does he suffer
any inconvenience from it V And he adds, (p. 284,)
" that God acted in this instance consistently with his
nature, which is love, and with his character as a Fa
ther. He acted for the good of his creatures;" — those
creatures, of course, whom he destroyed with " brim
stone and fire !" The Lecture is styled, " Divine
Goodness in the destruction of the Sodomites and other
sinners." Again, commenting on Zeph. iii. 8, where God is
heard saying, " my determination is to gather the na
tions, that I may assemble the kingdoms, to pour upon
them mine indignation — even all my fierce anger ; for
all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jeal
ousy ;" — he remarks, (p. 350,) " In this most interest
ing representation we are led to contemplate the happy
issue of the judgments of God, even all his fierce an
ger, in the salvation of his people, in their rest and joy."

NO SUCH THING AS PUNISHMENT. 145

A consuming Are. The only end of punishment.
" We may observe," he adds, (p. 351,) " that God's
love towards mankind is a holy love, and all the desires
of that love are righteous. These sanctify his severest
judgments, and direct them all to the accomplishment
of the deshes of love."
Remarking on those fearful words — " For our God
is a consuming fire," he informs us, (p. 48,) that " the
fire of Divine love seeks to consume nothmg but that
which is injurious to the sinner, who is the object of
Divine love." " Love is a consuming fire to all the
hay, wood and stubble, which error has introduced into
rehgion ! " How admirably does such an explanation
accord with the admonitions of the Apostle, Heb. xii.
25—29 !
Mr. Sawyer maintains the same doctrine, and claims
that such are the views of the whole sect. " Univer
salists," he tells Dr. Brownlee, (XLLT. 8,) " believe that
all inflictions under the righteous administration of God,
are designed to benefit the punished." " This is the
end, (p. 7,) the only end, as Universalists believe, for
which God inflicts punishment."
0. A. Skinner declares, (' Un. 111. and Def.' p. 184,)
that " the constant manifestation of divine goodness to
all men shows that God loves the wicked, that he has
the same parental regard for them which he has for the
good." " Punishment (p. 186,) is inflicted from purely
paternal principles." " That God punishes (p. 188,)
according to the deeds, clearly proves that he designs
it for the good of the sinner, and punishes from the best
of motives." " When we read — that sinners shall be
13

146 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
A corrective process. What God has no right to do.
punished for their iniquity, we are to understand by it a
-corrective process, lopping off the unprofitable branch
es, which hinder the growth in grace and divine know
ledge, and which prevent from bearing good fruit."
God, he tells us, (p. 191,) " can only inflict a corrective
punishment, a punishment that will aid in saving the
sinner from the evil in which sin has involved him.
We see here the error of supposing, that punishment is
inflicted solely to maintain the honor of the Lawgiver,
and the dignity of his government." " No more pun
ishment (p. 195,) will be inflicted than the good of the
sinner requires."
This course of Divine procedure they claim as a
right. Hear Mr. Williamson ; " God himself (' Expos.
of Univer.' p. 66,) has no right to punish in revenge, or
with a vindictive spirit. He brought us into existence
of his own good pleasure, and without our knowledge
or consent, and he is bound, by the principles of his own
nature, to do us justice ; and he has no right, in the na
ture of things, to do an injury." He therefore pro
ceeds to show, (p. 72,) that " all the punishments, that
God lays upon men, are the well-intended chastisements
of a merciful Father, and so many testimonies of his
parental faithfulness and love." " Little does that man
know (p. 74,) of the character of his heavenly Father,
who views his punishments in any other light but the
kind administrations of a friend, who seeks our perma
nent good."
Such, according to this creed, is God's design in con
necting suffering with sin — the very same that moves

NO SUCH THING AS PUNISHMENT. 147
A healing cup. Deliverance a curse.
a kind parent to administer the bitter cup to a diseased
child. But this is not punishment. Does the parent
punish his child for being sick, when he requires him
to take the healing yet bitter draught ? Never. Then
is it improper to call those sufferings, which man en
dures for sin, a punishment. There is no such thing
in the Divine administration as punishments, properly
So-called, if Mr. Ballou and his followers are right.
Accordingly, Mr. Skinner says, (p. 250,) " Punish
ment, we have seen, is corrective and limited. A re
mission of'such a punishment would be a curse instead
of a mercy, because a just punishment is as essential to
our welfare, as anything that love can do." After the
same manner remarks Mr. Wilhamson ; — " When we
say (p. 67,) that no man can escape the just punish
ment of his sins, the cry is raised that there is no mer
cy, and that we destroy the mercy of God ! Why, my
dear sh ! do you not see that the very punishment itself
is inflicted in mercy ? The sinner is sick; ' from the
crown of his head to the sole of the foot, there is no
soundness in him,' and God, in his mercy, administers
the medicine ; bitter, indeed, it may be, but it is admin
istered by the hand of a Father's kindness."
Again, (p. 68,) he adds — " From such a punishment,
my position is, that man cannot escape, by any possibility ;
and, I may add, that, were it possible, the escape would
be a curse, rather than a blessing, and man's rejoicings
over it would be as ill-timed as those of a sick man, who
should rejoice that he had escaped the taking of a heal
ing medicine, forgetful of the truth that a deadly dis-

148 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
The good Physician. Airpunishment denied.
ease was left behind. I repeat again : sin is an evil,
and, punishment is a remedy, and it is a poor cause of
joy, that we have escaped the Good Physician, ' who
healeth all our diseases.' Better, by far, submit to the
caustic, or the knife, if necessary, than bear about with
us a gangrene that eateth to the vitals."
To this effect, S. R. Smith of Albany speaks, (' Mag.
and Adv.' VLTJ. 218;) — "However immediate and tre
mendous the punishment of the wicked, it is plainly
designed for then individual good." " Every moral pain
we bear, every mental suffering we endure for our fol
lies and our crimes, are the medicines to heal the dis
eases of the soul. They are the safe and finally-effec
tual prescriptions which wound but to heal, which kill
but to make alive."
What now becomes of the oft-vaunted boast of the
Universalist, that he alone, of all the sects, believes in
the full punishment of sin -? If we admit his definition
of punishment, it is even so. But if we are governed
by the universally-received sense of the word, as well
as by that which is given to it in the Bible, it becomes
apparent at once, that this theorist denies all punish
ment ; — that he believes in the justice of God, only so
far as justice consists with his own personal good in
this world, and his perfect unending happiness in the
world to come.
In order, however, to establish this favorite article of
their faith they resort to the most unwarrantable and
unpardonable wrestings of Scripture from its obvious
intent. All those passages which speak of the afflic-

NO SUCH THING AS PUNISHMENT. 149
Who are children of God 1 A large church.
tions ofthe righteous as chastisements, designed for the
good of them that love God, and in which there is an
express limitation of the doctrine to those who love
and serve God in sincerity and truth, they apply to all
mankind indiscriminately. They utterly deny that the
Bible separates mankind into two distinct classes.
They teach their disciples to believe that they, and all
the world beside, are the children qf God, in the sense
in which that phrase is used in the word of God ; and
that therefore all the promises arenmlimited.
Among the ' Lecture-Sermons' of Mr. Ballou, is one
entitled, 'All men the children qf God f in which he
declares, (p. 204,) that " the children mentioned in
Heb.ii. 14,comprehend the whole human family." "And
he for whom are all things and by whom are all things,
is the Father of these children. The children do not
destroy this relation by disobedience." Again he says,
(p. 209,) " This is the church which Jesus loved, when
it was unsanctified. — This church consists qf every man,
or the whole human family." The same thought is
repeated, (p. 358) ; "All men are, therefore, of his
church." Speaking of the orthodox views, he says, (pp. 263,
4, 5,) " The way in which this subject is generally held,
supposes that there is one class of men who are exclu
sively righteous, and another class exclusively wicked."
Having thus perverted the orthodox view by interpo
sing the word ' exclusively,' he proceeds to deny the
correctness of their position; — "that the Scriptures — any
where give support to the notion that one class of man-
13*

150 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Not two classes among men. Divine relationship.
kind is exclusively righteous, and another class exclu
sively wicked, is by no means' acknowledged." He
then proceeds, as if he had disproved the statement that
the scriptures call one class of men righteous, in dis
tinction from another, who are styled wicked. " We
find the righteous and the wicked in the same individ
ual." " The habit which professed Christians have so
long indulged, of thinking and speaking of the wicked,
as a class of people distinct from themselves, is a proof
of the depravity of their own deceived hearts." To
this remark it may be added, that" the habit which this
writer, and others of the same stamp, have, of flying
in the face of Scripture, shows, that they are either de
plorably ignorant of the Bible, or the most palpable
falsifiers of its obvious truths.
The origin of this relation of all mankind to God as
their spiritual Father, may be stated in the words of
W. S. Ballou, of Randolph, Vermont, as they appear
in the ' Universalist Union,' (IV. 51.) " If we are cre
ated in the image of God, there is a moral relationship
existing between ourselves and the Father of our spirits
— a chain which God has thrown around every soul,
which forever connects them to his own throne."
" Now on this fact is based the Scripture declaration,
that we are ' the children of God.' — When we are in
formed, then, that we are created in the image of God,
we have the assurance that we are forever allied to a
Father in heaven." " There has been a great inquiry
with many, whether all mankind are the children of
God, or possess by nature any divine principle that al-

NO SUCH THING AS PUNISHMENT. 151
A broad distinction. Confounding tilings that differ.
lies them to heaven. — The professors of partial creeds
have answered it iri the negative, and have proceeded
to cast off from God all those whom they viewed in the
state of nature. Now it is unnecessary to state that
such a hypothesis for ever absolves the sinner from any
accountability to God. — All that is necessary to settle
this inquiry — whether all are the children of God — is
to ascertain whether all are created in the image of God.
This the text makes certain."
Now who, that has ever read ten pages of the word
of God, has not discovered, that the " children of the
devil" are not the " children of God V— that it shall
be well with the righteous, and ill with the wicked 1 —
that these (the wicked) shall go away into everlasting
punishment, but the righteous into life eternal 1 — that,
in short, nearly the whole book of Proverbs is construct
ed upon this manifest distinction ? It is idle to say,
that, in all those cases where these two characters are
spoken of in contrast, the same individual is referred to.
Which part of the individual goes away into everlast
ing punishment, and which into life eternal ? The as
sertion that there are not two distinct classes of man
kind spoken of in Scripture, to the one of which are ad
dressed the promises, and to the other the warnings and
threats, is too plainly false to need a denial.
By thus confounding things which differ, and apply
ing to all mankmd passages addressed only to the
righteous, they make it out that God afflicts men only
for their good, and that suffering has not in fact, in
any case the nature of punishment. They thus deny,

152 . UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
God's great concern. Strange language.
that God is any thing else than a Father, that he has
any right to cast off an incorrigible child, or that he
can ever cherish any thing but the fullest love towards
any of the human race. They represent God as being,
acting, and living but for them and their fellow-men ;
as if he had no other concern than to gratify and
glorify these worms of the dust.
If these views are correct, it seems very strange that
the Apostle should tell his brethren, that " it is a fear
ful thing to fall into the hands of the living God ;" or
"that God should say, " I will render vengeance to mine
enemies, and will reward them that hate me ; God shall
cast the fury of his wrath upon him ; He will repay
fury to his adversaries, recompense to his enemies ; In
dignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish upon eve
ry soul of man that doeth evil ; Fiery indignation
which shall devour the adversaries ; The wrath of God
poured out without mixture into the cup of his indigna
tion ; The Lord will not spare him, but the anger of
the Lord and* his jealousy shall smoke against that man,
and all the curses that are written in this book shall lie
upon him, and the Lord will blot out his name from
under heaven :" — Or that it should be said, that " the
Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his
mighty angels in flaming fire, taking vengeance on
them that know not God — who shall be punished with
everlasting destruction." Strange language, all this,
for a tender father to use towards a dear child ! Which
one of all those, who insist that God only acts towards
man in the character of a Father, ever uses language

NO SUCH THING AS PUNISHMENT. 153
A death blow at Christianity.
so full of fury, or would say to his child — ' It is a fear
ful thing to fall into my hands 1"
But it is sufficient merely to present stheir views.
They speak for themselves. Their anti-Christian nature
is seen at once ; and especially in the fact, that they
utterly take away all necessity for an atonement or pro
pitiation. Man would be wronged, if deprived of the
healing cup of fury and wrath. God is already well
pleased with the sinner. Any scheme, therefore, which
proposes to deliver the sinner from the sufferings which
he deserves, (and such is the common doctrine of the
Atonement,) must be a cruelty to the sinner himself,
and so the Bible cannot reveal or countenance any such
doctrine. These views thus strike a death-blow at the
very vitals of Christianity.

CHAPTER XII.
DENIAL OF THE ATONEMENT.
No salvation from punishment, or deserved sufferings — Christ
is not a Savior in this sense — Views of Murray, Winchester,
Chauncy, and Huntington, on the Atonement — Christ saves
no one from endless misery, or from deserved punishment —
Nature of salvation by Christ — The sufferings of Christ
have only a moral effect — No vicarious Atonement — No ac
counting for the Mosaic sacrifices.
" These, in their wisdom, left
The light reveal'd, and turn'd to fancies wild,
Maintaining loud, that ruin'd helpless man
Needed no Savior." — Pollok.
That " Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of
the law," is orthodoxy — is Christianity. This is the
peculiarity of the Gospel. This is its power and glory.
Take this away, and the gospel is gone.
But what is Universalism ? A scheme, that denies
that the law pronounces a single curse upon the trans
gressor — or that any of the sufferings, which man en
dures in consequence of sin, are any thing more than a
healing and merciful medicine — or that these sufferings
can be removed by Christ or any one else. These are
its avowed tenets. What room is there here for any
plan of salvation 1 Why is not the scheme just as per
fect without Christ as with him 1 If Christ had never

DENIAL OF THE ATONEMENT. 155
All salvation denied. What they think of Christ.
been known among men, as he is now unknown by
millions, this system maintains, that none would have
perished— none would have gone to hell ; all would
have been as really saved from punishment in a future
state as they now are.
Universalism therefore, as I shall now proceed to
show, is a bold denial qf any salvation from the penal
ty of a broken law, whether by Christ or any thing
else. Instead of teaching universal salvation, properly
so called, it denies all salvation. It denies that Je
sus Christ ever did, or ever will, deliver a sinner from a
single consequence of his sins, or that such a deliver
ance would be either righteous, wise, or merciful.
Since the claims of this sect to be regarded as Chris
tian must be determined by their views of the work
and person of Christ, I shall now bring them to the
test, and show what they think of Christ.
" What think ye of Christ ? is the test,
To try both your state, and your scheme ;
You cannot be right in the rest,
Unless you think rightly of him.''
Let us, then, ascertain if we can, what they teach in
regard to the work, office, and nature, of Jesus of Na
zareth. That Christ is the Savior, the only Savior, of
the world, every believer in the Bible most fully admits ;
and none more so than the Universalist, at least in
word. But let the question be put — " What do you
mean, when you say — ' Christ is the only Savior V —
and it will soon be seen, that, in this respect as in
others, they attach a meaning to the word entirely

156 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Christ saves from no punishment. Views of Murray.
different from that in common use. This will ap
pear in illustrating the following article of their
creed, viz. :
XIII. Christ saves no one from any deserved
SUFFERING.
In former days, when Murray, Winchester, Chauncy,
and Huntington, were on the stage, and their writings
were the standards of Universalism, such a doctrine, as
that just stated, would have been regarded with abhor
rence by the whole sect. The sentiments of Mr. Mur
ray axe thus stated by the Editor of his ' Life ;' (pp. 279,
'80.) " His views of the nature of salvation differ es
sentially from' those now entertained by Universalists.
He held that all were condemned in the first Adam ;
and justified by the vicarious atonement of the second,
Christ. He held to a. complete salvation from pun
ishment through the merits of Christ, — an idea, which
has been very generally abandoned by Universalists, as
well as by many of other denominations, and superseded
by the more rational and scriptural doctrine of salvation
from sin through the medium of truth and grace as com
municated by our Lord Jesus Christ. Indeed it is well
known, that the method by which he proved the final
salvation of all men, and his interpretations of Scrip
ture, differed essentially from those of the denomina
tion generally."
Between Mr. Murray, the founder of American Uni
versalism, and his degenerate disciples, it is thus most
plainly confessed there is but little, or no, agreement,

DENIAL OF THE ATONEMENT. 157
Latitudinarianism. Views of Winchester.
in respect to the gospel^plan. Almost the only thing
in which they agree is the final ' result.' This is the
chain that binds them all in one bundle. Latitudina-
rian in the extreme, they seem to eare not at all what a
man believes on any point, if he only admits that all
will be happy at last. If Mr. Murray were now to re
visit the earth, with the same sentiments that he had
when in the body, he Would reprobate our Modern
Universalists as but httle better than infidels. Of them
he would say, with even more emphasis, than he said
once of those who held to purgatorial satisfaction —
" In fact, (' Life,' p. 267,) -I know no persons further
from Christianity, genuine Christianity, than such Uni
versalists." Winchester, though differing much from Murray,
most fully attributed man's deliverance from deserved
sufferings to the death of Christ. In his poem, called
" The process and empire of Christ from his birth to
the end of the Mediatorial kingdom," he represents the
crucified Redeemer as saying,
" For all your sins my blood hath now aton'd,
And I am come to comfort all your hearts.
Good-will, peace, pardon, love, and pow'r,
Redemption and salvation I proclaim ;"
and then represents him as going on a mission to hell
to " to the spirits in prison," — to release them from the
awful sufferings brought upon them by their sins. Of
these sufferings, he says (B. X.)

14

158 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Views of Winchester, Chauncy, and Huntington.
" What are all the pains and tortures borne
By martyrs, criminals, and wretched slaves,
Fires, racks, whips, chains, and deaths of ev'ry sort,
That ever men have felt, or did inflict,
Compar'd to what those wretches must endure,
Who to the burning lake shall be condemn'd ?"
" Combine the pain of hunger, sharpest thirst,
The keenest sense of shame and deep disgrace,
Tbe pungent tortures of a guilty mind, . . .
And add to these the real pains of fire ;
Suppose a man in soul and body form'd
In such a manner as to feel the whole,
Without the least abatement, all at once :
Think what his pain and misery must be !
This is the real state of those who fall
Under the dreadful sentence ofthe Lord."
That Dr. Chauncy held the same sentiments is ap
parent throughout his works. " Salvation from wrath
is one thing essentially included in that justification
which is the result of true faith." -(' Salv. of All,'
p. 37.)
I have elsewhere shown that Huntington " held to
the doctrine of the Atonement, whereby Christ suffered
for us the penalty of the divine law, our guilt having
been set to his account, as our federal head and spon
sor, and his obedience in like manner transferred to us ;
a salvation for man solely on the ground of free
grace and mercy." (' Mod. Hist., p. 384.)
But these views are now antiquated. No Univer
salist preacher of our day has any idea of such a de
liverance from deserved sufferings. It is well known
that all our Universalists expect a final and full de
liverance from all sufferings. But it is not so well

DENIAL OF THE ATONEMENT. 159
Limitation of salvation . N o salvation from future wrath.
known on what grounds this expectation is based.
Universalists are much accustomed, in controversy, to
appeal, in support of their hope that all mankind will
go to heaven at last, to those passages which speak of
Christ as the Savior of the world, and as dying for all
— tasting death for every man, and the like. But no
Universalist, at all acquainted with the prevailing
scheme, believes that these passages have any thing to
do with the matter. The salvation of which the sacred
writers speak they understand, as taking place in, and
limited in its effects to, this world. Of course these
declarations of universal salvation have nothing to do
with the question, — ' will all mankind be happy at
last.' This will be better understood by attending to the
following explanations of their views from their own
pens. They begin with affirming that Christ saves no
one from endless misery. Take the following exam
ples from Mr. Ballou; (' Lecture-Sermons,' pp. 13,
244 ;) — " No such penalty of endless misery was ever
connected with the divine law of heaven; and — Jesus did
not come into the world to save sinners from any such
penalty." " The arguments to which we have attend
ed are designed to show that the common notion of
saving mankind from the wrath and curse of God in
the eternal world, is without foundation either in Scrip
ture or reason."
Of course, having denied, that man was ever expos
ed to endless misery, they cannot admit, that Christ
saves them from that which they never would or could

160 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Christ's sufferings nothing to do with a future state.
have suffered. It is not therefore, because Christ is the
Savior of the world, that no one ofthe human race will
be doomed to endless punishment. Christ's salvation
has nothing to do with this matter, as they think, one
way or the other.
Thay also affirm that Christ saves no one from any
deserved punishment either here or hereafter. " No,"
says Mr. Ballou, (' L. Sermons,' p. 13,) " nor did he
come into the world to save the sinner from the pun
ishment of his sins." " The fact is," so he tells us,
(' Expositor,' I. 343, 7,) neither Jesus nor his apostles
ever intimated that mankind were in danger of such a
state of torment in the future world, as is represented
by our divines, or that God had made any provision to
save us from such a calamity." " The Savior taught
no such doctrine. He never intimated that his suffer
ings were necessary to save men from punishment in
the future world, nor that it was necessary that men
should beheve in him for any such purpose."
He will, by no means, admit that what Christ did
in this world had any efficacy in securing to any of the
human family the happiness of heaven, or that it had
any bearing on our future condition in another state of
being. So he tells us, (' L. Sermons,' pp. 16, 17,
242, 3 ;) — " Was there ever a representation more er
roneous, than that which has, for ages, led men to be
heve that there was a divine wrath in God, from
which Jesus came to save sinners !" " The common
doctrine, which teaches us that Christ Jesus came into
this world to save us in another world, is contrary to all

DENIAL OF THE ATONEMENT. 161

Getting an interest in Christ. Mistake about salvaton.
the representations which are found in the Scriptures."
" And you will further observe, that there is just as
much propriety in exhorting people to get an interest
in Adam, so that they may inherit from him the natural
faculties of the body, as to exhort us to get an interest
in Christ."
" It is an error of extensive magnitude to attribute
to the manifestation, or appearance, of Jesus Christ,
and what he did in our world, the cause of that gift
which was made sure to us, in him, before the world
began." " It seems that all, which the Savior did, was
designed as a manifestation of those divine things
which our heavenly Father had given us before the
world began."
The same views are presented by Hosea Ballou,
jun., in the ' Expositor,' (LV. 34 ;) " The notion for
merly current — at least the vulgar one — was, that to
be saved, in the Christian sense of the phrase, is to be
rescued from exposure, — and received into heaven. We
suppose it unnecessary to show, in our pages, that this
is not the meaning. Few Universalists, and probably
none of our readers, regard it as such, or admit that
man needs salvation from a doom which they do not
believe was ever denounced." Yet the same writer
admits that it is " the common sentiment that the term
' salvation,' in its religious use, has always a direct and
immediate reference to our final condition after death."
And such has, for so long a time, been the established
import of the Scripture doctrine of salvation, that he is
constrained to ask, " Does not this idea enter, more or
14*

162 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
No satisfaction to justice. In what salvation consists.
less into the habitual impressions of Universalists them
selves, so as to affect their language and their forms of
argument !i"
We are informed by Mr. Williamson, (' Exp. of
Un.' pp. 14, 16,) that " the Scriptures certainly forbid the
idea that it was any part of the object of a Savior's
mission, to save men from the unmerciful wrath of
God. Neither did Jesus come to save from the just
punishment qf sin, by satisfying the divine justice, and
suffering the penalty due the sinner in his room and
stead." " It was not necessary for Christ to come into
the world to save men from a future endless hell, as a
penalty of the divine law, for the good and sufficient
reason, that no such penalty was ever annexed to that
law." The nature of that salvation of which Christ is the
author they represent as but little understood, save
among themselves. " In discussing the nature of sal
vation," says 0. A. Skinner, ('Un. 111. and Def.' p. 258,)
" it may be well to ask — ' What are the evils under
which we are suffering, and to which we are expos
ed.' The common opinion is, that we are exposed
to God's vindictive wrath, and to a state of endless pun
ishment. — We do not need salvation from these, because
not in any sense exposed to them." " Salvation,
(p. 262,) is dehverance from ignorance, sin and death.
It is to be taught of God, sanctified by the truth, and
rendered immortal."
" Salvation," says Mr. Ballou, (' Lecture-Sermons,'
p. 84,) " consists in knowing God, which makes it evi-

DENIAL OF THE ATONEMENT. 163
Nature of salvation. Evils from which Christ saves .
dent that the nature of God is salvation. As fast,
therefore, as we advance in the knowledge of God, we
enjoy the rich provisions which are made for all peo
ple." Again, (p. 237,) " This passage very plainly
shows us the nature of that salvation of which our text
speaks. It is a salvation from error, deception, igno
rance, and all their evils, to truth, knowledge, un
derstanding, and all then blessings." — " The salvation,
(p. 244,) which the gospel of Jesus Christ effects for
us, is a salvation from our sins, from our wanderings,
from the darkness of our deceived minds, from all un
cleanness, to righteousness, to reconciliation to God, to
the knowledge of the truth, and to hohness of hfe ;"
but not " from the wrath and curse of God in the eter
nal world."
" Universalists believe," says Mr. Lewis, (' Mag.
and' Adv.' VIII. p. 18,) " that salvation is a deliverance
from sin, not deserved punishment." Mr. Wilhamson,
however, confines this kind of salvation to believers,
and calls it conditional ; while he speaks of another
that he calls unconditional. " In what sense," he
asks, (' Exposition,' p. 167,) " is God the Savior of all
men 1 Or what are the evils from which he saves
them 1 I answer, from the power of death and the
darkness of the grave, through the resurrection from
the dead." But in neither of these does he admit that
Christ saved man from the • least deserved punishment.
Indeed he says expressly, (p. 65,) as I have elsewhere
shown, " that it was no part of the object, either of the
labors, sufferings, or death of Christ, to open a way by

164 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Effect of Christ's death only moral. The Atonement exploded.
which the guilty could evade the rod of his Father's
justice." Again, he says, (p. 52,) " The sufferings
and death of Christ — were not designed to placate the
wrath, or satisfy the justice of God, and thus open a
way for the guilty to escape the just punishment of
their sins."
Thus confidently do they affirm, that Jesus of Naza
reth neither did, nor could, do or suffer any thing by
which a single human being either has been, or will
be, delivered from endless misery, or any punishment
either in this world, or in the world to come. What
he did, was the work of a man ; the effect of his
work was only a moral effect. It was designed to
make men -better not in another world, but in this ; by
the moral power of his instructions and hfe to dissuade
men from yielding to the dictates of the flesh, and to
persuade them to follow the better law of the mind— in
other words, to induce them to cease doing evil, and
learn to do well.
The reader will at once see, that this view of the
case entirely " explodes" the common doctrine of the
Atonement. There is no room here for the idea, that
Christ, a superior being, took the place of man, and
suffered in his stead, as his substitute, for the sake of
the guilty — the just for the unjust. Their denial of
this doctrine is plain, direct, and unqualified. They
take no pains to conceal their abhorrence of it.
It is cruel, unjust, unreasonable, horrid, absurd.
Since the " explosion" of the Atonement by Mr. Bal
lou, some forty years ago, they can see with perfect

DENIAL OF THE ATONEMENT. 165
Blood of Christ. Old Jewish notion.
clearness, that no such doctrine was ever taught by
Christ or his apostles, and they are amazed that any
man can be such a simpleton as to believe in it.
" Christians have for a long time believed," says
Mr. Ballou, (' Atonement,' p. 122,) " that the temporal
death of Christ made an atonement for sin, and that
the literal blood of the man who was crucified has
efficacy to cleanse from guilt ; but surely this is car
nality, and carnal mindedness." I suppose that among
these " Christians," he includes one John, the son of
Zebedee, who is known to have believed and taught
that " the blood qf Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all
sin." .
Again, he says, (' L. Sermons,' p. 315,) " Christ did
not die for us, that we might avoid condemnation if
we commit sin, nor did he suffer for us, that we might
not be punished for faults if we commit them. — In
place of his suffering in our room and stead, as our
erroneous doctrines have taught us, he will render unto
every man according to his works." By " erroneous
doctrines" in this passage, he may have reference" to an
old Jewish notion, held by one Isaiah, the son of Amoz,
who is generally understood to have taught, respecting
the Messiah, that " he was wounded for our transgres
sions, he was bruised for our iniquities ; the chastise
ment of our peace was upon him, and by his stripes we
are healed. All we, like sheep, have gone astray, and
the Lord hath laid on him the iniquities qf us all."
What a pity that Isaiah could not have enjoyed the lu
minous teachings of Hosea, the Rabbi of the West !

166 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Corruption of Christianity. Absurdity of substitution.
Mr. Kneeland adopted the views of Mr. Ballou most
fully, and sketched with a bolder hand, a more finished
portraiture of the new doctrine. " There has been
(' Lectures,' pp. 108, '9,) no occasion for an infinite
sacrifice, nor for any sacrifice, to divine justice, in order
to open a way for the forgiveness of sin, and reconcil
iation or salvation of the sinner. I am fully convinced,
that the idea of a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice, or to
appease almighty wrath, is a corruption qf Christianity;
which crept in gradually, with other gross absurdities,
some of which have been already exploded ; (i. e. by
Christians in general, especially in this country ;) but
others still remain."
Having shown what he regards as " the scriptural
doctrine and nature of the atonement" he says, (p.
110,) " In all this, however, we see nothing of the na
ture of a substitute, suffering in our room and stead ;
nothing in the nature of a sacrifice offered up by the
sinner ; nothing in the nature of satisfaction to divine
justice, without which God could not be just and yet
forgive sin, or be the justifier of him that believeth ; no
thing like cancelling an awful debt, and delivering the
sinner from deserved wrath and vengeance." He then
proceeds (p. 114,) to the work " of exposing the glar
ing absurdity of considering the salvation of sinners
to be a salvation from infinite and deserved punishment,
which the sinner justly demerited in sinning against an
infinite Jehovah." And then concludes, (p. 116,)
" may God pardon my error, if it be one, when I say —
there was no necessity for the suffering of Christ, as a
satisfaction to divine justice."

DENIAL OF THE ATONEMENT. 167
A most absurd dogma. A great disservice.
Once more, he remarks, (pp. 71, 72,) that, " the doc
trine which teaches that God could not consistently with
his character forgive sin, until a satisfaction had been
made to his divine justice by suffering humanity, (an
expression which I use to signify all that justice requir
ed ofthe sinner to suffer, or all that Christ endured,) is
a doctrine no where contained in the Bible, and is as
repugnant to reason and sound sense as it would have
been awful in its consequences, admitting this sup
posed satisfaction had never been obtained."
The common doctrine of the Atonement Mr. Skin
ner of Utica classes (' Mag. and Adv.' VH. 279,) among
" the absurdest dogmas that ever man believed, and
which had their origin among the darkest ages the
church ever witnessed." He adds, that such an atone
ment, " so far from being a satisfaction to justice, would
have been a most flagrant and eternal violation of every
principle qf justice." The younger Ballou, in an article
on "the sufferings of Christ," says, (' Exp.' II. 116,) " It
will be seen at once, that they cannot be regarded in
the light of a substitute for the penalty of our sins."
We learn from Mr. Skinner of Boston, (' Un. 111. and
Def.' pp. 110, 113, 127,) that " Christ does not fulfil
the law, by enduring its penalty in the place of the
sinner. Neither is it necessary to the sinner's salva
tion, that any one should suffer as a substitute. — Every
man must suffer in his own person all that the law
threatens ; and for Jesus to take the place of the sin
ner would be doing him the highest disservice."
" Christ does not die as a substitute, to release us from

168

UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.

An outrage on justice. Bloody sacrifices
the punishment due to our sins. — This system has no
foundation : — it is entirely wrong : all its essentia] parts
are erroneous." " The system of vicarious atonement,
is not the system of the Bible. Every part of it is
wrong." Not less positive is "Mr. Williamson. He would
have us believe, (' Exp. of Univ.' pp. 43, 44, 52,) that
" the whole system of vicarious atonement is wrong
— an outrage upon all justice and right, and, as such,
is pronounced by the voice of inspiration, an abom
ination in the sight qf tlie Lord. That — Christ died
a vicarious sacrifice, to appease the wrath, satisfy the
justice, or secure the favor of God, and the escape of
the guilty, is most unequivocally denied. — My objec
tions to the doctrine of vicarious atonement are, that it
is unjust in theory, impossible in fact, and pernicious in
practice." " A sentiment unfounded in reason, scripture,
or fact." What more could an infidel have said 1
Let these examples suffice, to show how utterly An
ti-Christian is this whole scheme. While it denies
what is commonly called the " Atonement," it never
grapples with the arguments by which that doctrine is
vindicated and established. True, the first book that
led the way to the adoption of Modern Universalism,
was a ' Treatise on Atonement,' by H. Ballou. In
such a work we might expect that the system of bloody
sacrifices, as instituted and enjoined by God himself,
and which for so many ages, seemed an indispensable
part of the divine worship on earth, would have been
thoroughly discussed. But no. There is scarcely an

NO SUCH THING AS PUNISHMENT. 169
Levitical Sacrifices. Not expiatory.
allusion to it in the whole discussion. It would not
have been known from this book that there ever was
such a system. The same is true of all, or nearly all,
the pubhcations of the sect, which have come under my
eye. The subject appears to have been most carefully
avoided. I have found but one instance in which there
is even an attempt to meet the difficulty.
„ In the ' Universalist Expositor,' for November, 1838,
there is an article by S. R. Smith of Albany, on " the
Old Testament doctrine of Sacrifice." It is there
maintained, (pp. 394, 418, 424,) " that it does not ap
pear that the legal sacrifices had, or were designed to
have, any influence upon the Deity, or any bearing upon
the credit of his law. — They appear rather to have
been required as the symbols of the temper of mind —
the tokens of the moral feelings of the offerer." Of
the atonement and sin-offerings he says, " Both were
palpably designed for man — to remindhim of what he
owed to his fellow-man, to keep alive the principles of
purity and integrity in his own heart, and to cherish
the feehngs, and direct the spirit, of religion and devo
tion to God." " The conclusion is forced upon us,
that, however proper and useful to man they were, the
Deity was never influenced nor affected by them ; and
that he neither became more gracious for their obser
vance, nor less benignant on account of their omis
sion." In this manner, he endeavours to show, that these sa
crifices had no expiatory meaning. But throughout
the article, there is not the least attempt to account for
15

170 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Requirement of blood. Mysterious silence.
the fact that " without shedding qf blood is no remis
sion." He does not tell us why for so many ages the
blood of innocent animals flowed in ceaseless streams,
and was demanded by a God of goodness and mercy.
Nor could he have shown it, except as Paul has done
in the epistle to the Hebrews. And what is even yet
more remarkable, in -the whole investigation of thirty-
five pages, there is not an allusion, save to the amount
of half a page near the close, to that masterly exposi
tion of the ancient sacrifices, and their reference to that
of Christ, which is found in the epistle to the Hebrews !
Why this silence — this apparent unacquaintance with
these matters 1 Have we not in this very fact, a plain
confession of the weakness of their system ?
But the question will most naturally arise in the rea
der's mind, " In what light do they regard the sufferings
of Christ ?" An answer to this will be given in the
next chapter.

CHAPTER XIII.
THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST NOT PECULIAR.
No peculiarity in the sufferings of Christ — Atonement the
work not of Christ, but ofthe sinnei — Christ suffered not as
much as many others ; and in the same sense as his apostles
did — The. nature of his sufferings the same with theirs —
He saved the world, just as, the American revolutionary
fathers saved their tountry — Agreement with Thomas Paine
— Christ only saves men from deserving punishment — He is
not therefore the Savior of the whole world — Specimens of
false reasoning from the fact that Christ died for all.
" Ye brainless wits ! ye baptiz'd infidels!
Ye worse for mending ! wash'd to fouler stains !
The ransom was paid down; the fund of heav'n,
Heav'ns inexhaustible, exhausted fund
Amazing and amaz'd, pour'd forth the price,
All price beyond." — Young.
The sufferings and death of the author of Christian
ity constitute the chief theme of the epistolary remains
of his apostles. They spake of his blood, as that, to
which they and their brethren owed their whole sal
vation. — " We have redemption through his blood;
the church which he hath purchased with his own
blood ; in whom we have redemption through his
blood, even the forgiveness of sins ; being now justified
by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through

172 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Salvation by the blood of Christ. Christ's sufferings not singular.
him ; we were reconciled to God by the death of his
Son ; having, therefore, boldness to enter into the ho
liest by the blood of Jesus." These forms of expres
sion occur with great frequency in the Christian Scrip
tures. In what light are these declarations to be regarded 1
Do they attribute to the sufferings and death of Christ
any peculiar efficacy 1 Such has been the almost uni
form opinion of the Christian world until latterly.
There are those, who deny that we owe our everlast
ing happiness to what Christ endured on our account,
and who say, that there was no more peculiarity in the
sufferings of Jesus than in those of Peter and Paul.
Such are our Universalists. They teach that
XIV. There was nothing peculiar in Christ's -death.
The Christian reader, who has been accustomed to
regard this sect as a branch of the family of Christ,
and to rank their ministers among the Christian clergy,
will hardly be prepared to see the Redeemer thrust
into the common rank of martyrs and confessors, whose
blood flowed merely because they were overpowered
by their persecutors, and loved their faith more dearly
than life. Mr. Ballou finds fault with us, for over-ra
ting these sufferings. " It does not appear," he says,
(' L. Sermons,' p. 177,) " from the Savior's speech
here recited, that his own sufferings were of that kind
or degree that has been represented by Christian doc
tors. They have supposed that the sufferings of Christ
were far beyond any possible comparison, even greater

SUFFERINGS OF CHRIS't NOT PECULIAR. 173
Christ died as a testimony. Christ and his apostles suffered alike.
than we conceive, and that this rendered them effica
cious with his Father, to procure our pardon of sin."
In the ' Treatise on Atonement,' he says, (p. 107,)
that " God never called for a sacrifice to reconcile
himself to man ; but loved man so that he was pleased
to bruise his Son for our good, to give him to die, in
attestation of love to sinners. The belief, that the great
Jehovah was offended with his creatures to that degree
that nothing but the death of Christ, or the endless
misery of mankind, could appease his anger, is an idea
that has done more injury to the Christian religion,
than the writings of all its opposers for many centu
ries." " To believe in any other atonement," he fur
ther adds, (p. 123,) " than the putting off the old man
with his deeds, and the putting on of the new man, — is
carnal-mindedness and is death."
In these passages, he first implies that the sufferings
of Christ were nqt much, if any, greater than others
experience; and then states that his death was merely
an attestation of God's love to man, that God enter
tains no such displeasure against sinful men as to make
an expiation necessary, and that the only atonement
possible is a change of heart.
In Kneeland's Lectures, (p. 74,) we find the follow
ing statement : " The apostles considered their suffer
ings as filling up the measure of the sufferings of
Christ ; and in as much as they were so, for aught we
can know to the contrary, (and Mr. Kneeland was a
very learned man, they all said in his day,) " there was
the same merit in them. And hence, we are assured,
15*

174 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Their merit the same. The central gallows.
they will meet with the same reward !" The same
merit in the death of Paul that there was in the ueath
of Christ ? And the same reward too 1 If the man
were not already an infidel of the vilest kind, I should
certainly expect that he was on the very point of
trampling the Bible under his feet.
Hear him again. " For aught I can see, (pp. 116,
117,) — God could just as consistently forgive sin before
[the death of Christ,] as since ; neither does he now
forgive sin, on account of, or with the least reference to,
the sufferings qf Christ ; any more than he does on
account of the sufferings of the apostles, or any one else
who has suffered in the same cause." I should not
have made these references to Mr. Kneeland, were it
not that the volume of his Lectures, from which these
extracts »have been taken, have from their first publi
cation been regarded with the utmost favor by the sect,
and at one time thought to be the most complete vin
dication, then extant, of their peculiar views.
Let us hear from Mr. Ballou in his old age. He has
grown somewhat wiser, perhaps, in thirty years, or
since he wrote and first published on the Atonement.
" We really do not comprehend," he says, (' Ex
positor,' I. 170,) " how it is that our hea-venly Father
cannot forgive the sins of his own children, without
doing it in pursuance of such a sacrifice, as the execu
ting of an Infinite being on a gallows erected in the
centre of the Universe." " Nor can we understand
(p. 171,) why our heavenly Father could, with any
more propriety, pardon us after such an unaccountable

SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST NOT PECULIAR. 175
Christ died as a martyr. Others suffer as much.
execution than before. Such an execution could not,
as we can see, alter our moral condition." " That the
Scriptures maintain, (p. 172,) that men are redeemed by
the sufferings and blood of Christ, in a sense which we
can understand, and on a just principle, on which it is
the Christian's duty to lay down his own life, if called
so to do, we did not know that any who profess
Christianity deny. — The sufferings which Jesus en
dured, and the sufferings which his apostles and disci
ples encountered, were all in the same cause, and requi
red for the same end."
We are thus told, that the death of Christ was in no
sense necessary to the forgiveness of sins, that it does
not, and could not affect our moral condition at all,
that it was no more .necessary than the death of any
other human being in like circumstances as a man, and
that it was required for the same end as the death of
the apostles and other martyrs !
" It is commonly supposed," says H. Ballou, Jun.,
(' Expositor,' II. pp. 106, 107,) " that the sufferings
of Christ were of a peculiar character, different in their
very nature from any thing ever endured by man.
They are thought to have been so great, so amazing,
as infinitely to surpass all human ability to sustain."
" What do the Scriptures teach, respecting this point 1
They recognize the fact, as .one which nobody then
doubted or wondered at, that men, mortal men, did
frequently endure fhe same kind of sufferings with
those of Christ, and that they were capable of enduring
them with patience." " The sufferings of Christ

176 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Some have suffered more. Christ endured no penal suffering.
(p. 109, ) were not regarded as pecuhar to himself, but
as shared, in all their detail, by his persecuted follow
ers. — There is scarcely a fact more frequently recog
nized in the New Testament, or introduced in a greater
variety of relations. And with respect to the intense-
ness of his sufferings, — those he endured on the cross did
not equal, or at most did not exceed, those which the
inhabitants of Jerusalem were to experience in the ap
proaching destruction of their city."
That the sufferings of Christ were directly inflicted
by the Father is most fully denied by the same writer.
" That there was a class of sufferings, (p. Ill,) inflict
ed on Christ by the immediate interference of God, is
no more intimated in the Scriptures, than that such was
the case with the Apostles and early Christians." No,
though Isaiah says, '¦' The Lord hath laid on him the
iniquity of us all. It pleased the Lord to bruise him,
he hath put him to grief." Notwithstanding what
Isaiah thought and said, this wiser than the ancient
seer averS, (p. 116,) " that we are absolutely preclu
ded from all supposition of any other sufferings than
those mentioned by the evangelist, or such as arose, in
the natural order of things, from the circumstances in
which he stood. Those that he actually bore, were
such as the apostles and early Christians were parta
kers of." The conclusion to which he comes, in regard
to " the nature and design of Christ's sufferings," is,
(p. 105,) that they were " the same, in their nature,
with other sufferings for righteousness' sake which God
ordains in his providence;" "a necessary, (p. 117,)

SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST NOT PECULIAR. 177
His sufferings merely incidental. Christ suffered as a patriot.
an unavoidable element in the execution of his general
enterprise." In other words they were merely incidental to the
unpopular work in which he was engaged, just as in
the case of the proto-martyr Stephen, and the more re
cent martyrs, Munson, Lyman, and Williams! "In
this sense," we are plainly told, (p. 118,) " his suffer
ings were our ransom, our reconciliation to God, the
price at which our salvation was purchased. — This is
agreeable to the spontaneous and universal language
of all ages, and on all subjects. We say of the Ame
rican revolution, that our fathers purchased the inde
pendence of our country with their blood ; that they
sacrificed themselves for us ; that they were our poli
tical ransom." That is, Christ is the moral ransom of
the world, in the same sense in which the revolution
ary fathers are the " pohtical ransom" of this country.
All this is still more plainly expressed and avowed by
0. A. Skinner. " Christ was a Savior ; (' Univ. 111.
and Def.,' pp. 128, 129, 130,) and in the work of sal
vation he had to encounter error, bigotry, and sin. —
What he endures is incidental to the work of opposing
error, bigotry, and sin. He suffered, as the apostles
and Christian fathers suffered." " Jesus gave him
self for the redemption of the world, just as the re
volutionary fathers gave themselves to effect the
freedom of our country !"
So also says Mr. Le Fevre. He maintains, (' Gos
pel Anchor,' II. 5,) that he " could not believe such a
monstrous hypothesis," as the orthodox doctrine of the

178

universalism as it is.

Christ a revolutionary hero. Paiue's Age of Reason.
Atonement. " The object of Christ's mission, life, suf
ferings, and death, was to reconcile man to God and to
his fellow. In this cause he shed his blood. The sub
ject may be thus illustrated. The heroes of our revolu
tion shed their blood in the cause of freedom, and
through their devotedness and sufferings, we enjoy all
the advantages of civil and religious liberty. It may
therefore be said, almost without a metaphor, by their
stripes we are healed." Vicarious Atonement he re
gards, as " excessively erroneous, and dreadfully re
volting." Mr. Williamson has much to the same effect, and so
have others ; but I forhear to adduce any other wit
nesses. What we have is enough to break our hearts.
— That men, professing Infidelity, should have thus
made the cross of Christ of none effect would not have
surprised us. But that men professing, and very tena
cious of the claim, to be Christians, should thus have
wounded Christ in the house of his friends, is heart
rending. We are confounded, overwhelmed, at such
an unnatural spectacle. " Our only reply is — a flood
qf tears."
Had Thomas Paine enjoyed the rare light of these
luminaries, we should probably never have heard of
" the Age of Reason." His account of the matter, (pp.
31-2,) is strikingly similar. " That such a person as
Jesus Christ existed," he remarks, " and that he was
crucified, — are historical relations strictly within the lim
its of probability. He preached most excellent morali-
tv, and the equality of man ; but he preached also

SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST NOT PECULIAR. 179
Mr. Ballou's Text. Why calkd the Savior ofthe world.
against the corruptions and avarice of the Jewish priests,
and this brought upon him the hatred and vengeance of
the whole order of priesthood. — Neither is it improbable
that Jesus Christ had in contemplation the delivery of
the Jewish nation from the bondage of the Romans.
Between the two, however, this virtuous reformer and
revolutionist lost his life." I can scarcely avoid the
belief, that this last sentence, written and published in
1794, served as the groundwork of this new scheme of
divinity ; especially as Mr. Ballou, the founder of the
order as it now is, confesses that it was his " reading
some deistical writings" that tended to bring him upon
his present ground.
It being thus denied, that the sufferings of Christ
were pecuhar either in kind or degree, or different from
what others in like circumstances experience ; that they
were necessary to the forgiveness of sins ; or that any
are thereby delivered from deserved punishishment, it
will be asked, Why is he called ' the Savior of the
world V To this, it is rephed in the words of Mr. Saw
yer, (' Let. to Remington,' pp. 30, 49,) " Christ did not
come to save man from the punishment of his sin, the
penalty of the broken law ; but he came to save man
from his sins,yrom sinning." "Christ came to save his
people from their sins, and not from the punishment of
their sins ; — to save men from deserving punishment,
rather than from punishment deserved."
" All those passages of scripture," says Mr. Ballou,
(' Exp.' HI. 65,) " which define the nature of salvation,
agree that Jesus Christ saves man from evil which at-

180

UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.

From what Christ saves. Christ died in vain
taches to him in the present world, and which he suf
fers in his present state of being." This salvation has
nothing to do with another world ; the sinner suffers
none the less in another world for what Christ did in
this. And none the less-in this world, except as he is
induced by the example and instruction of Christ to
cease from sin. " It thus appears," he adds, " that the
salvation of mankind by Jesus Christ is a salvation
from sin. And as sin is an evil which attaches to us
in this present state, it appears that, instead of saving
men from just punishment in the future world, Jesus
came to save them from the sin which they commit in
this." Such is the uniform testimony of all their authors,
as far as I have had an opportunity to consult them.
They all maintain that the only sense in which it is
proper to say that Jesus is the Savior of the world, is
that just given; he saves them from committing sin,
and from the temporal evils which would have come
upon them had they committed the sin from which they
are thus dissuaded. " The evils," says Mr. Whittemore,
(' Plain Guide,' p. 254,) " from which Jesus came to
save men are in this world, and for this reason he came
into this world to save them."
But if such was the object of Christ in coming into
the world, and if he saves men in no other way than
by saving them from sin, ignorance, and consequent
misery in this world, then I maintain that Christ died
in vain, as respects the vast multitude of the human
race. The heathen, generation after generation, have

SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST NOT PECULIAR. 181
Christ saves none fully. A trap sprung.
never heard of Christ, much less have they been saved
by him from their sins, or will they be, before death.
Christ, therefore, is, in this sense, no Savior to them,
nor is he to any others fully. Where is the man that
doeth good and sinneth not 1 I know that the Perfec
tionists and some others hold that there are such ; but,
I ask, where is the man 1 I have never known one, of
whom I had any reason to believe it, and, I am sure
that no Universalist of my acquaintance could ever lay
any claim to such perfection with a good grace.
If men continue still to sin, after they have known
Christ, and cease not until death, and if the salvation
which Christ effects has to do only with this life, then
how is Christ in any sense the Savior of the world, or
even of the elect 1 Is not Death, that puts an end to
all sinning, according to their scheme, the great Savior
after all 1 And what need was there for Christ to
die, or suffer at all 1 For where Christ saves one
man from his sins, Death, I repeat it, saves its hun
dreds. Why could not Death have dispensed with
Christ 1
Moreover, by teaching that the sufferings and death
of Christ, affect man only in this present world, they
absolutely exclude themselves from using a large class
of texts, in proof of their principal doctrine, to which
they have been accustomed most confidently to appeal.
Let me recall the language of Mr. Whittemore above —
" The evils from which Jesus came to save men are in
this world ;" and that of Mr. Ballou also, — "All those
passages of Scripture, which define the nature of sal-
16

182

UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.

Bare-faced deception. False premises.
vation, agree that Jesus Christ saves man from evil
which attaches to him in the present world." Of course
there are none in his estimation, which teach that
Christ saves man from any evil in another world. Let
'there be no evasion nor prevarication here. Let the
doctrine be well defined, and then let them abide by it.
What else, now, can it be but the most bare-faced
deception in a Universalist preacher, who believes that
our future condition is not at all affected by what Christ
did, or suffered here, to appeal, in endeavoring to dis
prove endless, or limited, punishment in a future state,
to those texts which represent Christ as the Savior of
all men, &c?
Mr. Whittemore, in his ' Plain Guide,' (p. 25,) at
tempts to show " the final happiness of all men," from
the fact that Christ will save all men — and that God
" will have all men to be saved." But how does this
appear, if the salvation of the Bible has nothing to do
with a future state, as is over and over again declared
by these men in every form 1 Mr. W. pursues the
same course in speaking of the death of Christ, (pp. 34
-36.) And so, too, (p. 50 ;) " He will have all men
to be saved, which is the highest proof of his regard for
all men ; and to this end he has sent his Son to die for
all men, in execution of the divine purpose to bring all
to the enjoyment of salvation." This argument he ad
duces " in support of their belief in the eventual holi
ness and happiness of all men," and therefore uses the
term ' salvation,' as equivalent to endless happiness in a
future state. But, according to their own showing,
it can have no such meaning or reference.

SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST NOT PECULIAR. 183
Sophistry. False conclusions.
Such sophistry is scattered over nearly all Mr. Bal
lou's pages. In the ' Expositor,' (II. p. 355,) after refer-
in g to several texts, he remarks ; — " The salvation of
all men by Jesus Christ seems to be as fully and as ex
plicitly expressed in these declarations, as it can be in
our language. — No fair course of argument can disal
low that his dying expressly for all men is favorable
to the hope that all men will be finally saved by him."
Here salvation is used again in reference to a future
state, contrary to the avowed limitation of it to this
world, by this writer and his brethren.
In like manner, also, Mr. Fernald asks, ('Univ.
against Partialism,' p. 64,) in reference to the text, —
' He gave himself a ransom for all' — " How inefficacious
will his labors, sufferings, and death, prove, if a consid
erable portion, or any, for whom he died, are never to
experience his salvation, but exist for ever in misery
and sin ?" The salvation 6i Christ is here opposed to
an existence forever in misery and sin, and made to
consist in a deliverance from endless misery. But if
the statements above made are correct, the sufferings
of Christ will prove thus inefficacious, having no bear
ing whatever on the future state of mankind.
In order to establish the doctrine of the final happi
ness of all mankind, D. Skinner of Utica remarks,
(' Mag. and Adv.' LLI.254,) "I cannot see how — any two
propositions can be more clearly estabhshed than these
—1. That Christ died for all, and— 2. That he will
save all he died for." Well, what then 1 Does it
follow that all will go to heaven ? No, for nothing that

184

UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.

An appalling conclusion. A great mistake.
Christ did in this world, as they maintain, affects our
condition hereafter in the least degree !
Mr. Thomas very frequently falls into the same er
ror. He refers in his ' Discussion,' (p. 264,) to the
phrase — ' the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of
the world,' " in proof of the final holiness and happi
ness of all mankind." How does it prove this point,
when the salvation of the gospel relates only to this
present world, and not at all to the final state of man
kind 1
Again the same writer observes, (p. 261,) "since
Jesus gave himself a ransom for all, you must either
admit that all will be restored, or consent to the appall
ing conclusion that Christ died in vain." But if Christ
only saves men from sinning in this world, — the only
world, according to them, in which sin can be commit-
ed, — is not this " appalling conclusion" taught by them
selves. So, too, in commenting on the words — ' He is the
propitiation for the sins of the whole world' — he re
marks, (p. 267,) " All I now contend for, is, that the
salvation of all mankind was contemplated in the mis
sion of Christ." — " And to grant (p. 269,) that suffi
cient provision has been made for the salvation of all,
is equivalent to an admission that all men will be
saved ;" — but where 1 Not in a future state, but in this,
Not from punishment, but from sin. Are then all saved
from sin in this life 1 No. Then all will not be — are
not certainly saved even in this world ; and this salva
tion does not concern another world !

SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST NOT PECULIAR. 185
Shifting their position. Subterfuges.
But I need not cite further examples in point. Mr.
Thomas' book, is wholly based on this fallacy. From
beginning to end he refers to such texts in proof of the
salvation of all mankind in another state. And I scarce
ly know one of their books in which this sophistry does
not appear. They are continually shifting then ground
— now maintaining that salvation has nothing to do
with a future state, and that Christ's death accomplish
es nothing for us except while we remain here in this
world, — and then proving that all men will be taken
to dwell for ever in heaven, freed from all sin and sor
row, because Christ died for all, and is, or was, the
Savior of the world ! ! ! Away with such dishonesty —
such pitiful subterfuges — such tricks and double mean
ings. It shows that they do not believe their own de
finitions and doctrines, when they are thus driven to
swallow their own words. A long schooling it needs,
indeed, for men to unlearn the plainest lessons of com
mon sense.

16*

CHAPTER XIV.
DENIAL OF THE TRINITY.
No need of an Incarnate God — Christ only a man — No
truth in the doctrine of the Trinity — Views of Murray —
The Trinity exploded by Hosea Ballou— Christ superior
to other men only by office — Christ not possessed of two na
tures, human and superhuman — Socinianism favorable to
devotion — They profess to honor Christ more than others.
" They now are deem'd the faithful, and are prais'd,
Who, constant only in rejecting Thee,
Deny thy Godhead with a martyr's zeal,
Blind and in love with darkness ! Yet e'en these
Worthy, compar'd with sycophants, who knee
Thy name adoring, and then preach thee man .'" — Cowper.
Universalism has no need of an Incarnate God.
Man may be fitted to act the part of such a Savior as
this system sets forth. The Savior of the Universalist
is merely a distinguished philanthropist — an ardent lov
er of his race, and a pure specimen of human nature.
He is superior to man, but only as one man is superior
to another. He is exalted over even the highest, but
this is owing to the fact, that God has anointed him
with the oil of Gladness above his fellows. The or
thodox Christian has learned from his Bible, that, " in
the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God, and the Word was God ;" that this same Word,

DENIAL OF THE TRINITY.. 187
Jesus Christ only a man. Murray a Sabeliian.
that was God, " was made flesh and dwelt among us ;"
became incarnate, took upon him the form of a servant,
and was made in the hkeness of men ; so that " God
was manifest in the flesh," God became incarnate-
God became man. The Universalist, on the other hand,
does not believe that Jesus of Nazareth, or any part of
the spiritual nature of Jesus had any existence in the
beginning, or even before his conception as a human
being. He maintains that
XV. Jesus Christ was only a man of superior gifts.
And consequently, that
XVI. There is no distinction of persons in the Deity.
These two articles of their creed are so connected
that it will be proper to. consider them together. By
holding the inferiority of the Son, they of course, ex
clude equality with the Father, and so deny the Trin
ity. In this respect they are Socinians of the lowest
stamp. " Father Murray" was a Sabeliian — neither a Trini
tarian, properly, nor yet a Socinian. The editor of his
' Life,' in an exhibition of his faith, represents him, (p.
264,) as a believer in the complex character of the
Divine Being, after this manner ; — " In process of time
this august Creator, was to be enrobed in humanity,
and become the Son born ; was to be exhibited as a
Holy Spirit of consolation, taking of the things of Je
sus, and exhibiting them to the mind, thus speaking
peace."

188 universalism as it is.
Murray's views of Christ. These views discarded.
" Mr. Murray was at the same time a Unitarian and
a Trinitarian, constantly beholding the trinity in unity.
— The Almighty, clad in garments of flesh, became the
God-man, and speaking of himself as man, he says —
' My Father is greater than I ;' while reverting to the
divinity he affirms — ' I and my Father are one.' Was
this true — or was Jesus Christ an imposter 1 In this
view the Scriptures are beautifully consistent. ' I am
God the Savior ; a just God and a Savior ; there is
none beside me.' — Such were the comprehensive views
of Deity, which became more and more luminous to
the mental eye of the preacher."
Although Mr. Murray held the doctrine of the Trini
ty, if at all, only in a modified sense, he certainly re
garded Jesus of Nazareth, as the Supreme God Incar
nate. " It is manifest," he says, (' Letters and Sketch
es,' I. 81,) " that our Savior Jesus Christ, is both God
and man. All fulness dweiieth in him. He was the
God with us. The fullness of the God-head dwelling
in him was the offended Being ; the fullness of our hu
manity in him was the offending nature." The two
distinct and independent natures of Christ, are here
most fully and plainly set forth. " These sentiments,"
says Mr. Everett, the editor of the fifth edition of his
'Life,' " are held, (p. 279,) but by few among those now
denominated Universalists." This departure from their
great leader will now be shown by a reference to
their authorities.
It was owing to the superior discernment of Hosea
Ballou, as I have aheady shown, that the doctrine of

DENIAL OF THE TRINITY. 189

The whole sect Unitarian. Ballou's views.
the Trinity was found to be erroneous, some forty or
fifty years since ; and through his influence " the doc
trines of the Trinity and Atonement, with all kindred
notions, were discarded by the whole denomination, with
a very few exceptions." (' Mod. Hist' p. 432.) " I
cannot say, for certainty," he remarks (p. 437,) " what
year I became a Unitarian, but it was long before I wrote
my Treatise on Atonement." When he wrote that Trea
tise, " although he fully believed, (p. 11,) hi the depen
dence of Christ on his God and Father, — he entertained
the opinion that he had a sentient existence before he
was manifested in flesh." But in relation " to the pre-
existence of Christ," he now differs much from his for
mer self.
In the fifth edition of his ' Treatise,' he ridicules
the very idea of a Trinity, in language hke this : — On
the supposition " that the Mediator is really God, — then
we contend, that if he be the Son of God, he is the son
of himself, and is his own father ; that he is no more
the Son of God, than God is his son." Speaking of
" fhe personage of the Mediator," he says, (p. 113,) —
" We shall contend that the Mediator is a created, de
pendent being." " The reader will then ask, (p. 1 14,) if
we would consider the Mediator no more than equal with
men? We answer — ' Yes,' were it not that our Father
and his Father, our God and his God, hath anointed
him above his fellows." Mark this admission ; Christ
" is no more than equal with men," by nature, but for
certain reasons of office, or state, he has been elevated
to the highest seat among men. He afterwards com-

190 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Christ superior only in office. Kneeland's views.
pares him to an ambassador sent to a foreign court,
who " is, in his official character, the power that sent
him." He admits of no other distinction than this.
As when he states, (' Lect. Ser.' p. 208,) that " it is
plain that the nature of the relation of Jesus to the
Father is the nature of the relation of every man
to the Father of our spirits," and adds a caution
to the nearer " against supposing that he means to
level the blessed Redeemer to no more than an equal
ity with ourselves," since for his office's sake " God
hath highly exalted him" above his original equality
with us.
We find these sentiments running through all their
subsequent standards. Among the first to make a bold
stand publicly against the Trinity, and the divinity of
the Mediator, was Abner Kneeland. " The supposi
tion," (' Lectures,' p. 142,) " that the Mediator possess
ed any thing essential to the Deity, — or that he was es
sentially God, — involves us in absurdity." He speaks of
the doctrine of " the simple humanity qf Christ," as
" the doctrine which I believe, and the doctrine which
I mean to preach as long as God spares my life." —
(Poor man ! he is long since dead, though he lives.)
After what he regards as a somewhat full discussion of
the subject, he adds, (p. 159,) " from the above, and
from all that has been said, it is evident that the apos
tles, and all who conversed with our Lord, before and
after his resurreetion, considered him in no other light
than simply a man approved of God."

DENIAL OF THE TRINITY. 191
Absurd doctrines. Trinity a heathen tradition.
He speaks his mind most fully on this subject, in the
following passage : — " The error (p. 112,) to which
most of the absurd notions in divinity may be traced, is
as I humbly conceive, the supposition that sin is an in
finite evil, which demanded infinite satisfaction to divine
justice. This led the way to the supposed necessity of
an infinite sacrifice : and, as Christ was supposed to
have been this sacrifice, this led to the supposition of his
divine nature; which, in their train, led to other no
tions, inconsistent with themselves, palpably absurd,
contradictory and ridiculous !"
The ' Universalist Expositor,' asks (I. 343,) — " In
what part of the New Testament do we learn that
either Jesus or his apostles labored to prove that he
was God, the Creator of all things 1" It would, of
course, be of no use to refer such an inquirer to John i.
1—3, 14 ; Col. i. 16 ; Heb. i. 2, 8, 10 ; iii. 1—4 ; for
he has set such evidence aside ; he knows more about
it, or knows better how to express his thoughts, than
either John, or Paul, or the Holy Spirit speaking
through then lips.
Mr. Grosh says, (' Mag. and Adv.' III. 397,) " We
believe that the nature of Jesus was strictly the human
nature only, while on earth, — that he had no existence,
before his earthly existence, except in the purpose and
counsel of God, — that he was the chief (or begin
ning) of the creation of God only by the powers and
office with which he was gifted, and by his resurrec
tion." He speaks of the Trinity as a "heathen tradi
tion," incorporated into the Christian system," which

192 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Traditions of men. Revolting to reason.
" has bewildered many sincere believers, and rejoiced
not a few hea rts among skeptics who opposed Chris
tianity." Mr. D. Skinner, also of Utica, speaks (' Mag. and
Adv." III. 333,) of " the mysterious and inexplicable
doctrine of the trinity," as " a doctrine that was un
heard of during the three first centuries of the Christian
era ;" and classes it with others, which, he says, " find
no support in the word of God, are not sanctioned by
the Gospel of our salvation, are not taught either in the
Old or New Testament, are the traditions of men, doc
trines of human invention, unknown in the days of pri
mitive Christianity, and, must finally go down to ' the
tomb of the Capulets'— then primeval nonentity." The
other doctrines, of which he thus speaks, are " the pop
ular doctrine of the fall ;" Adam's being " transformed
from an immortal to a mortal being," and conveying "the
taint of natural and moral death through all his unborn
posterity ;" " the doctrine of total depravity ;" " the
doctrine of election and reprobation;" "the doctrine of
endless misery ;" " the existence of a personal devil ;"
and " the doctrine of vicarious atonement." All — all
wrong, unscriptural, unreasonable and absurd !
The present generation of Universalist preachers can
see neither sense nor reason, much less scripture, in the
doctrine of the Trinity. Speaking of " the favorite
doctrine of the Trinity," S. R. Smith, of Albany, says,
('Mag. and Adv.' VIII. 121,) " there is something so
revolting to reason, so repugnant to all our ideas of num
ber and consistency, in this prevailing dogma, that it is

DENIAL OF THE TRINITY. 193
Image ofthe Father. Our ideas of God.
matter of wonder, not that so many, but that so few,
comparatively, reject the whole system, of which this is
supposed a part." He calls it (p. 122,) a " singularly
absurd doctrine," denies " that this absurd dogma con
stitutes any part of Christianity," and declares that
" the Trinity was never a doctrine of the Bible."
" The popular doctrine of the Trinity," says S. Cobb,
(' U. Exp.' II. 135,) " involving the proper deity of
Christ, seems to us as unscriptural as it is unreasonable.' '
He maintains (pp. 137, 9,) that" Jesus himself clearly dis
claims all pretensions to proper deity." He explains
" the brightness ofthe Father's glory, and the express
image of his person," to mean that " Jesus Christ
came unto mankind in the spirit, the disposition, the
moral nature of God. Here we have, [in the excellent
moral traits of Jesus' character,] the image of the di
vine moral perfections, a ray of the divine brightness."
The author of 'Universalism Illustrated and De
fended,' says, (p. 57,) of the doctrine of the Trinity,
" the first principles of this [doctrine] involve contra
dictions, so that none can receive it without first making
an entire surrender of the understanding." " When
we consider," he adds, (p. 60,) " the peculiar and
strange nature of the doctrine, it seems as though a
bare statement of it is sufficient to refute it." " The
Trinity cannot be true," he says, (p. 63,) " because it
teaches that Christ is God and man at the same time,"
and (p. 72,) " is opposed to all our ideas of God, and
to the uniform language ofthe Bible." In speaking Of
17

194 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Divine nature of Christ. Monstrous dogma.
what he calls the divine character of Christ, " we shall
not be understood," he says, (p. 137,) " to mean that
he was God ; for we have shown that he did not pos
sess the attributes of Deity." This divine nature he
speaks of in four particulars ; his entire devotion to his
work, his unbending adherence to moral principle, his
love and his impartiality. In the same sense, it is said
by Peter, that all believers may " be partakers qf the
divine nature." Here then, is nothing but " simple
humanity." When Christ is spoken of by Paul, as " being in the
form of God," this writer tells us (p. 142,) " by ' form of
God,' the apostle means intellectual and, moral likeness."
That is, his mental and moral character so nearly re
sembled the Father's, that he may be said to have'been
" in the form of God."
A writer in the 'Universalist Union,' (IV.239,) remarksj
that " it is one of the strangest wonders of the world,
that the doctrine ofthe trinity should find a resting-place
in the Christian Church. JVature, reason, and revelation,
are alike against the monstrous dogma." He intimates
that trinitarians are children now, and that bye and bye,
they will become old enough to detect and abandon
the error. A pretty compliment, truly, to the venera
ble fathers of the Church in this and former genera
tions, who thought, spake, and wrote, unmoved by the
fear of man.
Another writer in the same volume, professes (p.
401,) to have discovered that it was a " prejudice of

DENIAL OF THE TRINITY. 195
A pagan prejudice. Christ no more th an a man.
the pagans" that " first suggested to the Christians the
idea of calling Jesus a God. — We can view him in no
more favorable light, than as the man Christ Jesus."
" The supernatural knowledge of our Savior (p. 402,)
is to be understood in the same way with that possessed
by other divinely-inspired persons. — If the knowledge,
possessed by them, does not entitle them to an equality
with God, neither does it in the case of our Savior. — In
both cases the knowledge was obtained in a similar
way. — So it was with the miraculous powers they exer
cised." In respect to the possession of two natures by
Christ, he says, (p. 403,) that " the evidence is not to
be found in the sacred record. The doctrine is attended
with insuperable difficulties."
The conclusion to which this writer comes, is, " that
the Savior was not God ; that he did not possess but
one nature, and that a human nature like our own, — un
der the influence ofthe divine spirit, which enabled him
to perform mighty miracles, and to know all things,
which his natural faculties did not enable him to know."
Such are the unblushing avowals pubhshed to the
world as the tenets of Universalists in this metropolis,
through the columns of a periodical, of which Mr. Saw
yer is the principal editor.
From Mr. Williamson, we learn, through his 'Ex
position of Universalism,' (p. 13,) " that Jesus of Naza
reth was a created and a dependent being, deriving all
his. wonderful powers from God." " If you ask me,"
he says, " if he was no more than a man, my answer is,

196 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
A misguided disciple. Heartfelt devotion .
in the language of Scripture, ' He was made, in all
things, hke unto the brethren,' but was ' anointed with
the oil of gladness above his fellows,' and endued with
power greater than any other man. — He claimed (!) no
higher title than the humble one — 'the Son of man;'
and if he claimed no more for himself, it is a misguided
disciple that claims it for him." " His meat and his
drink (p. 30,) was to do the will of God, and the spirit
of the Lord dwelt richly in him. In this sense, and
this only, he and his Father were one." " The idea
of a Trinity," he maintains, (f. 33,) " is destructive of
real, pure, heartfelt, devotion, to one only living and
true God !" Devotion ! What does the Universalist
know of devotion 1 Where shall we go to find, among
•ither their people or ministers, instances of real, pure,
heartfelt devotion ? Men, that do not even maintain
closet-prayer, not to speak of family-prayer, and whose
whole conduct is any thing but devout, set themselves
up to teach a Baxter, Edwards, Whitefield, Brainard,
Payson, Martyn, and Taylor, what " heartfelt devotion"
means 1
" It moves me more, perhaps, than folly ought,
When some green heads, as void of wit as thought,
Suppose themselves monopolists of sense,
And wiser men's abilities pretense "
And what makes the matter worse, is the fact, that
these men pretend to honor the Savior more than we.

DENIAL OF THE TRINITY. 197
They honor Christ most. We a thousand times less.
They are his genuine disciples — they, above all other
men, possess his spirit, imitate his virtues, magnify his
office, exalt his character, and glory in his cross ! ! !
" Let it not be said," exclaims Mr. Williamson, (p. 35,)
" that these views are calculated to degrade the~Savior
in the estimation of the world, or to undermine the
foundations of confidence in his power to save. His
example and character are not the less lovely because
presented in the person of our elder brother." " Glory
be to him who hath loved us, and died, that he migh
return us to God. — I say, with the full heart, glory and
honor be to Jesus the Savior : — "
" Who knee
Thy name adoring, and then preach thee man !"
Similar language is used by Mr. Manley, of Gaines
ville, Genesee co., N. Y., whose sentiments were given
above from the Universalist Union. " The charge may
be urged," he says, (p. 403,) " that the view we have
presented degrades the Savior — that it tarnishes his
character — that it brings him down from the high sta
tion to which his nature and mighty works entitle him.
We reply — not so. The representation we give of him
exalts him a thousandfold above the common doctrine.
It by no means diminishes the lustre of his fame, but
adds to its brightness and glory. — We think truly, that
the supposition that Jesus was God, degrades his cha
racter ; while the opposite supposition reflects upon him
the brightest glory ! ! '¦"

198 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
A screen.
In the language of Scotland's bard, I say, in respect
to such pretended preachers of Christ, —
" God knows, I'm not the thing I should be,
Nor am I "even the thing I could be,
But twenty times I rather would be
An Atheist clean,
Than under gospel-colors hid be,
Just for a screen."

CHAPTER XV.
G0I>'S FAVOR NEVER LOST.
Recapitulation — God's favor can neither be gained nor lost —
God never displeased with sinners — Not at all affected by
our sins — Never our enemy — All love — Prayer has no effect
upon God — These views popular with the vilest of men.
" That plea refuted, others quick they seek —
Mercy is infinite and man is weak ;
The future shall obliterate the past,
And Heav'n, no doubt, shall be their home at last"
Cowper.
The developments already made of the heresies
taught by Universalists have, doubtless, prepared the
reader for all that may follow. Having removed all
the ancient landmarks, and hurled to the ground the
pillars of truth, they find nothing too sacred for muti
lation or destruction. The way is thus cleared for the
erection of such a structure as suits their corrupt no
tions — in which they may entrench themselves beyond
the reach of every foe. From sin they have nothing to
fear, for it is only a finite evil, and hardly an evil at
all. Its results, certainly, as Mr. Streeter of Boston
maintains, (' Mag. and Adv.' HI. 290,) are properly
no evil, inasmuch as they are the means of the great
est good. " God does not produce," he says, " nor

200 universalism as it is.
Recapitulation. No matter what a man does.
permit any affliction or trouble as an ultimate end.
Under his administration all evils are partial and mo
mentary, and designed to terminate in a greater good. —
The anger of God and the afflictions endured by man
kind are the same thing. — He exercises feelings of
compassion towards us in our deepest sufferings, in
whatever way they may have been brought upon us, and
is determined — to deliver us out of all our tribulations."
Hence, as I have elsewhere shown, they hold that
it would be a real unkindness in God to prevent the
infliction of these apparent evils, or to deliver any of
our race from the sufferings naturally consequent on
their sins. There being, therefore, no need of any sub
stitution of another in our stead, no place is found for
the doctrine of vicarious atonement, and it is discarded.
The sufferings of Jesus are next deprived of all their
peculiarity, and he becomes simply a revolutionary
hero, or, at the most, a distinguished martyr for the
truth. Henceforth he is no longer to be regarded as
" God over all," as having had any real existence
before his appearance in the flesh, or as anything more
than a mere man — our elder brother.
The traditions of the elders being thus ' exploded,'
Universalism proceeds to take the high ground, that
XVII. The favor of God can neither be gained nor
lost.
It matters not how man conducts himself, whether
ill or well, the great God regards him with the same
complacency and pleasure. God's mind is not in the

god's favor never lost. 201
God's wrath is ah love. God never angry.
least degree affected by our sins ; he always loves us,
and all of us, with his whole heart and soul, and none
the less because of any sins that we may have com
mitted in this frail state.
It is not to be supposed by a good Universalist, how
ever conscience may trouble him, arid remorse may
seize upon him, that God can ever be. displeased with
the work of his own hands. No, not even with Pha
raoh, when he poured on Egypt the vials of his wrath;
nor with Israel when he swore in his wrath that they
should not enter into his rest ; nor with Korah and his
crew, when the earth opened and swallowed them up ;
nor with the nations of Canaan, when he gave them to
the exterminating sword ; nor with Ahab and Jezebel ;
nor wim that generation of Israel, that went into cap
tivity ; nor with that which " killed the Lord of life ;"
nor with that which witnessed the destruction of Jeru
salem, and felt its accompanying and unparalleled hor
rors and woes !
All this was LOVE — the means of still greater good
— a light affliction, working for them ' a far more ex
ceeding and eternal weight of glory.' It is out of the
question, say they, that God can ever become unrecon
ciled to man, whether he be a Herod, a Nero, or a
Caesar Borgia.
" It is plain," says Mr. Ballou, speaking of Adam's
first sin, (' Treatise on Atonement,' p. 102,) " that a
material change had taken place in Adam : but can
we prove, that any alteration happened in God? It is
very evident, that Adam was unreconciled to God ; but

202 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
God not affected by Adam's sin. All equally beloved.
it is equally as evident, that God was not unreconciled
to him. — To say that God loved man any less after
transgression than before, denies his unchangeability."
Just as if the unchangeability of God required him to
love sin just as much as hohness ! But proceeds Mr.
B. (p. 104,) " God being infinite in all his glorious at
tributes, he can by no means love at one time, and
hate the same object at another. — The Almighty had
no occasion to dislike Adam after transgression, any
more than he had even before he made him !" This
view upturns orthodoxy at once, and convicts, if true,
even prophets and apostles of heresy.
The same sentiments he presents again and again.
" If we carefully examine the conduct of the Divine
Being towards Adam, before and after transgression,
(' Lect. Sermons,' pp. 25, 26,) shall we find any thing to
justify the belief, that Adam was not equally the object
of divine favor after he sinned as he was before ? — Was
Saul less the object of divine favor before conversion
than afterward 1 Were we less beloved by him [Christ,]
— before he washed us than afterward 1 The hearer
will easily perceive that these queries all tend to show,
that no change in man can effect any change in God.
— His love to his creatures can never increase nor de
crease." He adds, (p. 27,) that " all are equally the
objects of divine love ;" and (p. 28,) that " the com
mon doctrine, which teaches that our Father, who is
in heaven, loves those who love him, but has treasured
up everlasting vengeance against his enemies, is sub
versive of the gospel and religion of Jesus."

god's favor never lost. 203
God never an enemy. No sin can turn him.
But what does God mean when he says, — " If I
whet my glittering sword, and mine hand take hold on
judgment, I will render vengeance to mine enemies 1 —
and in another place, " who shall be punished with
everlastmg destruction 1" Which of these is the best
authority ?
The hearers of this prodigy in theology are caution
ed (p. 32,) against " any belief, which — involves the
notion that God ever was, or ever can be an enemy to
any of the works of his hands." He maintains,
(p. 152,) that " the opinion that our Heavenly Father
became inimical to man in consequence of his sin is —
repugnant to the essential character of the Divine
Being ;" and (p. 309,) " that neither sin nor any thing-
else was ever the cause of enmity in God towards man."
Mr. O. A. Skinner goes so far as to tell us, (' Un. 111.
and Def.,' p. 116,) that " the Scriptures no where
style God our enemy ;" no, not even when God says,
(Ex. xxiii. 22,) " Iwill be an enemy to thine enemies,
and an adversary unto thine adversaries ;" nor (1 Sam.
xxviii. 16,) when Samuel says to Saul, " the Lord is
departed from thee, and is become thine enemy ;" nor
Isa. Ixiii. 10,) when it is said of God, " therefore he
was turned to be their enemy, and he fought against
them." Now whom are we -to believe — Messrs. Bal
lou and Skinner, or " holy men of God," who " spake
as they were moved by the Holy Ghost V
Mr. Williamson assures us, (' Univ. Union, VI. No. 7,)
that " such is the love of God, sin and iniquity and the
most vile ingratitude in all their aggravation and ex-

204 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Sinners nothing to fear. Prayer no effect on God.
cess cannot turn it away. It pours its wondrous flood
over all 'the earth, and reaches, with its healing waters,
the case of the most desperate child of sin and sorrow.
I am aware," he adds, that many, [all the world be
side,] " suppose sin has power to interpose an effectual
barrier to the love of God, and cause him to forsake his
creatures. But you will not fail to perceive that such
a sentiment would falsify the position laid down in the
text." The vilest sinner, therefore, need not fear, that
he has forfeited at all the favor of God.
One more example from Mr. Ballou will suffice.
" The necessity and utility of religion, (' Expositor,' I.
28,) according to common opinion, is on the one hand,
to obtain or secure the divine favor ; and, on the other,
to be screened from the displeasure of the Almighty.
But if our deductions are allowed to stand, it is very
clear that the divine favor can neither be gained nor
lost." Which is the same as to say — let man do what
he will, he cannot alienate from him the love of God ;
it will make no difference in the feelings of God to
wards the sinner. A sentiment than which it would be
difficult to find one more directly contradictory of the
plainest teachings of Scripture.
Accordingly they infer from this doctrine, that Pray
er has no effect on God. " The whole effect of prayer,"
we are told, in ' the Universalist Manual, or Book of
Prayers," (pp. 27, 28, 39,) " and of every other reli
gious duty, must be upon ourselves, and not upon the
Supreme and independent Creator." " But it may be
inquired — If prayers have no effect on God, in what

GOD'S FAVOR NEVER LOST. 205
Use of prayer. Glad tidings.
does their utility consist 1 We answer as before — In
the effect they have upon ourselves and upon com
munity." " Without, therefore, supposing any altera
tion to be effected in the disposition or the purposes of
the Almighty, in relation to mankind, by prayer or
other religious devotions, their utility may be inferred
from then being divinely enjoined, and from their in
fluence upon the minds and the conduct of men." " It
should be considered a great privilege as well as a
great duty. Not, let it be repeated, with the view
that it will effect any sort of change in the Supreme
Being in his disposition, in his will, or in his purposes."
What wretched work does this make of all those
promises which are based on the condition of our pray
ing ? Does not such a view make prayer utterly use
less as far as the Divine Being is concerned 1 He is
not, in the least degree, more favorably disposed to any
of us, whether we pray or not ! Can it be any longer
thought wonderful that prayer is almost unknown
among Universalists, except in public worship 1 Very
rarely do even their ministers maintain family-prayer,
or ever give thanks at then meals^ or observe the form
of entering their closets, and praying secretly and vo
cally to their Father in heaven ! And why should
they 1 Ifa child knew that it made no kind of differ
ence with his parent whether he asked, or not, for what
he wanted, would he trouble himself to ask 1 What a
mockery such prayer would be !
Now all this must be ' glad tidings,' indeed, of
18

206 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Patrons of Universalism. Nucleus of its Societies.
' great joy,' to every blood-thirsty, polluted, and aban
doned wretch on earth. And no wonder is it, that
such men are such warm adherents to our Modern Uni
versalism. Glad enough are they to find that the
Bible can thus be explained to favor their carnal and
vile propensities, to give the lie, not only to orthodox
preachers — those great troublers of the world, but to a
greater troubler still — their own conscience.
Universalist preachers, though they often endeavor
to evade the force of the fact, are not ignorant that
their doctrines find most favor with such men. Speak
ing of the most abandoned class among the Jews in the
days of our Savior, Mr. Whittemore remarks, (' Para
bles,' p. 195,) that "this class of people became ex
ceedingly fond of the society of Jesus, and listened to
his instructions with great delight. — Despised as they
were by the leading religious people of the age, accus
tomed to reproach and contumely, they rejoiced to find
their cause espoused by the great teacher sent from God.
His doctrine met and satisfied their desires, and they
received it with joy. — We learn from this, what class of
people it is, among whom at the present day, the doctrine
ofthe impartial Savior shall flourish in its purity."
Yes, if any one wishes to find the genuine patrons of
Universalism, let him go among the lawless, intempe
rate, and profane. It is such, who first congregate, as
we all know, in every .village and town in the land,
around the first preachers of this ' impartial' doctrine,
and form the nucleus of almost every Universalist So-

GOD'S FAVOR NEVER LOST. 207
Its warmest friends.
ciety in the whole country. And what is. equally mani
fest they love the doctrine most, when most wedded to
then sins.

"  neglecting a' that's guid,
They riot in excess !
Baith careless and fearless
Of either heav'n or hell,
Esteeming and deeming
It a' an idle tale."

CHAPTER XVI.
THIS LIFE NOT PROBATIONARY TO ANOTHER.
Sense of accountability in a future state nearly universal —
Effort to get rid of this responsibility — Mortal life not pro
bationary to another — Conduct here nothing to do with con
dition hereafter — Boston Discussion — No punishment after
death essential to the system — Folly to talk of securing an
interest in Christ — Paul and Nero fare alike hereafter.
" The voice of nature loudly cries,
And many a message from the skies,
That something in us never dies ;
That on this frail uncertain state,
Hang matters of eternal weight ;
That future hfe, in worlds unknown,
Must take its hue from this alone ; —
Whether as heav'nly glory bright,
Or dark as mis'ry's woeful night." — Burns.
They, who have beheved in a future state of being,
have, with very few exceptions, in every age of the
world, whether Jews, Pagans, Moslems, or Christians,
regarded human hfe as a state of probation for eter
nity. The common sense of the world, as well as their
knowledge of the Bible, has taught them to expect that
their happiness, or condition, hereafter, depends on their
conduct here — that the character formed in this life

THIS LIFE NOT PROBATIONARY TO ANOTHER. 209
Probation, exploded.
gives character to then eternal being. On this point
the agreement is wonderful ;
" 'Tis the divinity that stirs within us,"
that thus teaches us to shape all our conduct here, so
that we may be happy hereafter.
But what truth is too sacred for those who are de
termined that there shall not be the least probability of
punishment in a future state, and who, to quiet their
own conscience, try their utmost to lull the consciences
of then fellow-sinners to sleep also ? There is no end
to their discoveries in theology. One antiquated tra
dition is no sooner ' exploded,' than another receives
the same treatment. They care but little how preva
lent the doctrine may have been, even among the
learned, the wise, the good, the holy, and the vene
rable. The fathers were but babes compared with
these. Giants there were in those days, but these have
far outstripped them. They are the people, and wis
dom must die with them. How blessed are we who
are permitted to walk in the light of such luminaries,
" Which kings and prophets waited for,
AncTsought but never found !"
The next great discovery to which the reader's at
tention will be directed, concerns the connection of
time with eternity. They have ascertained, and are
endeavoring to act in accordance with the supposed
fact, that 18*

210 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
No trial for eternity. The case settled.
XVIII. — Mortal life is not, in any sense, a state of
PROBATION FOR ANOTHER STATE OF BEING.
They have discovered that nothing, that a man does
here, affects in the least degree his condition hereafter ;
he is not on trial for eternity ; it matters not, as. far as
another world is concerned, how he lives or dies.
Speaking of the common views in regard to a " day
of probation," the author of ' Lecture-Sermons ' says, (p.
85,) " this subject is erroneously represented, as if we
were to receive eternal life as a reward for knowing
God in a certain given time, called the time of our pro
bation." " The common doctrine ofthe church (p. 369,)
contends that if men do not repent of their sins in this
life, they will not be allowed the privilege of repenting
in a future state, and therefore must remain sinful for
ever. Now all these notions are the offspring of imagi
nation, and have no foundation in reason nor in the
Scripture qf truth." Again he says, (p. 337,) " there
surely is not the shadow of propriety in supposing that
a state of permanent felicity in the eternal world is
according to our works in this."
It will readily be perceived that, if this be the case,
it settles at once the meaning of those knotty words
' forever,' ' everlasting,' and ' eternal.' Of course, they
can have no possible reference to another state of being,
when applied to the consequences of human conduct,
if that conduct has no connection whatever with the
future state. It saves much trouble in the philological,
or exegetical, argument. He, who denies that this is a

THIS LIFE NOT PROBATIONARY TO ANOTHER. 211
First principles. ' No agency in securing heaven.
state probationary to another, never can be brought to
admit that such words relate to that other state at all.
The controversy, therefore, must be carried back to the
very principles of rehgion.
So lately as December 26, 1840, Mr. Ballou has
published to the world in the ' Trumpet,' " the most re
cent improvements" of this doctrine. " It appears," he
remarks, " that man's final destiny does not depend on
man, but on God who made him. Among the nume
rous errors, which have by men been imbibed, none
have been greater than the supposition, that revealed
religion was designed, by the Creator, for the purpose
of securing to us a state of immortality beyond our
present mode of existence. Such a supposition con
flicts with the fact, that man's immortality was em
braced in the purpose of God originally. And the
opinion, that the accommodations, or enjoyments in a
future, immortal state, depend either on what men believe
or do in this mortal state, is an opinion which sets aside
any original purpose, will, or determination of the
Creator, respecting these weighty matters."
" As man is heir, by the law and constitution of his
nature, to all the benefits resulting from a knowledge
and use of the sciences and arts which have been dis
covered and improved, so also is he, by a divine ar
rangement, heir to all which constitutes the well-being
and felicity of his moral nature. And as he had no
agency in constituting himself an heir to the first men
tioned inheritance, so has he no agency in making him
self an heir to the last."

212 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Heaven a free gift. Human deeds limited to this life.
Here we are told that we have no more to do with
fitting ourselves for the resurrection-state, or the state
of being after the resurrection, than we had in fitting
ourselves to be born into" this world. In plain words,
we have nothing at all to do with it. Whatever we do,
our condition in a future state will not be affected in
the least degree. Such is the import of the following
language also from the same Essay : — " All which be
longs to man, in this natural world, his being and all
his faculties, he must have received, as a free gift from
God, before he could even attempt any work of his
own. If what the gospel of Jesus Christ teaches is
true, if through it life and immortahty are brought to
light, and man is to exist hereafter and forever, that
state of being, all the powers and faculties which in
that state man is to possess, must be the free gift of God,
independent qf human agency. As man's natural, mo
ral, and rehgious duties, in the present state, are all
required for his benefit and enjoyment, while he is in
this state, and as they all grow out of those powers
which he here possesses, as the free gifts of God, so it
is reasonable to expect that man's future state of ex
istence, and all the powers and faculties he may there
possess, will be the free gift of God ; and that his duties
there will be according to that state, and according to
his powers and faculties there given, and for his use
and benefit while he continues in being."
It cannot be admitted for a moment, by the leaders
of this sect, that the consequences of human actions in
this world are unlimited — that they extend beyond the

THIS LIFE NOT PROBATIONARY TO ANOTHER. 213
Boston Discussion. No future retribution.
present life. " All the moral faculties of man," says
Mr. Kneeland, (' Lectures,' p. 65,) are as limited in
their very nature, as his natural faculties; and hence,
the consequences of all our moral actions, whether in
themselves good or evil, are as limited as the conse
quences of our natural actions, which we know, or at
least have every reason to believe, are limited to time ;
and, so far as respects the individual who performs
them, to his own natural life." This, of course, shuts
out entirely the idea that mortal life is a state of pro
bation for eternity.
A discussion was held at Boston, commencing March
18, 1834, and continuing three days, on the question,
" Do the holy Scriptures teach the doctrine, that men
will be punished and rewarded subsequently to this life,
or after death, for the deeds done in this life ?" In other
words, has man " any thing to gain or to lose after
death by his conduct in this hfe V or, is man on pro
bation for eternity 1 The affirmative of this question
was advocated by Mr. Adin Ballou, one of the httle
band of Restorationists, who had broken off from the
sect of Universalists. The proposal came from Mr. B.,
and was addressed to the " Rev. Fathers and Teachers
in the Israel of Universalism." " I believe," he says,
" what you disbelieve — that the holy Scriptures teach
the doctrine of a future righteous retribution. You
consider my behef ' a rehc of heathenism :' I consider
your disbelief a proximate species of anti-Christian
scepticism." It was then distinctly understood that " Universal-

214 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Relic of heathenism. Curious expositions.
ism," properly so called, denied all future retribution
in another state of being for the actions of this, — and
that they regarded such a doctrine — both " Fathers
and Teachers" as a " relic of heathenism."
Mr. Daniel D, Smith, of Boston, defended the nega
tive, denying that man is to be either rewarded or pu
nished hereafter for what he does here. In defending
his position, he would not admit, (p. 12,) " that
Christ was rewarded in a future state for his do
ings here ;" and maintained (p. 13,) that, when the
Savior said to his disciples, — " great is your reward in
Heaven," " it was in their own minds, in the conscious
ness of their own rectitude, that they had their re
ward;"— that (p. 22,) when the Savior said ofthe
poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind," — " they cannot
recompense thee ; for thou shalt be recompensed at the
resurrection of the just," " Christ intended to be under
stood, that, in the course of time, and the order of Pro
vidence, those poor people whom they might entertain,
would be raised from the obscurity of their present con
dition, and would fully recompense the favors they
might have received in the times of their lowliness !" —
" We are informed," he adds (p. 26,) " that the future
life is the free gift of God. — If such is the case, if it is
the free gift of God, how can it possibly have any thing
to do with this life, or be in any way whatever con
nected with it 1 If you would connect the life to come
with the present life, you must show that it is, in all
respects, like the present life." He concludes the dis
cussion by averring, (p. 86,) " I think I have shown,

THIS LD7E NOT PROBATIONARY TO ANOTHER. 215
No passport to heaven needed. Categorical answers.
that the doctrine, which my friend maintains, was a tra
dition of the Pharisees, and as such condemned by Je
sus Christ."
We are told of Mr. Le Fevre, (' Gospel Anchor," II.
289,) that " he does not beheve that men are probation
ers here for eternity. Our good conduct here is not our
passport to heaven and immortality hereafter ; neither
will our bad conduct here cause us to be raised up im
mortal sinners and immortal sufferers. The gift of im
mortahty is the gift of God totally unconnected with
our conduct in the flesh." He tells us himself, that
(' Universalist Union,' TV. 302,-'3,)r" there is no opinion
more current in the church, than that man is, in his
present existence, ' a probationer for eternity,' and that
according as he conducts himself in this ' probationary
state,' so will his everlasting destiny be determined.
Universalists deny the correctness of this sentiment,
and they do so on what to them appears sufficient
grounds — first, it is contrary to reason, and secondly, it
is unsupported by Scripture."
The categorical manner in which Mr. Whittemore
disposes of this question (' Plain Guide,' p. 271,) is
curious enough. " Who says, the present is a state of
of probation 1 Answer. The writer of the objections
before us. Does the Bible say so 1 No." Mr. Tho
mas declares, (' Discussion,' p. 280,) that " the testi
mony of Jesus — destroys the popular notion, that the
condition of man in the future state will be determined
by his character or conduct in this." He speaks also

216 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Life's feeble strings. Future bliss unconditional.
of " the folly of the inquiries which are so frequently
made as to the condition in which a man has died."
Mr. O.A. Skinner tells us, (p. 173, b,) that he "can
not believe that our eternal interests are hung upon
ife's feeble strings." Mr. Femald is quite indignant
at our doctrine. He cannot endure it. " We deny,"
he says, (p. 264,) " that our eternal destiny hereafter
is to depend upon our characters here. A more mon
strous idea could not be conceived, upon the subject of
our salvation." Mr. Williamson is very plain : " The
.popular sentiment (p. 96,) is, that we are, in this world
probationers for eternity, and that the punishment of
sin is reserved to another world and will be endless in
duration. Our views are widely different from this.
We do not believe there is the least possible Scripture for
saying that man is placed in this world as a probationer
for another."
Mr. Lewis, in an exposition of the ' Universalist Be
lief,' affirms, (' Mag. and Adv.' VIII. 26,) that " Uni
versalists believe that although salvation in this world
is evidently conditional, that is to say, is enjoyed only
by means of faith, good works, &c, yet that salvation
in a state of immortahty, is, by no means suspended
upon any exercises or acts of the creature, while in this
state of being. — The object of pure religion, as pos
sessed and practised in this life, is not to purchase or
secure the blessings of an hereafter-state of being, but
to benefit mankind here, by rendering them better and
happier." Another writer in the same volume, (p. 284,) re-

THIS LIFE NOT PROBATIONARY TO ANOTHER. 217
Probation neither wise nor good. A palpable incongruity.
marks, that " the doctrine of probation, and the doc
trine of endless misery, are fundamentals in a system,
which acknowledges that God is good and just ! How
do they harmonize'? Where is the wisdom or the
goodness of forcing into existence a race of beings for
the only purpose of ascertaining whether in another
state of being they are fit to be made happy or mise
rable ? Is it either wise or good to sport thus with
the destiny of intelligent beings 1 — Away, then, with
a system which ascribes to God a character, which we
should be ashamed to bear ourselves !"
One ofthe correspondents ofthe ' Universalist Union,'
(IV. 157,) holds the following language in relation
to the common doctrine of probation : — " It does not
appear to be founded on a just view of the nature of
man, under the moral government of God ; nor does it
accord at all with the divine attributes. — We dissent
from this opinion, and we have many, various, and
strong reasons for so doing. One, and a sufficient
reason is, that it makes the future world exactly like
the present, than which there cannot be a greater mis
take, view it as we will."
In the ' Trumpet' of Sept. 26, 1840, is an article,
copied from the Nazarene, which scouts the very idea
of such a probation. " Some people suppose the divine
purpose in creation was to place man in this world to
make preparation for eternity. Now although this.
doctrine is quite common in Christendom, it would be
difficult to conceive of any thing more palpably incon
gruous and absurd. God could not have intended that
19

218 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Immortal interests not in our hands. No punishment after death.
man should be the subject of trial, and a probationer
for eternity in this life!" The writer of this article de
nies that the Scriptures teach " that God has placed
our immortal interests in our own hands." " Where,"
he asks, " in all God's truth do we read that the great
business of life is to prepare for eternity, and that our
endless weal or wo will be decided by our own uncer
tain choice !"
These numerous references must surely satisfy every
reader that this is a fundamental point with our modern
Universalists ; they seem to be wonderfully agreed in
maintaining that this hfe is not, in any sense, proba
tionary to another state of being. Let this matter,
then, be well understood, and borne in mind. It
serves to throw light on some other parts of their
creed which are not so boldly asserted.
I have been the more particular in bringing forward
numerous witnesses, in reference to this peculiarity of
their creed, that I might show how general is their
behef in no punishment after death. Such unanimity
on the subject of probation certainly shows equal una
nimity in the disbelief of any punishment hereafter — in
the limitation of all punishment, such as it is, to this
hfe. It is thus made clear that no punishment after
death, however unwilling they may be to admit it in
so many words, is an essential article of their creed. Il
follows inevitably from their system.
Entertaining such views of human life, it is no won-
. der that they are opposed to revivals of religion, and
all those preachers whose rousing appeals wake up

THIS LIFE NOT PROBATIONARY TO ANOTHER. 219
The true ministry. Not set to watch for souls.
the community to a deep concern for their future well-
being. It is easy to account for the fact that they un
dertake no mission to heathen lands, nor attempt to
establish themselves among the aborigines of our own
neighborhood. They ridicule the gospel-ministry —
men whose shoe-latchets they are unworthy to loose —
as visionary fanatics. " Nor is it the work of the true
gospel-ministry," says their oracle, (Parables, p. 36,)
" to initiate mankind into any scheme by which they
may secure to themselves the love, fttvor, or mercy of
God ; or whereby they may obtain an heirship with
the sons of God." None are true ministers but they.
" When the preacher forgets Christ, and preaches, ex
horts, and warns the people to secure an interest in
Christ, and sets forth the awful consequences of neg
lect, he is very far from being a faithful and true wit
ness." Do you hear that, Paul 1 How could you be
so unfaithful as to ask that searching question — " How
shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation V and
to utter so many other warnings against those who re
ject the gospel? The " true and faithful witness,"
Hosea Ballou, takes rank before you. Henceforth,
men will ask, not ' What does Paul say V but — ' What
says Hosea V
Hear, too, how Walter Balfour, the perfection of
learning, condemns those of us who fear that the blood
of our fellow-sinners may be required at our hands. —
" It is a false notion, (' Essays,' p. 31,) that ministers
are appointed to watch over the immortal souls of their
hearers, and if any of them should go to hell through

220 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Missions exploded. No matter how a man dies.
their carelessness, they have to give an accouut of this
in a day of general judgment at the end of this world."
This he says in the very face of that declaration of
Paul, — " They watch for your souls as they that must
give account." But what is Paul to him? Is not
Walter the wisest of the two ? Has he not had the
advantage of the noon-day hght of the 19th century ?
Paul was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel ; but
Walter sat under the shadow of Hosea himself.
For this reason he is able also to see through the
folly of sending missionaries to the heathen to save
their souls from hell. " So far," he says, (p. 113,) " as
the object of missions is to save immortal souls from
an endless hell, or any punishment whatever in. a dis
embodied state, a final end is put to all missionary
zeal and exertion. — What immense sums have'been ex
pended in endeavoring to accomplish what never need
ed to be done ! The object proposed is entirely ima
ginary, and it is high time a stop should be put to this
soul-saving business, and the zeal and money expend
ed turned into a better channel."
With these men, it is no matter whether a man dies
happy or not, though they are continually trying to
impose then creed upon the community by long stories
about Universalists who have died in peace. Mr.
Balfour says, (p. 117,) " If my views are correct, peo
ple's anxieties and fears, relative to the condition of
their souls after death, are for ever put to rest. Men
have been taught that their immortal souls must go to
heaven or hell at death. To die right then, must be

THIS LIFE NOT PROBATIONARY TO ANOTHER. 221
Judicial oaths preposterous. Nero will fare as well as Paul.
the first object of concern." " Their minds are direct
ed (p. 118,) to a mere heathen notion, and no wonder it
should give little solid satisfaction, either in life or
death." How lamentably, criminally, and stupidly ignorant,
according to these men, must the Christian world be,
of the very first principles of religion ! What folly is
it to administer an oath in a court of justice, if the ac
tions of this life have nothing to do with another world \
Or what need a Universalist care for such an oath ? —
Most men expect that they will be either better or
worse in another state of being, for then conduct in
this. But this is all wrong, if this" life is not a state of
probation. In that case, John, the beloved disciple,
and Judas, will be exactly on a par in the future
world. Paul will fare no better than Nero. Godli
ness hath promise of the hfe to come no more than un
godliness. Apostates will receive the crown of life
just as well as those who are faithful unto death ; and
they that hate God as truly as they that love him.
They that turn many to righteousness will shine as the
stars forever and ever, and so will they that are ring
leaders in dissipation and crime ;
" Live as yon please, yours is th' immortal prize.1'
And are there found, in this community, men who,
with the Bible in their hands, stand up and proclaim
all this as Christianity — the religion of Jesus of Naza
reth 1 — And do they think that we are all such simple
tons, and have such confidence in their superior dis-
19*

222 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Presumption. Who will hear them.
cernment and piety, that we will all run after them
like a flock of sheep? Hearers they will find un
doubtedly ; for we are told that " the time will come
when they will not endure sound doctrine ; but after
their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers,
having itching ears ; and they shall turn away their
ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."
Such hearers they may and will continue to have. But
the world must run back into barbarism again, before
a creed, that so outrages the plainest teachings of the
Bible, and common sense, can obtain ' universal'
credence.

CHAPTER XVII.
FAITH NOT NECESSARY TO FUTURE HAPPINESS.
Future happiness not dependent on faith — Faith is simple be
lief in evidence — Faith not distinguished into various kinds
— Religion here not necessary to happiness hereafter — Faith
not necessary to justification — Universalism aims only to do
men good here — Their indifference to the woes of the hea
then— Have much the same anxiety as the apostles had — But
never show it.
•' What signifies his barren shine
Of moral pow'rs and reason ?
His English style an' gesture fine
Are a' clean out o' seasou ;
Like Socrates, or Antonine,
Or some old pagan heathen ;
The moral man he does define,
But ne'er a word o' faith in
That's right that day."— Burns.
If it be admitted, that what we do in this world has
nothing to do with our conditionin another, as Univer
salism maintains, then, it follows without doubt that, so
far as a future state is concerned, it matters not what
we believe. A man is none the better for another
world by believing Universalism, or Orthodoxy — Chris
tianity, or Infidelity. He may be a Deist, an Atheist,
or a Pagan ; and yet fare just as well in the resurrec
tion-state, as though he were a Christian. The conse-

224

UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.

No need of Faith. Faith affects this life only.
quences of his faith are all limited to this mortal life.
Let us hear how confidently they affirm that
XIX. — Faith has no connection with happiness in a
FUTURE STATE.
Writing to Dr. Ely, in 1835, Mr. Thomas, then pastor
of a Universalist society in Philadelphia, uses this lan
guage ; (p. 284;) — "And, sir! a faithful examination
of this subject in the light I have presented it, will satis
fy you that the happiness qf the future state is not de
pendent on the exercise of faith in any doctrine what
ever. — Were it otherwise — were the immortal condi
tion of man contingent of faith, or of the performance
of good works, there would be no certainty of the sal
vation of any of our race." So (p. 283,) he says,
" The popular estimate of faith, and of the benefits ac
cruing therefrom, is radically erroneous. — Faith is
simply the result of evidence which the mind deems
conclusive.— Truth exists independently of the evidence
of it, and independently also of the action of the mind."
Therefore, as he tries to show, the welfare of the soul
hereafter cannot be affected by its own action, its be
lief or unbelief.
Similar language is used by Mr. Balfour in his Let
ters to Hudson. " You seem to intimate," he remarks,
(p. 33,) " as if I granted, that faith and obedience here
are absolutely necessary to partaking of the immortal
life by Jesus Christ beyond death and the grave. But
here lies another of your mistaken assumptions.— I
maintain that faith and obedience are absolutely neces-

FAITH NOT NECESSARY TO FUTURE HAPPINESS. 225
All on a par. A good hope.
sary to a participation of the privileges and blessings
of Christ's kingdom on earth, and the enjoyment of the
hope of future immortality in this life. - But it is not
faith and obedience, Sir! but being raised immortal in
the resurrection, equal unto the angels of God, which
fits men for the resurrection-state. It is being chil
dren of the resurrection, not sons of God by faith in
Christ Jesus, prepares men for this state things.
Without this, the believer is no more fitted for it than
the unbeliever."
In the same way he reasons in his 3d Essay ; (p.
238,) " The resurrection of all in the last day depends
'entirely on the fact, is Christ risen from the dead ? But,
I ask, does the faith or unbelief of any man, in any
shape, or in any degree, affect the truth of this fact ?
No ; but he that believes enjoys the hope and consola
tion it is calculated to impart ; and he that believes not
abides in darkness, and is made wretched by his very
unbelief." A man's faith only affects his present con
dition — not at all his future. So says Mr. Balfour.
Says 0. A. Skinner, (pp. 324, '5, '6,) " What is the
foundation of hope ? We answer, it can be nothing
connected with human merit or faithfulness." " And
yet, when Christians talk of getting a hope, they mean
they get that virtue and faith which will carry them to
heaven. — How different from the apostle." " To obtain a
hope is to be made acquainted with this plan [of grace,]
and learn the evidences of universal happiness." It
matters not what the character ofthe man is, if he only
believes that all men will be forever happy. Then he

226 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Faith defined. Nothing but simple belief.
may hope. And this is what the scriptures speak of
when they tell us of a " good hope through grace !" —
Again he says, (p. 266,) — " So far as admission to end
less glory is concerned, the saint and the sinner stand on
a perfect level." But as no one can be a saint without
faith, it is perfectly immaterial, as " far as admission to
endless glory is concerned," whether a man believes in
Christ or not ! How scriptural !
The faith of the Universalist appears to differ not at
all from, or to be any thing more than, simple belief in
evidence. It is merely the assent of the mind, for suf
ficient reasons, to the truth of a particular statement or
proposition. " Christian faith," says Mr. Williamson, '
(' Exposition,' pp. 184, '5,) " is a belief in the mission
and teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ, and so far as the
nature of the thing itself is concerned, it differs not from
faith in any thing else. — The only imaginable differ
ence, in different cases, is not in the thing itself, but in
the subjects upon which it is employed. — By evidence
the judgment is convinced, and from its throne gives
out the decision — ' Thou art the Christ, the Son of the
hving God.' This is faith, and it is produced by the
same means, and is in its nature the same as faith exer
cised upon any other subject. — With such evidence men
may believe with an undoubted faith, and there is no
more need of a miracle, or of any supernatural agency
to produce faith in Christ, than to secure faith in any
thing else which you receive on the strength of evi
dence." Mere intellectual faith, then, constitutes a man
a true Christian, if we may beheve Mr. W. He insists

FAITH NOT NECESSARY TO FUTURE HAPPINESS. 227
But one -kind of faith. A diligent workman.
upon it, (pp. 186-8,) that all " distinctions between va
rious kinds of faith" are " a mere play upon words
without profit. All faith is one and indivisible in na
ture." " Christian faith — is, in its nature, simply the
assent which the mind gives to the truth of these things
[respecting Christ] from the force of evidence, and will,
in each case, be weak or strong, in proportion as the
evidence is understood and appreciated." He then
proceeds to show the " fallacy" of the position, "that mo
man can be saved without faith, and that the eternal
destinies ofthe world are suspended upon the conditions
of faith or unbelief." " The sentiment which teaches —
that men are to be saved in another world, because they
are fortunate enough to believe it so, or lost because they
believe it not so, is grossly absurd and utterly unphi-
losophical." And yet, if there is any certain meaning
in language, Jesus Christ held and taught, and commis
sioned his apostles to teach all nations, that very senti
ment. ,
It seems, however, to be but a small matter with
these men to ascertain what Christ preached, if they
can only know how Father Ballou believes and teach
es. If he says it must be so and so, Mr. Balfour sets
himself to work with Greek and Hebrew characters,
and bye and bye, it is found that all the laws of criti
cism require, that we should understand even those pas
sages that seem most directly opposed to such a view,
just as Mr. Ballou has said it must be. We are, there
fore, to look to Mr. Ballou for the key-note of all their
strains.

228 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Religion needless for heaven. Justification by faith.
Hear then the oracle; " No mistake can be greater
(' Exp.' I. 28,) than the supposition that the Divine
Being is induced to bestow his favor upon us, because
he discovers in us the religion which he approves."
But " without faith it is impossible to please God."
The religion which he approves is faith. Therefore it
is the greatest of mistakes to suppose that our faith has
anything to do with our procuring the favor of God. —
Again, (p. 178,) he says, " The common method of ur
ging the necessity of .being religious, or of having reli
gion in order to be prepared to die and to be happy in
the future state, — we are apprehensive exerts an influ
ence, which they themselves would deprecate, were
they sensible of it." It matters not, then, whether a
man has religion or not in this world, in order to his be
ing happy in the future state !
It has been thought heretofore, that no doctrine i.s
more clearly taught in the word of God than the neces
sity of faith in order to justification. "That God
might be just and the justifier of him which believeth
in Jesus," Christ was set forth a propitiation. " There
fore being justified by faith, we have peace with God.'"
" Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of
the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we
[Jews] have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be
justified by the faith of Christ. Even as Abraham be
lieved God, and it was counted to him for righteous
ness." " Foreseeing that God would justify the hea
then through faith." " The law was our schoolmas
ter to bring us unto Christ that we might be justified

FAITH NOT NECESSARY TO FUTURE HAPPINESS. 229
A greater than Paul. Justifying faith defined.
by faith." Such was the preaching which the Romans
and Galatians were accustomed to hear.
But a greater than Paul is here. A prophet has
risen up in our day, who has discovered that our justi
fication does not depend on that exercise of the mind
which is called ' faith,' or believing ; but that it is al
ready secured, whether we believe or not, by the doc
trine of Christ, or " the faith in Christ," as the whole
system of Christian doctrine is sometimes called. He
treats Paul as he would a mere simpleton. Paul has
said that Abraham's believing was counted unto him for
righteousness. But Ballou says, (' Lect. Sermons,' pp.
306—8,) " It is an egregious mistake to suppose that
Abraham's believing in the promise of God is the
righteousness of faith by which he was constituted the
heir of the world." Contrary to all common sense,
he makes Paul to speak of the faith by which we are
justified, as the same thing with the fact of the resur
rection. Paul had said, referring to Abraham's act of
believing, " Now it was not written for his sake alone,
that it was imputed to him ; but for us also to whom it
shall be imputed, if we BELiEVE^on him that raised up
Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered for
our offences, and raised again for our justification. —
Therefore, being justified by faith, &c." Now a child
must be blind not to see that we are justified " if we
believe in him that raised up Jesus from the dead,"
and that therefore it is said that Christ was raised
again for our justification, because his resurrection is
20

230 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
How justified. Justification unconditional.
the crowning proof of that which we are to believe —
of that which believing we are justified.
But Mr. Ballou wilL have it, (p. 307,) " that this
faith by which we are justified is not our act of believ
ing. — It is evident that the inspired apostle makes the
resurrection of Christ and the faith by which we are
justified the same; by which it is evident, that by
faith he no more meant the act of believing, than he
meant that the resurrection of Jesus for our justifica
tion was the act of our believing." Here faith and
the resurrection are the same thing. But in the very
next sentence he forgets himself and says, " This faith
which is the covenant qf promise, the apostle distin
guishes most clearly from the act of believing." And
he thinks it " needful to be thus particular," in order
'¦' to expose the common error, which supposes that our
act of believing is required as a condition of our jus
tification before God. This error has so confused the
minds of professors of Christianity, that they know
not how to explain their own thoughts. They be
lieve that God requires our act of believing as a con
dition of our justification." But he is wiser than all
who have gone before him ! He is not so foolish as
to believe such an absurdity ! To be sure, Christ
charged the apostles to admit none to his kingdom,
unless they believed — exercised faith : " He that be
lieveth and is baptized, shall be saved ; but he that be
lieveth not shall be damned." But what is that to this
illustrious founder of modern Universalism ?
An infidel could say no more than Mr. Ballou says.

FAITH NOT NECESSARY TO FUTURE HAPPINESS. 231
An unreasonable notion. Faith of devils.
(p. 366 ;) — " The notion that this doctrine consists of
a long string of abstract articles of faith, which have
been written into human creeds, the belief of which
is proposed in the gospel as a condition of our being
made eternally happy in a future state, is so perfectly
destitute of reason, and so foreign from the nature of
events which take place in the system of causes and
effects, that it is by no means entitled to any share of
our confidence." Why does not the man say at once,
that the whole Bible is entitled to our confidence no
further than it suits us to beheve it ? For surely, in
his view, it is a very small matter whether a man be
lieves any part of it or not.
From such evidence it would be an easy matter to
show that devils are Christians ; for " the devils also
beheve and tremble." " And, behold ! they cried out
saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son
of God ?" "I know thee who thou art, the Holy One
of God." The answer which the eunuch gave to Phi
lip, — " I beheve that Jesus Christ is the Son of God,"
— was not more explicit. But Philip said — " If thou
behevest with all thine heart, thou mayest." This
heart-work is all that is wanting to make the devils
Christians. Shall I say the same of these Universal
ists, or not ? Let the reader determine.
Universalists, it is well known, are very anxious to
obtain converts to their faith. But when the question
is asked them, " Where is the need of your preaching
and urging others to believe as you do ?" — instead of

232 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Use of preaching. Only for this life.
declaring that those who beheve will, in that case, be
happier in another state of being, they uniformly reply
— " for the enjoyment to be derived from it in this life."
" We believe," says one, (' Gospel Anchor,' II. 68,)
" Christianity is important, all-important to the reli
gious hopes, duties, consolations, and happiness of
mankind. We would spend and be spent in spread
ing a knowledge of it to the world. Its value in every
point of view is inestimable — its price is infinitely above
rubies. But we do not believe that those who die
without a knowledge of it will be miserable to all eter
nity — no ! no !" It is good enough for this world, but
not at all necessary to one's happiness in another.
In answer to the objection, ' If Universalism be true
it is of no use to preach it,' another remarks, (p. 41,) —
" Whence is this gross mistake ? — I apprehend, it
comes from a false notion of the nature and design of
Christianity. — Universalism does not propose to save
men. from the wrath of their Maker in the eternal
world, but from their ignorance, superstition, and sin,
and the consequences of these in this life. — Universal
ism aims to do men good in this world, not in the next.
— It seeks man's present improvement and happiness ; it
pretends not to know futurity any further than God
has revealed it ; and when its eye looks beyond the dark,
impassable gulf, which separates time from eternity, it
sees only that glorious immortality which is brought to
light in the gospel."
Thus they tacitly admit that it is of no use to preach

FAITH NOT NECESSARY TO FUTURE HAPPINESS. 233
Their benevolence partial. No pity for the heathen.
Universalism, as far as another world is concerned.
Whether men believe as they do or not, they will be
none the less happy hereafter.
But if this be the true reason, why is not their bene
volence equal to their faith — why is it not universal ?
Why do we never hear of Universalist missionary soci
eties ? Why are Universalist preachers never heard
of, except where orthodoxy has lifted up her voice, and
sounded an alarm in the ear of the guilty ? If, as they
say, " they would spend and be spent in spreading a
knowledge of it to the world," why do they never go
among the heathen ? Have they no pity for the mise-.
rable Hindoo, the stupid Chinese, the infatuated Parsee,
the blood-thirsty New Zealander, arid the hunted Afri
can ? Is not the condition of the most deluded Chris
tian almost infinitely raised above even the best of those
pagan tribes ? And how can they hope to make the
world believe that their sole aimr in abusing, reviling.,
and railing at us Christians, is to make us happier in
this present world, when they never stir hand or foot
to bring the light of the gospel to shine on " the dark
places of the earth," which " are full of the habitations
of cruelty ?" — when they oppose, with all their might,
all our efforts to send the Bible to " all the world,"
and to " preach the gospel to every creature."
They give themselves great credit for their zeal.
" All know," says O. A. Skinner, (p. 180,) " that Uni
versalists HAVE MUCH OF THE SAME ANXIETY MANI
FESTED by the Apostles ! ! !" This is news indeed !
20*

234 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Apostolical zeal. Mere words prove nothiug.
When was a Universalist minister ever known to weep
over his hearers because they would not believe ?
When, to exclaim with one, " Oh ! that my head were
waters, and mine eyes a fountain of tears, that I might
weep day and night for the slain of the daughter of
my people ?" Who among them all could ever say —
' Remember, that by the space of three years I ceased
not to warn every one night and day with tears V Not
one. The principal aim of nearly all their sermons
appears to be to cheer up their hearers with the notion,
that there is no hell for the wicked after death, and
that all will go to heaven at last.
But hear Mr. Skinner further. " How can it be other
wise when they see that the happiness of their friends-,
and the prosperity of their country depend upon the at
tention paid to religion ? — What misery is to be com
pared with that arising from the wickedness of our
friends ? Is it strange, then, that there should be tears,
and prayers, and watchings, and trials, in laboring to
restore a sinner ? Surely there is something that can
fill the mind with anguish, besides the fear that we, or
our friends shall drop into endless woe !" But why
all this for friends only 1 It was not so with Christ,
nor with the apostles. Gentiles as well as Jews shared
in the sympathies of Paul, and his tears were shed
mostly for poor heathen.
Let us have something more than words. A well-
organized and well-conducted system of missions to the
heathen, patronized by the whole sect, would do more

FAITH NOT NECESSARY TO FUTURE HAPPINESS. 235
True source of their zeal.
to convince the world of their sincerity, than the loud
est professions. " No wild enthusiast ever yet could rest,
Till half mankind were like himself possess'd.
Fresh confidence the speculatist takes
From ev'ry hair-brain'd proselyte he makes ;
And therefore prints. Himself but half deceiv'd.
Till others have the soothing tale believ'd."

CHAPTER XVIII.
THE NEW BIRTH.
The New Birth—Not necessary to future happiness — Regene
ration not a change of nature — Not u superhuman work —
No change but that ofthe Resurrection needful for entrance
to Heaven — The New Birth really denied — Common doc
trine ridiculed — Mysteriousness of Regeneration denied —
The fact of Regeneration easily known — To be hereafter
experienced by all — Regeneration nothing more than Re
formation, or a change of party — Experience of all the
saints contradicted. " And is the soul indeed so lost 1 one cries,
Fallen from her glory, and forbid to rise 1
Torpid and dull beneath a (cozen zone,
Has she no spark that may be deem'd her own ?
Grant her indebted to what zealots call
Grace undeserv'd, yet surely not for all —
Some beams of rectitude she yet displays,
Some love of virtue and some povv'rto praise ;
Can lift herself above corporeal things,
And soaring on her own unborrow'd wings ;
Possess herself of all that's good and true,
Assert the shies and vindicate her due." — CowpKr.
In a former chapter, it was shown that Universalists
maintain the native purity of every human being. They
teach that man comes into the world as free from taint
as the spotless snow. He forms his own character en-

THE NEW BIRTH. 237

No room for regeneration. None needed here for a future state.
tirely, unaffected by the fact that he is born of woman.
If he sins, (and who, that knows his right hand from
his left, does not ?) his sins are the work of the flesh ;
the mind never of its own accord defiles itself — never
consents to sin. It is the flesh that is to blame.
With such notions of man, how can the Universalist
receive the common doctrine of Regeneration, or the
New Birth ? In such a system, what place can be
found for what is called a change of heart? The heart,
surely needs no change, if neither originally, nor totally
depraved. All that is needed is, for the mind to be en
lightened, divested of prejudice and ignorance, and
then, the pathway of happiness being laid open, the
man will enter and run the race with joy.
Nor, as we have seen, is such a change needed in
order to be happy hereafter, if this life be, in no sense,
a state of probation for another. In that case, it will
profit nothmg in the world to come, to have been born
again, or regenerated here. Paul, with all his holiness
of heart, his untiring zeal, and self-denying labor in
the service of his Master, will occupy a seat in heaven
by the side of the traitor Judas. His conversion, his
new birth, his being a new creature, will do him no
good there. Ahab, and Judas, and Nero, having laid
aside their corruptions in the grave, will in the resur
rection rise as pure and glorious, as David, Paul, or
John. The reader must not, therefore be surprised to find
that Universalists affirm that

238 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Supernatural agency dtffiied. Their views of the new birth.
XX. Regeneration is merely a change of party.
In denying the doctrine ofthe Trinity, they, of course,
deny the personality and divine agency of the Holy
Ghost, as commonly received by the orthodox. Conse
quently, they cannot admit a doctrine, which attributes
to this divine agent, as distinct from the Father and the
Son, a renewing, or regenerating, of the human soul,
mind, or spirit, so making all things new. From all
that can be learned by means of their writings, preach
ing, and discourse, they are entire strangers to any such
change of the heart. They even ridicule those for it,
who profess to have experienced such a change. Those
revivals of religion, too, in, and by means of, which
so many profess to have been made experimentally ac
quainted with this great change, they scoff at, as alto
gether the work of deluded and deceitful men.
It is, by no means, intimated, that Universalists deny
in words the doctrine of the new birth. This would
never answer, without a new translation and an emen
dation of the original Scriptures. Accordingly, we fiud
Mr. Le Fevre very anxious to throw off such an impu
tation. " It has been erroneously supposed," he says,
(' Gospel Anchor,' I. 6 1,) " that the advocates of Uni
versalism do not believe in a new birth, or regenera
tion. This is a very gross mistake ; they consider
it as necessary as any class of Christians; but their
views of it may materially differ from those generally
entertained." " Let no one accuse the Universalists of
denying a change, regeneration, or the new birth.

THE NEW BIRTH. 239
Not a radical change. Their views superficial.
They may be said to be the only denomination who
contend for its actual necessity and unlimited influence."
But what is the character of that regeneration, in
which they so boastingly believe ? Is it the same that
is ordinarily meant by these terms ? No, this they will
not say. It differs " materially" from what is " gene
rally entertained." They hold, that in order for a man
to be a " disciple of the meek and lowly Jesus, and ob
tain citizenship in his kingdom" here on the earth, he
must become a Universalist — so full of love, as not to
believe " in a God of fury and wrath," and not to find
" in the gospel a message of damnation." Let a man
embrace their sentiments, and show much love to his
fellow-men, and, in their eyes, he is regenerated.
" This use of the term regeneration," says Mr. Le
Fevre, " has often been happily and appropriately ap
plied to nations, with a view of conveying a similar sen
timent. A nation that has been sunk in bondage, her
liberties in the hands of a despot, her population deba
sed and slavish, when, in her might, she shall rise from
her degradation, burst the fetters of tyranny, throw off
the yoke of oppression, and assert her unalienable rights,
that nation is very properly said to be regenerated.
She is born into a new state of pohtical existence ; she
has experienced a regenerating power, which has ele
vated her to a new rank among the nations of the
earth." Similar, he would have us to believe, is the
regeneration, or new birth, spoken of in scripture.
But, superficial as is the change here admitted, even
that is required only as a condition of discipleship on

240 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
What they mean by a change. Miserable trifling.
earth. Whatever change may be needed in order to
happiness in heaven, man has no agency in bringing it
about. " It has been generally taught," he adds, " that
unless a man is born into Christ's kingdom here on earth,
he cannot be received into his eternal kingdom hereafter.
It is farther taught^ that comparatively few in the world
are so born. We are aware that these are the doc
trines of men, but certainly they are not the command
ments of God. — We must confess, that it appears some
what preposterous to make the birth apply to this
world, and the kingdom in which the new-born crea
ture enters, to be in another world." In short, they
believe that no other change is necessary in order to
enter the kingdom of endless glory, than that which
will be effected by the resurrection, without the slight
est agency or responsibility of the creature. They
say with the apostle, "we must all be changed."
'• Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God,
neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. It is in
view of this obvious truth, that they teach a radical
change to the whole human race."
What perfect trifling is this. They are much offend
ed if we accuse them of denying a change, (meaning,
of course, a change of heart, in this life,) and they re
ply — ' Oh ! we believe in a change as much as any one
does ; for " we shall all be changed" in being raised
from the dust of death !' — We ask, Do you believe in
the necessity of a change of heart in this world in order
to be happy in another, and the answer is, ' Oh ! yes,
we beheve in the Resurrection ! ! !' Is this the way in

THE NEW BIRTH. 241

No knowledge of a supernatural ehange. Perversion of Solomon's words.
which they preach ? And are the people silly enough
to content themselves with such guides ?
The language of Mr. Williamson is still more expli
cit. Remarking (' G. Anchor,' H. 253,) on what is
called a " change of heart," he says, " We have placed
this caption at the head of this article, to designate
what it is usually supposed to mean, viz. — the radical
change of the whole moral nature of man, brought
about by the agency of the Holy Ghost, and amount
ing to a new creation. Whether men do actually get
changed in this manner, or not, we shall not attempt
to inquire. We only observe that in our intercourse
with the world, we have seen many who professed to
have experienced such a change, but we were never
able to discover it in their lives, or conversation. How
ever the matter may stand in our day, one thing is very
evident, that is, in Solomon's time no such marvellous
changes occurred. Solomon, with all his wisdom, had
never seen such wonders as are told by modern Chris
tians. Hear him : ' I know that whatsoever God doeth
it shall be forever, nothing can be added to it, nor any
thing taken from it.' Now we presume it will be ad
mitted that the creation of man, in the first instance,
was the work of God. Well, was it done forever ?
' No,' says common doctrine ; ' he must meet with a
total change.' Well, can you add any thing to this
work of God ? ' Yes, we can add a new heart.' Can
you take any thing away 1 c Yes, we can take away
the old one.' Such notions poorly harmonize with the
wisdom of Solomon." 21

242

UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.

Ezekiel's views. An irrational dogma.
Thus, in terms the most plain, he denies both the ne
cessity and possibility of that, into the reality of which
he professed not to inquire. The reader is desired to
bear in mind, in this connection, those memorable
words, (Ezek. xi. 19,) " And I will put a new spirit
within you, and I will take the stony heart out of their
flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh;" and,
(xxxvi. 26,) " A new heart also will I give you, and a
new spirit wTill I put within you, and I will take away
the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will put my
Spirit within you."
If any still doubt, whether, or not, these innovators
deny the doctrine of the new birth, as it is commonly
understood, let them read the following, from the pen
of Mr. J. Lewis. He makes bold to say, (' Mag. and
Adv.' HI. 33,) that " the doctrine of the new birth, un
der the form in which it is generally taught, and very
generally received amongst Christians, is doubtless as
clearly explained, and as well understood, as any irra
tional, unintelligible, incomprehensible dogma can be."
" Though much is said in the religious world about rege
neration, and being born again, we apprehend that the
Scriptural import of these expressions is little under
stood ; and that, although it is generally agreed that
the new birth is indispensably necessary, few people
entertain clear, much less consistent, views respecting
its nature." Which is the same as to say, that with
the exception of the few indoctrinated Universalists,
Christians, in general, know nothing at all about it.
Mr. Lewis then proceeds to say, " that to be born of

THE NEW BIRTH. 243

No mystery about it. None need be anxious about it.
God, or to be the children of God, or, in literal terms,
to be like God, we must love all mankind, even our
enemies," i. e. if we are genuine philanthropists, we are
born again, or regenerated. He also states, (p. 34,)
that " the new birth, according to the Scriptural repre
sentation of it — is the enlivening and strengthening of
our affections, the directing of them towards then pro
per objects, and the extension of the same to all our
brethren of the human family. It consists, therefore, in
universal love and good will. — It is not any thing mys
terious, in the common acceptation of that term ; not
an unknowable, indescribable something, absolutely
impenetrable by the human understanding ; but a pro
cess just as susceptible of being understood as any opera
tion of the mind whatever." And all this, in the face
of that declaration of our Savior, (John iii. 8,) " The
wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the
sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and
whither it goeth ; so ' is every one that is born of the
Spirit." We are also told by Mr. Lewis, that " the new birth
is not an operation about which we need to harbor
anxious doubts, whether we are its subjects. A person
may as truly know, and can with as much ease and
certainty determine, whether he has experienced the
new birth, as he can, whether he is honest, or indus
trious, or virtuous in any other respect. Wouldst thou
know whether thou art born of God ? Ask thy own con
science the serious question — ' Do I love my fellow-
creatures ?' The answer thou receivest will decide re
specting thy spiritual condition."

244 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
All to be changed at last. Ignorance of a change of heart.
But what if the individual finds that he is not born
again ? Will that affect his condition hereafter ? Not
at all in the estimation of Mr. Lewis and his brethren.
" It is a doctrine commonly taught at the present day,"
he adds, " that none will be happy in the future state,
but those who partake of the new birth in this. Ac
cording to such a sentiment, the purpose for which our
Creator bestows the new birth, is to constitute its sub
jects the exclusive heirs of salvation. But the apostle
James gives, we think, a different account respecting
the design of God in this matter. — The whole of our
race, are, at length, to become characteristically the
children of God," or partakers of a new birth, not in
deed here, but hereafter, in another state of being ; — a
change as necessary for those, whom they believe to be
born again in this life, as for those, who have never
" so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost."
How perfectly evident is it, from their own showing,
that neither Mr. Le Fevre nor Mr. Williamson, nor
Mr. Lewis, have ever experienced that which Chris
tians are accustomed to call a change of heart ! In
our sense of the phrase, they are unregenerate men, as
are all their brethren who agree with them in the
views above expressed. And if unregenerate, how to
tally unfitted are they to be teachers of the people, in
things pertaining to God ! The poorest Christian
among us, who can barely say — " One thing I know,
that whereas I was blind, now I see," — knows more
about it, from sweet experience, than even their ' Gen
eral Convention'

THE NEW BIRTH. 245

Knowledge is regeneration. Heaven not dependent on the new birth.
Another writer in the same volume, Mr. Hammond,
simplifies the matter still more. " To be born again,"
he assures us, (p. 370,) " could mean nothing less than
coming forth to a knowledge, or a belief, in the doc
trine of life and immortahty, through the medium of
the Savior of the world." " In all this, (p. 371,) we
see nothing mysterious or unaccountable ; but we rea
dily perceive a cause for this change of opinion, conse
quently of affection, which, in my humble opinion, con
stitutes a regeneration or new birth. Mankind must
know God before they can love him. To arrive at a
knowledge of truth is to be born to it. Thus the pro
priety of our text — Except a man be born to a know
ledge of the everlasting Gospel, how can he see the
kingdom of God ?" Let any one, then, be made ac
quainted with the gospel, and he is born again !
The ' Plain Guide' tells us, (p. 158,) that while some
believe that the New Birth is " a total change of na
ture," " others" (referring to Universalists) " believe it
a change of principles, motives and habits." By which
he evidently means nothing more than such a reforma
tion as takes place in the case of a reclaimed drunkard,
robber, or cut-throat ; such as we often see in the case
of many, who, from leading a dissipated life, have be
come very moral and strict in their deportment, but
without any experience of what is called a change of
heart. He further maintains that the New Birth, " is
necessary to make us happy here, and fit us for life's
duties and enjoyments ; and that our final condition is
in no way dependent on our being born again here."
21*

246 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Humility is regeneration. Divine influence denied.
When our Savior said to his disciples, — " Except ye
be converted," &c, the ' Plain Guide' tells us, (p. 109,)
that he simply meant, — " except ye curb this ambi
tion, and cultivate the meek, lovely spirit of a little
child, ye cannot be my disciples, nor subjects of my
moral reign." Not a word here of their turning to
God. Mr. Skinner, on the same text says, (p. 311,)
" conversion consisted in becoming humble. — When a
proud man becomes humble and feels his dependence,
he is converted." The same writer tells us, that " the
difference between the penitent and impenitent is not in
their natures, but in their principles and motives."
This he advances in opposition to those by whom —
" repentance is commonly supposed to be a total
change of our nature," and by whom it is thought,
" that before it takes place, we are totally corrupt."
He avers (p. 310,) " that man has naturally good
powers which are capable of being restored to their
proper use. — Hence repentance is not a total change ;
neither is it a change of nature."
That Mr. Skinner and his brethren do not mean by
their ' conversions,' any thing more than a mere change
of sentiments, leading to the adoption of new princi
ples, &c, is obvious from what follows. " Can we
suppose, — "he asks, (p. 313,) " in the work of conver
sion that there is any supernatural influence exerted ?"
He then refers to several texts, and says, — " Now all
these passages contradict the idea of a supernatural in
fluence." He then adds. (p. 314,) — " Thus we are
CONVERTED IN THE SAME WAY WE ARE REDEEMED FROM

THE NEW BIRTH. 247

A mere change of sentiment. Conversion is reformation.
ANY ERROR IN SCIENCE, OR GOVERNMENT !" That is, in
plain words, — A man becomes a Christian, just as a
child, who has always supposed that the sun goes
round the earth, becomes a convert to the Copernican
or true, solar system ; or just as a federalist becomes a
democrat ! Thus, too, he says, (p. 219,) " To consti
tute man a true Christian, it is only requisite that his
higher powers should be properly developed and culti
vated." What perfect ignorance of any thing hke a spiritual
change is manifested in the following language of Mr.
Grosh ! Referring to John iii. 1 — 13, he remarks,
(' Mag. and Adv.' HI. 268,)—" The birth by the Spirit
named by Jesus, in contradistinction to being born ofthe
earth, earthy, probably refers to the earthly hopes en
tertained by the Jews respecting the Messiah — that they
should not look for an earthly, but a spiritual kingdom
— they must be born not merely of the water, but of the
spirit." Thus Regeneration is made to consist in a
mere change of views, respecting the nature of Christ's
kingdom on the earth !
" What is conversion?" says another, (' Univ. Union,'
IV. 235.) — " It is reformation. It requires no mira
culous power to bring it about, no super-human effort,
but simply, a new course of faith or practice, as the
case may be. — The idea that regeneration is a myste
rious work, and that it is wrought on certain conditions
by the mighty power of God, who interferes especially
in behalf of the penitent sinner, is an error which has
done an immense deal of injury to the cause of rational

248

UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.

Their nrrogance. Experience of thousands.
Christianity. Let it suffice, Christian reader ! if ' you
do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with your
God.' — ' What is the chaff to the wheat ? saith the
Lord.' "
It is not to be regarded as strange that these men
should thus speak. They cannot go beyond their own
experience. They have no knowledge of any other
change than what they have described. Were they
honestly to confess this to their admirers, it would be
well. But when they go beyond this, and declare
that there neither is, has been, nor can be, in this world,
any other, their arrogance is unpardonable. Thou
sands and tens of thousands, and thousands of thousands
rise up and exclaim — ' We know better ;' we have ex
perienced vastly more than is " dreamt of in your phi
losophy." The very thing that you deny and ridicule
we know, by our happy experience, to be a positive
fact ! And so an innumerable cloud qf witnesses, of
saints in all ages, stand ready to testify to the same fact,
The learned, the wise, and the good, in every age, have
with one voice declared that — ' it is even so. We
know it, we feel it.' And yet these upstarts in theolo
gy, merely because they themselves are unregenerate,
in the ordinary sense, are determined that all the world
beside shall be as they are. Are we, are all God's
people, then, deluded ? Is there no reality in that pro
fessed change, for which our thanks are daily poured
out to the Giver of all good ? You may sooner con
vince us that matter itself has no existence, save in the
human fancy, — that we ourselves never had an exist
ence on the earth.

THE NEW BIRTH. 249

Superior information. Throwing offthe mask.
Yet these men pretend to know more about the mat
ter than all who have gone before them ! Are they,
with their confessed inexperience of such a change,
more worthy to be believed than those who have ex
perienced it and therefore speak 1 It is true, indeed,
that " charity believeth all things ;" but he must have
more charity, and less love for the truth, than Paul or
John had, who can believe that such expounders — nay,
such " exploders" — of the word of God, are the suc
cessors of the apostles, or the true disciples of Christ.
Too long have they deceived the people with their vain
pretensions. Let them throw off the mask, arid appear
in their true character.

CHAPTER XIX.
THE RESURRECTION-STATE.
Resurrection — Time of it indefinite — Its nature — Resurrection
of the whole man — At death man annihilated — Man and
beast perish alike — Resurrection is a new creation — Resur
rection denied — The same body not raised again — All equal
in the Resurrection." Is that, all nature starts at, thy desire ?
Art such a clod to wish thyself all clay?
Nature's first wish is endless happiness ;
Annihilation is an after-thought,
A monstrous wish, unborn till virtue dies." — Yoong.
Having disposed of man during his mortal life, and
seen that he has no concern with another, that his
whole existence is bounded by the grave, except as, at
some period far distant, God shall be pleased to renew
that existence, let us extend our view forward to the
end of time, and learn what Universalism teaches in
regard to the resurrection. However much they may
differ as to the time when this event may take place,
they agree that
XXI. All mankind will be equal in the Resurrection.
That they have not settled the question as to the

THE RESURRECTION-STATE. 251
Strange ignorance. What shall be raised ?
time when the resurrection will take place, appears
from the following statement. " Universalism in
volves," says Mr. Cobb, ('Expos.' III. 31,) "the
doctrine of a resurrection of the human race from the
state of death into a state immortal, where they shall
all at length know, and love, and enjoy God. But
whether the resurrection instantly succeeds the death of
the body, or whether it is a progressive work in the
hands of God, performed upon different individuals at
different times, as he shall please to raise them, or
whether it is to take place with all simultaneously, at
some future time, Universalism, as such, does not de
cide. Different individuals have their different opinions
on this question." What can the man mean ? Uni
versalism, he tells us, does not decide whether the re
surrection of the dead " instantly succeeds the death of
the body, or not !" Let him go and ask the charnel-
house, where the bodies of the generations past have
slept for ages, and never more assert so foolish a thing.
Universalism must be the very quintessence of scepti
cism, if it cannot decide a question so simple.
But it is proper to consider what it is that shall be
raised in that day. What kind of a resurrection do
the Christian scriptures reveal ? Plainly a resurrec
tion of the body alone. " With what body do they [the
dead] come ? It is sown a natural body ; it is raised
a spiritual body." It is called " the redemption of the
body." The change that is to take place at the resur
rection, is a change of the body : " Who shall change
our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his

252 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Body alone dies. Annihilation.
glorious body." At the time of the resurrection of
Christ, it is said that " many bodies of the saints arose."
Now, 'body' is, in all these and similar passages,
spoken of in distinction from soul or spirit. It would
be difficult to show that Paul did not believe in the
separate conscious existence of the soul, when the
body should be dissolving in dust. " Knowing," he
says, " that whilst we are at home in the body, we are
absent from the Lord ; and willing rather to be absent
from the body, and to be present with the Lord." It
is the body, and not the soul, that dies and is to be
raised up at the last day. It is the body alone that is
then to undergo this wonderful change. The soul re
tains its conscious existence through the intermediate
state, and when restored to the body after the latter
has undergone this great change, the identity of the
man will be preserved most perfectly.
But this is not the resurrection in which our Univer
salists believe. Theirs is a resurrection of the whole
man. That which we call soul, they maintain dies
with the body — returns to dust, for it is matter also.
At death man is so far annihilated, as to be deprived
of all conscious existence; to crumble, the whole of
him, to dust, so that he never would exist again but
for the resurrection. Universalists not only " wish
themselves all clay," but actually profess to believe
that they are such, and only such. They who died
before the flood, and they who have since followed
them, have perished. They are as much out of exist
ence^ — Moses, David, and Paul — as the brutes that perish.

THE RESURRECTION-STATE. 253
Man but little better than a bruti;. No separate existence of the spirit.
Their life was nothing but breath, which God takes
back at death ; and this they say is the spirit which
" shall return unto God who gave it."
On this point, hear what Mr. Balfour teaches :
" What, say some, (" Three Essays," p. 36,) is there
no difference between men and beasts ? I answer,
yes ; but man's pre-eminence consists in his superior
powers of mind, and in his being raised again from the
dead incorruptible and glorious. The beasts totally
perish, and so would man, if Jesus Christ had not risen
from the dead. If it is contended that man exists after
death, because he has a spirit, it ought also to be con
tended, that beasts live after death, for ' they have all
one breath or spirit.' " And this is the same as to say
that Balaam has now no more existence than the ani
mal on which he rode, by whom he was rebuked. All
mankind who have deceased, are as truly annihilated
as the beasts that have perished. As to what will be
hereafter, we shall see presently.
Commenting on the text, ' the spirit shall return
unto God who gave it,' he says, (p. 37,) " We have
no more reason to conclude from this text, that the
spirit will exist distinct from God after death, than that
the body will exist distinct from the ground after it
returns to the dust. And we may with equal truth be
lieve in pre-existent spirits, as in disembodied spirits.
In short, we may as well assert the pre-existence of
bodies and spirits before God created man, as assert the
separate existence of either after death. Both return
to then original condition. — But we have seen, that
22

254 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
The whole man dies at death. Personal identity.
beasts have the same breath or spirit. Why not affirm,
also, that their spirits shall be happy or miserable in a
disembodied state ?"
Thus they maintain that man and beast perish alike
at and after death. Man is as much annihilated as
matter can be, and nothing remains of him after death
but the original elements of which he was created.
And these soon return to their unformed and chaotic
state again.
Now, it is the doctrine of Universalism, that this
whole man, body and spirit, shall be raised again at
the resurrection ; — that what shall then be raised will
be vastly different from what died ; — that there will
then be an entire new state and constitution of things
— that the minds of what shall then be constituted will
not be at all affected, as, at least, to their moral cha
racter, by what these particles of matter thought, and
felt, and did, in another state ; and that they will then
be so constituted as to be not at all exposed to sin.
But is it proper to call this a resurrection of the
dead ? — a resurrection of our identical selves ? Where
in consists that identity ? Not in the sameness of
either mental or moral character : for no informed
Universalist pretends that even the best of men will
have the same moral character there that they have
here. They must all be changed. And as to the men
tal character, they either pretend not to know what it
will be, or that it will differ essentially from what it
was here. Now, how shall the beings who shall then
he brought into existence know that they are the same

THE RESURRECTION-STATE. 255
A new creation. No salvation at all.
who once hved on earth, — when they have no com
mon basis of moral responsibility, no common con
sciousness, and, for aught that appears, no memory in
common ? Wherein will this transaction differ from a
new creation ? Why is it not as really so as wTas the
creation of Adam from the dust of the earth ? The
beings that will then exist will be created of the same
material, and until God breathes into them the breath
of life, as he did in the case of Adam, they will con
tinue inanimate.
How, then, can we avoid the conclusion, if these
things are so, that we who die do actually perish —
are annihilated ; and that instead of being all of us
taken to heaven at the resurrection, other beings,
other distinct existences, will then be created, and enter
heaven in our stead. In this case, the universal sal
vation, of which these writers boast, and in which they
glory as taught only by them, is no salvation at all.
Instead of saving all or any, they destroy, annihilate
the whole, and create new beings in our stead. The
heaven, therefore, of which they preach, will be enjoy
ed, not by us, or any of Adam's mortal race, but by
another and an entirely distinct race of new-created
beings, whose characters will depend, not even in the
slightest degree, on what ours were in this world.
This system, then, teaches, as fully as ever the Sad
ducees taught it, that there will be no resurrection.
This consequence of their system some of them per
ceive, and are honest enough to avow.
Take an example from the (' Universalist Union,'

256 -universalism as it is.
No resurrection. An Inquiry.
IV. 234,) — " For several centuries past, a large portion
of the Christian world has entertained the opinion that
the bodies of men are to be raised ; that in the consum
mation of all things, the matter composing the physical
body at death, or the clay the spirit tenanted here, will
then be moulded into its original form, and animated by
the same spirit. The learned, with most other Chris
tians, have lived and died in the belief of this doctrine.
Now, without casting a single reflection as to their sin
cerity, the opinion is liable to many and serious objec
tions. — If we admit this doctrine we must give up one
ofthe soundest principles of physiological inquiry."
He then proceeds to state, that our bodies here are
continually undergoing changes, and taking parts, as it
were, of what were formerly numerous other bodies ;
then makes the supposition, of the present thousand
millions on earth, " that in the resurrection they are to
possess the identical matter that this moment forms their
bodies. Now, then," he asks, " as it cannot be denied in
strict truth, that much of this matter formed antecedent
bodies, or bodies in every generation preceding this,
what is to be done ? Shall thousands of spirits be de
prived of their bodies to supply the present generation ?
Can this objection be in any way obviated 1 Is there
not a very great inconsistency in this doctrine ? And
yet of what practical use can we make it ? What care
I, whether I am to possess the same body I now have,
providing another be given me as good, or even better 1
No, if I can have a better, I will most gladly give up
the one I now have."

the resurrection-state. 257
Doctrine called absurd. Resurrection all their hope.
Having indulged in some further calculations, he
adds — " These speculations may be considered foolish,
but no more so than the doctrine is absurd. — The ques
tion is, do or do not the Scriptures warrant the opinion
that the bodies of men are to be raised ? J think they
do not. — I understand that the heavenly body is entirely
distinct from earthly matter, flesh and blood."
It is not affirmed that the views now advanced have
become general, or rather that they are generally
avowed. But that they will be adopted by the sect I
have no manner of doubt. They may call it a resurrec
tion of the dead, but what claim it has to such a cogno
men I am not able to see.
But let this pass. The resurrection-state, as they call
future existence, demands our attention. To this they
look forward as all their hope. 77m it is that consti
tutes salvation. Universalists expect to be saved from
death and to obtain endless happiness, not by reason of
what Christ did for them on the earth by suffering for
sinners, but by, what God will do, by the means of Je
sus Christ, in raising all men from the dead to a life of
endless bliss.
"Many good people," says Mr. Balfour, ('Three
Essays,' p. 186,) " affirm with great confidence, that
unless men are sons of God in this world by faith in
Christ Jesus, they must be miserable forever. Observe
here, that our Lord says nodiing like this, but affirms —
' they are the children of God — being the children of the
resurrection.' If they are raised from the dead, by him,
they are his children. They are then begotten from the

22

#

258 universalism as it is.
No distinctions in the future state. How to become children of God.
dead to an immortal, incorruptible life, which their be
lieving here could neither procure nor prevent." They
are his children then in an entire new state and constitu
tion of things." Thus the Resurrection, not a life of
faith and holiness on earth, fits men completely, accord
ing to this doctrine, to dwell for ever in heaven.
That, in the future state, all the distinctions of moral
character, which separated men here on the earth, will
be entirely unknown, they plainly declare. Mr. Whit
temore says, — (' Plain Guide,' pp. 263, '4,) " that the
sacred writers contemplated mankind as divided into
two distinct classes, is not correct. — The same man may
be righteous at one time and wicked at another. — This
is the only sense in which the righteous and wicked are
mentioned in the Bible. — The Bible does not support
the doctrine of distinctions among mankind ; either in
the grave or beyond it." And having quoted a few
texts, he adds, " Could any careful person gather from
this language the notion that there will be two classes
of mankind, the righteous and the wicked, after the re
surrection ? It is in vain to pretend it."
Mr. Skinner, having shown that all will be raised
from the dead, says of all those raised — " It is this that
makes us children of God ; children in the highest and
most endearing sense. — The resurrection introduces us
into the kingdom of endless blessedness. — Every one
that is raised, is raised into the kingdom of immortal
glory. — We shall all be equal in the resurrection ; — all
alike, all equally honorable, glorious and happy." He

the resurrection-state. 259

All equal in the resurrection.

does not believe that there " one star differeth from
another star in glory." (' Un. 111.' pp. 288, '9.)
As to the resurrection, Mr. Williamson knows (' Ex
position,' p. 127,) that " this is the sum of the matter ;
— WThen a man dies, no matter who he may be, it is for
God to say whether he shall live again ; and, having
decided that he will raise him from the dead, it is for
God, and God alone, to say what shall be his condition ;
and man has, in justice, no right to a voice in that mat
ter at all." And again he concludes, (p. 139,) " Here
I rest upon this point ; if there is truth in the testimony
of Paul, or in the words of th<i Savior, then it is settled,
that the state of man, in the resurrection, is one of im
mortality, incorruption, glory, and power, such as is
enjoyed by the angels of God which are in heaven ;
nor is there the least possible authority for saying that
man shall be raised in two classes, one like the angels
of God in heaven, and the other like the devils that
are in hell." " Enjoyed by the angels of God in hea
ven !" Will Mr. W. explain ? What does he mean
by angels, when he does not believe in such spiritual
beings, fallen or unfallen ?
When the Savior says, " all that are in the graves
shall come forth ; they that have done good unto the
resurrection of life, and they that have done evil unto
the resurrection of damnation," he does not furnish us
with the least possible authority to believe that man
kind will be raised in two classes ! " Not the least pos
sible authority," when nearly every scholar and com
mentator, as well as the unlettered, have regarded it

260 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Babblers to be shunned.
as the highest possible authority for such a doctrine.
So, too, there is not the slightest ground for supposing
that the prophet had any such thought in his mind,
when he said, " many of them that sleep in the dust ol
the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some
to shame and everlasting contempt !" Strange that
any one should ever haver thought so ! Mr. W. must
have a very mean opinion of their discernment ! Ac
cording to him and his brethren, neither of these pas
sages has any reference to a future state.
What says Paul of such ? " Shun profane and vain
babbhngs ; for they will increase unto more ungodliness,
and their word will eat as doth a canker : of whom is
Hymenaeus and Philetus ; who concerning the truth
have erred, saying, — That the resurrection is past
already ; and overthrow the faith of some."

CHAPTER XX.
THE DAY OF JUDGMENT.
Accountability confessed, but not as lo a future state — Views
of the Pharisees in the Savior's day— Scripture language
about the Judgment — How understood at the time — The
Day of Judgment not in a future state — Mr. Balfour's la
bors — Heb. ix. 27 — The common doctrine discarded by them
all. " No more shall Atheists mock his long delay,
His vengeance sleeps no more — behold the day !
Behold ! the Judge descends ; his guards are nigh ;
Tempest and fire attend him down the sky :
When God appears all nature shall adore him,
While sinners tremble, saints rejoice before him." — Watts.
It requires no small effort to shake off that sense
of accountability, which is universally and deeply im
pressed on the human mind. That " God will bring
every work into judgment, with every secret thing,
whether it be good, or whether it be evil," is a truth
that none but the reckless and abandoned can deny.
Universalists maintain it, as they say, more strongly
than any other people. They hold that this world is
the theatre, and this life the state, of equal and exact
retribution.

262 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Accountability. Prevailing belief of the Jews.
But this sense of accountability with most men has
to do chiefly with another world. They expect that a
strict account will be required of them in another state
for the deeds of this. That such were the prevailing
opinions of the Jews in our Savior's day, even Univer
salists are constrained to admit. Referring to the doc
trine of the soul's immortality, and retribution in a fu
ture state, Mr. Balfour remarks, (' Three Essays,' p.
94,) — " The only thing which remains to be shown is,
how these heathen traditions came to be incorporated
with the Christian religion. Ii! is evident they prevailed
many ages before Christ appeared, and prevailed both
among Jews and Gentiles at the commencement of the
Gospel dispensation." In his ' First Inquiry,' (p. 58,)
he says — " Now I admit that to this heathen notion,
[the idea of Hades being- a place of punishment after
death,] our Lord might allude in the parable before us.
The Jews had, in our Lord's day, imbibed many heathen
notions, and this one among the rest." He regards this
as " the language of the popular opinions qf the day."
He says also, (p. 64,) that to speak of " Hades or Sheol"
as " a place qf torment after death, — was in accordance
with current opinion — in perfect agreement with popu
lar opinion. The opinion was current, but it wanted
the stamp of divine authority."
The mass of the Jewish nation were unquestionably
Pharisees. Yet Mr. Whittemore affirms, (' Plain Guide,5
p. 43,) that they " are well known to have believed in end
less punishment." In the discussion between Messrs.
A. Ballou and D. D. Smith, at Boston in 1834, the

THE DAY OF JUDGMENT. 263
Meaning they attached to Christ's words. The judgment to come,
former has these words ; — " Permit me (p. 7,) to re
mind you of one great fact, viz. that the Jews of our
Savior's time, with the exception of the small sect of
Sadducees, believed in the doctrine of future retribution.
This, I believe, is acknowledged on all sides." Nor
does his opponent at all dispute the truth of the ob
servation. Such being the opinion of the Jews of our Savior's
day, in regard to this doctrine of a future retribution, it
is to be supposed that the language of Jesus and his
apostles on such a subject would be such as would not
readily be misunderstood. How, then, I ask, would
then hearers, Jews or Gentiles, have understood such
language as the following ? — " Every idle word that
men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the
day of judgment. — As Paul reasoned of righteousness,
temperance, and a judgment to come, Felix trembled.
— He hath appointed a day in the which he vritt judge
the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath
ordained, whereof he hath given assurance unto all men,
in that he hath raised him from the dead. — As it is ap
pointed unto men once to die, but after this the judg
ment. — It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom
in the day of judgment than for thee. — The Lord
knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations,
and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to
be punished. — And the angels which kept not their
first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath re
served in everlasting chains unto darkness, unto the1
judgment of the great day. — For we must all appear

264 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
An awful alternative. No futurejudgment
before the judgment-seat of Christ ; that every one
may receive the things done in the body, according to
that he hath done, whether it be good or bad."
How else could such passages be understood by those
to whom they were addressed, than as teaching the
doctrine of accountability to God in a future state for
the deeds of this ? If they had gathered their ideas of
a future judgment from the heathen, must they not
have understood, both from Christ and his apostles, that
those ideas were correct — that there is to be a day of
judgment after death — that this judgment will be uni
versal, and that it will be followed by an impartial
retribution ? Most unquestionably. Nor can we es
cape the alternative of imputing to Jesus and his apos
tles the dreadful guilt of deceiving the people on a
point of infinite concernment, unless we admit that
what the Jews must inevitably have understood from
such language was indeed the truth.
Now, in the very face of these facts and declarations,
though in perfect consistency with their scheme, Uni
versalists most positively affirm that
XXII. — There will not be a day of general judgment
IN THE RESURRECTION-STATE.
This denial follows, as a matter of course, from their
teaching that this life is not probationary to another.
And yet it may be well to look at the confident man
ner in which they speak of it ; as though the question
were settled beyond the possibility of a reversal.
In this fearful path Mr. Ballou as usual leads the

THE DAY OF JUDGMENT. 265
The judgment not future. Destruction of Jerusalem.
way. " It seems worthy of special notice," he re
marks, (' Atonement,' pp. 157, '8,) " that in every in
stance in wliich Jesus spake of his coming to judge
men, and to reward them according to their works, he
expresses himself with peculiar emphasis, in limiting
the time to the generation in which he lived. — We think
we are safe in saying, that on no other one subject did
Jesus express himself with more cautious emphasis.
Have we not, then, great reason to marvel, that so
many of those who are the professed disciples of Jesus,
and who profess to preach his word to the people,
should ever have so misconstrued his testimony, as to
represent his coming with his angels to reward men is
to take place in some time which is now future, and in
another state of man's existence ?"
Again, (p. 164,) he says, " After having satisfied
our minds respecting the time of the coming of the
Son of Man to judge and reward men according to
their works, and being assured that that event took
place when Jerusalem was destroyed, and the Jews dis
persed, it remains an easy task to settle the question
respecting the meaning and fulfilment of all the pas
sages in the New Testament which speak of that judg
ment, and the awful calamities- which fell on that
people. But we must always keep in mind the fact
that all/those Scriptures were fulfilled in that genera
tion in which Jesus and his disciples lived."
The work, thus begun by Mr. Ballou, must be carried
on. To this Mr. Balfour diligently applies himself.
23

266 universalism as it is.
Balfour's labors on this doctrine A grand mistake
" Hence comment after comment, spun as fine
As bloated spiders draw the flimsy line :
Hence the same word that bids our lusts obey,
Is misapplied to sanctify their sway :
If stubborn Greek refuse to be his friend,
Hebrew or Syriac shall be forc'd to bend :
If languages and copies all cry — No !
Somebody prov'd it centuries ago.
Like trout pursued, the critic-in despair
Darts to the mud, and finds his safety there."
The result of his diligent investigation is an Essay ol
eighty-five pages, 12mo., in which he professes to have
examined'" all the places where the words rendered
' judge; judgment, condemned, condemnation, damned,
damnation,' &c, are used in the New Testament." The
conclusion to which he arrives, is the same as that with
which he started. He went through the New Testa
ment for the purpose of bending it to his purpose, and,
therefore, we must not be surprised to hear him say, at
the end of his journey, (pp. 304, '5,) ' The sacred writ
ers — never express a judgment or punishment beyond
death by these terms.— Heb. ix. 27, is the only text in
the Bible which speaks of a judgment after death, and
we leave it with every candid man to say, if we have -
not shown that it has no reference to punishment in a
future state." He speaks of it as a " grand mistake,"
to " apply the passages which speak of this judgment
to one in another state of existence."
It may gratify the reader to learn in what manner he
disposes of that knotty passage— Heb. ix. 27,— which
he allows, does " speak of a judgment after death."—

THE DAY OF JUDGMENT. 267
One kind of judgment after death. That judgment defined.
" What judgment, then," he says, (pp. 270,' 1,)" comes
after death ? — I answer, the judgment God pronounced
on all mankind, Gen. iii. 19, ' dust thou art and unto
dust shalt thou return.' Here is a judgment which
comes after death, which is visible, universal, cer
tain, and disputed by no man." But it seems to
have escaped the recollection of Mr. Balfour that, ac
cording to his system, the return of the body to the dust
is not to be regarded as a judgment. It is according
to a natural constitution of the human frame, they say,
and would have taken place had man never sinned.
For this reason, because it involves the idea that
death or the consequences of death are a judgment,
this exposition, though so satisfactory to Mr. Balfour,
that he says, (p. 305,) — " we leave it with every candid
man to say, if we have not shown, that it has no refer
ence to punishment in a future state," — has met with
but little favor among his brethren. There can be,
therefore, but few candid men among them !
The explanation, most popular among them, of this
stubborn text, is the following : — The word ' men,' should
be translated 4he men, meaning " the priests under the
law ;" the death, here spoken of, is the death of the
high priest, who " is represented as being slain in
those sacrifices that were offered," — a figurative, and
not a real, death ; ' the judgment' refers to the high
priest's entering into the holy place, bearing the breast
plate of judgment, and obtaining acceptance for him
self and all the people. Thus the passage is strip
ped of all reference to a future state ; and may be

268 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.

Heb. ix. 27, The meaning discovered.
paraphrased thus ; ' Plain Guide,' (p. 268,) — " As it is
appointed unto men, [the high priests] once to die [in
their sacrifice], and after this the judgment [which
they bore upon their breasts] ; so Christ was once offer
ed," &c.
Now " this" explanation, Mr. Whittemore says, or
this reference of the whole passage " to the sacrificial
death of the high priests under the law," any person
'will perceive at once, who will read the whole passage !"
And yet this explanation, so far as can be learned,
never occurred to a single mortal, until it was invented
by Hosea Ballou. His account of the matter is this :
" When I lived (' Fut. Retribut.' p. 182,) in Portsmouth,
N. H., some fourteen or fifteen years ago, (i. e. about
1817 or 1818) I was made exceedingly glad, by disco
vering, in my study on Heb. ix. 27, 28, what I now be
heve to be the true application and use of the passage. —
I immediately communicated my thoughts on this text, —
and all accepted the exposition with approbation and
delight." And now they are willing, one and all, appa
rently, to risk a future day of judgment on this far
fetched, strained, unnatural, and recently-invented
explanation of a text which plainly declares that
" it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this
the judgment !" 0 the credulity of Ballou's disciples !
And so far from Mr. Balfour's perceiving it, " at once,"
he appears to have been wholly dissatisfied with it,
and so to have wrought out his own in its place.
But, however they may disagree as to the best man
ner of disposing of some hard sayings in Scripture,

THE DAY OF JUDGMENT. 269
Much injury done by the doctrine. The general judgment past.
they are determined that there shall be no such thing
as a day of general judgment for all mankind at the
end of the world. " As we do not believe," says Mr.
Ballou, (' Expositor,' 1. 66,) " that this commonly-receiv
ed doctrine, concerning what our Christian doctors call
the last day, is taught in the Scriptures ; and being per
suaded that much injury has been done to the cause of
pure religion," [Universalism] " by its having been in
culcated and believed, we feel it a duty incumbent on
us to endeavor to convince them that their views are
erroneous ; and that they are contrary to Scripture, and
inconsistent with themselves."
It is said by Mr. Whittemore in the ' Danvers' Dis
cussion,' (p. 28,) — " I wish to know where he finds
any thing said in the Scriptures about a day of judg
ment after death ? The Bible speaks of a judgment,
and a day of judgment, but it no where tells us that this
judgment is to take place in the future state." Of the
day of judgment he remarks, (' Plain Guide,' p. 187,)
" At the destruction of the Jewish nation, there was a
general, judgment among the nations of the earth."
For which we have only the word of Mr. W. History
says nothing about it.'
" The scene (p. 239, )of the events described in" Rev.
xx, " is laid upon the earth, and does not appertain to
another state of being." So dogmatically they can
speak in order to get rid of that striking passage —
"And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God,"
&c. But at other times they are free to admit that the
book is beyond then comprehension.
23*

270 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.

Areflcctionon God. Very Injurious toman.
" The famed hypothesis qf afuture general judgment,"
says Mr. Balch, (' Expositor,' II. 311,) " and the argu
ment founded upon it in favor of a future world in which
to rectify the mistakes ofthe present, is a bold reflection
upon the purity of God's character, and the equity of
his government. — We find it impossible to reconcile
such views with the acknowledged justice and equal
administration of the divine Being. — To what extrava
gance and folly, not to say, blasphemy, has not the wis
dom of this world driven its deluded votaries !"
But the junior preachers are much more positive.
They can scarcely endure it, that their fellow-men
should be so silly as to adopt so foolish a notion.
" There is neither reason nor consistency," says Mr. 0.
A. Skinner, (p. 229,) " in the idea that a day has been
set apart in eternity, for the judgment ofthe world. — We
find the work of judgment always represented as taking
place in the earth. Not an instance can be found, in
all the Scriptures, where it is declared to be in eterni
ty." " The day of judgment — (p. 240,) is not yet future,
but took place nearly two thousand years ago !" " The
Savior (p. 241,) judged the world when the Jews were
destroyed." " No reference (p. 243,) is made to eter
nity in any thing connected with the judgment.
We are assured by Mr. Wilhamson, (' Exposition,'
pp. 115, '6, '7,) that the belief of it" [the common doc
trine ofthe day of judgment] " does no good, but much
positive injury, and the thing itself is as utterly useless,
as faith in its existence." " I hold the common doc
trine of a day of future judgment not only useless, but

THE DAY OF JUDGMENT. 271
An indefensible position. A piece of absurdity.
unjust and abominable." He calls it " an absurd and
indefensible position." " I am free to admit," he adds,
" that the Scriptures speak not only of a day of judg
ment, but- of many and different days of judgment ; and
that the writers of the New Testament speak of one
of these days by way of- eminence, as ' the day of judg
ment.' But — you will find that all these days are in this
world, and that it is men in the flesh and not immortal
spirits in the resurrection, that are to be judged."
One more witness will surely suffice. Mr. Sawyer
says, (' Letters to Remington,' pp. 109, 111,) "Itisnot
true that there is to be a judgment, or that he [Christ] is
to act as a judge, after he descends from the mediatorial
throne. — There is not a particle qf evidence, either in
the Bible or to be derived from the nature of the sub
ject, that there is to be a general judgment, or any judg
ment, after the close of Christ's mediatorial reign."
" You assume that there is to be a great day of general
judgment after Christ descends from his mediatorial
throne, and delivers up his kingdom, and God is all in
all," and he calls this, " apiece qf absurdity, destitute,
as it necessarily is, of every shade of Countenance from
Scripture." He refers in this language, as appears from
p. 112, to what is usually called the final judgment,
when Christ will act no longer as a Mediator, but a
divine Judge ; and this he calls " a piece of absurdity !"
May neither he nor his brethren find it, to their sorrow,
a day of dreadful doom !
If it be, as the wisest and best of men believe it to
. be, a doctrine most clearly revealed, and fully establish-

272 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Stumbling-blocks.
ed, how dreadful must and will be the doom of men
that blind the eyes of their fellow-men to such awful
danger ! In case it is true, then to them it may truly
be said, " Ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against
men ; for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye
them that are entering to go in .'"

CHAPTER XXI.
DEVIL AND HIS ANGELS.
English Translation of the Bible — Mr. Kneeland's version —
neither angels nor devils — Satan a symbolical being only —
Angels only our fellow-men — Devil is the carnal mind — No
agreement as to the identity of the devil — Variety of defini
tions — Sadduceeans.
" Oh ! what a scene is here !" " Two warring worlds
Of more than mortal mounted on the wing ! —
High hov'ring o'er this little brand of strife !
This sublunary ball ! — But strifefor what?
In their own cause conflicting ? No ; in thine,'
[n man's. His single int'rest blows the flame ;
His tbe sole stake ; his fate the trumpet sounds,
Which kindles war immortal. How it burns !
Tumultuous swarms of deities in arms !" —
" Think not this fiction: — ' There was war in heav'n.' "
Yoohc.
One of the greatest hindrances to fhe spread of Uni
versalism in our land is, the wonderful and universal
influence of our Received Version of the Bible. Every
body knows, that our Enghsh translation of the Scrip
tures was made by men who most thoroughly beheved
the orthodox creed, concerning hell and damnation.
The vast learning, which they brought to the work of

274 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Received Version. Kneeland prepares to supplant it.
translation, and the diligence with which they pried
into the meaning of the sacred oracles, seem but to have
confirmed them in this belief. They accordingly pro
duced a translation, the reading of which, in every sub
sequent age, has tended to lead both old and young
into the same belief.
In order, therefore, to build up Universalism, it be
comes necessary — indispensably necessary — for the
preacher to throw down this strong foundation. Con
sequently, in all his sermons, you find him arraigning
this dreadful translation. It seems to be no small part
of his work utterly to destroy all confidence in such a
version. ' This is wrong, and that is wrong' — is so
often repeated that the poor hearer knows not what to
believe. The preacher flies off to Hebrew and Greek
where he knows that his hearers cannot follow him, and
finding the coast clear, he expatiates, with all the glad
ness of a liberated slave, in his freeedom. Most pro
bably, he could not tell" an Aleph from a Beth, if his
life depended on it. But the people think him won
drous wise, and this is enough for his purpose. " Gash-
mu saith it."
To remove this difficulty, Mr. Kneeland, " entering
into the work of the ministry totally ignorant of the
dead languages," set himself, " through indefatigable
labor and toil," to obtain sufficient knowledge for the
work of a new translation — one that should be worthy
of the confidence of the world. Into whose hands
could such a work be committed with more hope of
complete success ? Mr. Kneeland had long been known

DEVIL AND HIS ANGELS. 275
Sketch of Kneeland. His new Translation.
as one of the most devoted advocates of Universalism.
He was received into fellowship as one of their preach
ers in 1803, and in 1811 "was appointed the first
standing clerk" of the General Convention, of which
he was chosen Moderator in 1813. In 1823 he com
pleted the work of translating the New Testament,
which was shortly after given to the public, in two
12mo. volumes of parallel columns of Greek and
English. He designed the work to "be instrumental,
in the hand of God, of correcting some of the monstrous
errors that now exist in the Christian church, and of
establishing the truth of that gospel which was preached
to Abraham;" [Universalism.] Of course, no one
would suppose that Mr. Kneeland, after preaching the
doctrine twenty years, was in the least degree prejudi
ced ! The English translation was printed separately
in one column, and designed utterly to supplant the
Received Version.
But, alas for the blindness of the world ! The work
fell almost still-born from the press, and is now among
the things that were — much like its author. Even the
ungrateful Universalists refused to substitute it for the
book of their childhood, and Mr. Whittemore says of
it (' Mod. Hist.,' p. 416,)—" The ' Improved Version' is
closely followed, except in a few attempts at emenda
tion, of which we can say little in praise."
My object in referring to it in this connection is, to
show the manner in which the author, in common with
his brethren since, who have profited by his labors,
disposes of the " Devil and his Angels." This I propose

276 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
The common doctrine ofthe devil. The Universalist doctrine.
to do in proof of their having adopted the following
article of belief: viz.
XXIII. There are no merely spiritual beings called
ANGELS EITHER HOLY OR UNHOLY.
The ' devil' and ' Satan' are by Mr. Kneeland con
verted into an ' impostor' and an ' adversary.' The
temptation of Christ he regards as ' a visionary scene,'
and remarks (I. 23,) that " the introduction of the im
postor, or devil, into this scenical representation, no
more proves the real existence of such a being, than
the introduction of the lamb or the red dragon, in the
apocalyptic vision, is a proof of the real existence of
those symbolical agents."
Again, he says (p. 25,), " That lunatics and epilep
tics were possessed by devils, ox fallen angels (though
it is an opinion which prevailed early,) is nowhere as
serted, nor even hinted at, in the New Testament, and
is totally destitute of foundation both in reason and re
velation." Where our Lord says — ' The enemy that
sowed them is the devil,' — he remarks, (p. 56,) that the
devil here means — " the principle of evil personified."
" Satan," he tells us, (p. 233,) is the " personification
of the principle of opposition." When Satan enters
Judas, it is nothing more (p. 263,) than " an evil dispo
sition, a covetous spirit." When the Savior tells the
Jews — ' Ye are of your father the devil' — he speaks of
(p. 312,) " the principle of moral evil personified ;" the
devil is only a " symbolical person."
' The prince of this world' is (p. 328,) " the Jewish

DEVIL AND HIS ANGELS. 277
Specimens of a new version. The example widely followed.
hierarchy and magistracy." The devil, who put it into
the head of Judas to betray Christ, was (p. 330,) " his
own bad passsions." The angels, who are called upon
(Heb. i. 6,) to worship the Son, are messengers, or he
ralds of God's word, or prophets ; i. e. he says, (H. 294,)
" Let all the prophets and messengers of God acknow
ledge him as their superior." The " ministering spirits"
in v. 14, are the prophets also ; " Here (p. 295,) the
former prophets are called ministermg spirits." The
" angels," whom " God spared not, but cast down to
hell," were (p. 349,) " the spies who were sent to ex
plore the land of Canaan !" " But," he adds, " if the
common interpretation be admitted, it will not establish
the popular doctrine concerning fallen angels." " He
who committeth sin (p. 358,) is of the devil" — " the
impostor, not a real, but a hypothetical and fictitious
being." " The angels who kept not their own estate"
are (p. 368,) " the messengers who watched not duly
over their own principality, but deserted their proper
habitation," whom " he kept with unknown chains un
der darkness (punished them with judicial blindness of
mind) to the judgment of a great day, i. e. when they
were destroyed by a plague. Alluding to the falsehood
and punishment of the spies." " By the synagogue of
the adversary (Satan) are to be understood those of the
Jews who opposed the Gospel." (p. 378.)
Such are the ways in which this learned expositor
made the word of God of no effect. And his example
has been widely, yea, with scarcely an exception, fol
lowed in the sect. His own cue he, doubtless, took
24

278 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
The devil nothing but the carnal mind. This definition applied to Christ.
from the arch-" messenger," Hosea Ballou. We are
told, ' Atonement,' (pp. 27, 8,) " by angels are meant
messengers, who are employed by God, for the informa
tion of their fellow-men." He declares (p. 30,) " I
have not even the shadow of evidence, from Scripture
or reason, to support the sentiment" that man was
tempted to sin by a fallen angel. " Perhaps, however,"
he adds, (p. 47) " the reader may be surprised to find,
that we do not believe in the existence of a being so
universally acknowledged among Christian people."
" We have no objection (p. 48,) to believing that there is
such a devil as the Scripture speaks of. He is called the
Old Serpent, and is the same we have described which
beguiled the woman in the beginning ; and it is the
carnal mind which is enmity against God !" That is
to say — the devil ofthe Bible is the carnal mind ! And
this carnal mind the woman had, before she sinned !
The same language he uses in his ' Lecture Sermons,'
(pp. 212, 213,) " That the devil was ever a holy an
gel, we have no account in the Scriptures ; that any
man was ever tempted by an agent distinct from the
powers of flesh and blood, we have no reason to be
lieve." " The word ' devil' or ' Satan,' means an an-
versary, an enemy, an opposer. And this character
every man find sin himself." " This ' carnal mind,'—
this ' enmity against God,' is the devil."
This definition he does not hesitate to apply to the case
of the Savior himself. He maintains, that Jesus was
tempted, (' Atonement,' p. 49,) by " fleshly appetite-
natural ambition, — and presumption — in all points, as

DEVIL AND HIS ANGELS. 279
A superstitious notion. The. Second Inquiry.
we are yet without sin." Who before ever dared to im
pute to the holy Jesus, a carnal mind, which an apostle
says, ' is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed
can be V But the reader has ceased ere this to won
der at the daring of these theological desperadoes.
Mr. B. is still more positive, (' L. S.,' p. 72 :) " The
opinion which has long maintained, that the first tempta
tion which led to the introduction of sin into our world,
was the instigation of a fallen Angel, appears to be
without foundation or authority in the Scriptures, which
plainly indicate, that the constitutional infirmities of
flesh and blood are, in fact, the source from whence all
sinful temptations rise." And so, too, of sin since the
fall, he says, (p. 73,) " that the common notion which
Christian people entertain and cultivate in the minds of
their children, of an invisible agent, who was once a
holy angel in heaven, that now continually accompa
nies people, wherever they go, and is all the time
tempting them to sin, is nothing more than an inven
tion ofthe wisdom ofthe flesh, and is supported by no
other means than superstition."
But to make assurance doubly sure, since the preju
dice was deeply rooted, Mr. Balfour again sets himself
to work, and produces his ' Second Inquiry,' called
' An Inquiry into the Scriptural doctrine concerning
the Devil and Satan." Of which it is very modestly
said, (' Mod. Hist.,' p. 460,) — " in this work the com
mon doctrine of a superhuman devil, who, it is thought,
was once an angel of light is exploded," very much to
the relief unquestionably of the whole order. Having

280

UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.

The devil defined. Hard to identify.
abolished Hell in his ' First Inquiry,' what else could
be done with the ' Devil and his Angels,' but to ex
plode them, since ' there was found no place for them V
After stating the common doctrine, he proceeds to
call in question and deny, that Eve was tempted by a
fallen angel, and says, (p. 26,) " that we are indebted
to Milton, rather than Moses, for the common opinions
entertained on this subject." To the question, ' What
was it that deceived Eve,' he replies, (p. 27,) " I an
swer — lust, or desire in Eve." The Satan who " pro
voked David to number Israel," was (p. 43,) " some
evil passion or desire in his own mind." " The account
of Satan," in the commencement of the book of Job, he
thinks, (p. 53,) " is introduced to be condemned and not
sanctioned," — "for the very purpose (p. 54,) of refuting
such an opinion," as " the existence of such an evil
being." He professes, (pp. 64, '5,) to have shown
" that the Old Testament gives no countenance to the
common doctrine of a fallen angel, under the name
serpent, Satan, or any other." " The Jews," he adds,
(p. 66,) " before they entered Canaan, knew nothing
about the devil," and " were obliged to go to a foreign
land to find the devil ;" and concludes that " they be
came acquainted with the doctrine of the devil" in
Babylon. The New Testament, he maintains, is as silent as
the Old in respect to this personage. But in order to
get rid of him, he is obliged to give him as many
aliases, as the most notorious culprit in Sing-sing. He
calls him, (p. 100,) " the unbelieving Jews ;" (p. 103,)

DEVIL AND HIS ANGELS. 281
Numerous alinses. Hard to cast him out
" a spirit of infirmity," " the rigidity of the back
bone ;" (p. 105,) " the spirit of opposition to Jesus
and the secret purpose to betray him ;" and a " fixed
determination to execute his purpose ;" (p. 108,) " lust
or love of money ;" (p. 109,) " the darkness of igno
rance, superstition, and wickedness ;" and " the perse
cuting Jews ; (p. 111.)" the adversaries of the gos
pel;" (p. 112,) " lust or sinful desire;" and " an
unforgiving temper of mind ;" and (p. 113,) " the
messenger of Satan" he calls " a false teacher."
What a queer book the Bible must be in the eyes of a
Universalist ! Like the Sibylline leaves, he makes it
speak just according to his notion, and seldom twice
alike. Mr. Balfour, however, inclines to the opinion,
that " the opposing Jews" are most frequently honored
with this " Babylonish garment." " They," (p. 123,)
" were the adversary the devil." But as such an in
terpretation would often be ridiculous, he is obliged to
give the devil as many shapes almost as the ancient
witches are said to have assumed. The merest child
can see that he is often hard pushed to " cast out the
devil" from the Bible, and rid " the order" of such an
impolite intruder. Such a use of metaphorical lan
guage, as he supposes the historians and divines of the
New Testament to have employed, is without a paral
lel. " It is scarcely necessary to say," says the mighty
Robert Hall, (' Works,' III. 48,) " that a more untena
ble position was never advanced, nor one which evinces
a more unpardonable inattention to the operations of
thought, and the laws of composition."
24*

282 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
No armor needed. The devil repudiated.
Encouraged by the boldness of Mr. Balfour, and de
lighted with his wonderful discovery, the whole bro
therhood can now laugh as good-humoredly about his
Satanic Majesty as though Mr. Balfour had actually
annihilated " the prince of the power of the air."
They seem to have in consequence forgotten the advice
of Paul, (Eph. vi. 11, 12,) — " Put on the whole armor
of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles
of the devil ; for we wrestle not against flesh and
blood, but against principalities, against powers, against
the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiri
tual wickedness [wicked spirits] in high places."
The calamities brought upon Job, according to Mr.
Rogers, had no connection with the agency of a per
sonal devil. " In bringing these evils to pass," he
says, (' Pro and Con of Universalism,' p. 289,) " God
employed the agency of Sabine and Chaldean free
booters, as well as winds and fire and disease. These
agencies are, in the Bible, personified under the name
of Satan ;" — four more aliases. How wonders mul
tiply !
The same writer assures us, (p. 256,) " that common
sense utterly repudiates the idea, that any high order of
intelligences should prove themselves such idiots as to
engage in an open war with Omnipotence. I assign to
the popular notion, therefore, concerning personal
devils, an eminent and undoubted place amongst old
wives' fables." Undoubted ? Does the man think to
impose upon us ? Does he not know that such a sen
timent as he advances, has been doubted the world

devil and his angels. 283
Puerility. A visionary notion
over, in every age, until recently ? Said Robert Hall,
who knew as much about common sense, doubtless,
as Mr. Rogers or his brethren, " the attempt to set
aside, (III. 43,) the doctrine on this subject, derived
from Scripture, under the notion of its being unphilo-
sophical, is puerile and unmeaning ;" and " to suppose
our own species, (p. 41,) to be the highest production
of Divine power, would indicate irrational and puerile
presumption." But these writers cannot apparently believe in the
existence of any intelligent beings but God and man.
They, as well as the ancient " Sadducees, say that there
is neither angel nor spirit." " What did Jesus intend
by the Angels 1" asks Mr. Whittemore ; (' Plain
Guide,' p. 103.) " Familiar traditions have confined
the application of this word almost exclusively to su
perhuman beings." But Mr. W. knows that by an
gels who are to destroy the enemies of Christ, " is cer
tainly meant, (p. 104,) the Roman armies !"
A writer in the ' Gospel Anchor,' (H. 126,) thinks
the story of the fallen angels, " one of the most absurd
notions ever started by the wild imagination of man."
If so, what wild visionaries are all the orthodox, even
the most learned and judicious ? It were well for us
all to go to school again, and under the luminous teach
ing of Messrs. Kneeland and Balfour, we might soon
learn to despise such silly notions as the fall of angels,
the existence and agency of Satan, and the " everlast
ing fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

CHAPTER XXII.
CHRISTIANS have no ordinances.
Results — Christian Institutions — The Sabbath a human de
vice — Our Sunday not the Sabbath — The Sabbath ceased
with the Mosaic dispensation — Our Sunday a weekly festi
val, but not holy — Sabbath-journeying —Baptism — Not in
dispensable toChurch-membership — A rite of initiation only —
Never intended for our observance — Lord's Supper — Va
rious opinions — Not binding on the conscience — Most of
them repudiate it — Those icho do believe in it do not make it
a test of fellowship — Churches rare — A matter of expedien
cy — More than two-thirds of the Societies have none — They
are never large.
" O Italy ! thy Sabbaths will be soon
Our Sabbaths, closed with mumm'ry and buffoon ;
Preaching and pranks will share the motley scene,
Ours parcel'd out, as thine have ever been,
God's worship and the mountebank between;" Cowper.
Having seen what are the cardinal doctrines of Mod
ern Universalism in America, and how essentially they
differ in all, or nearly all, matters of faith from those
generally received, let us now look at some of the
results of this strange system. It cannot be thought
strange, if we discover, in this respect, a wide depar
ture from the acknowledged fruits of holiness.
I shall, first, direct the reader's attention to their no-

CHRISTIANS HAVE NO SABBATH. 285
Christian Institutions. The Sabbath a human device.
tions, respecting what have commonly been regarded
as Christian Institutions. It cannot be expected, that
these should have much attraction for men, who can so
easily discard long-cherished, and deep-rooted, opinions
of divine truth itself. Christian Institutions are seldom
savory to an unregenerate heart. And such hearts
have they, unquestionably, in our sense of the word, in
asmuch as they utterly deny the common doctrine of,
and so cannot have experienced, the New Birth.
To the heart of the true Christian, the Sabbath-day
is the " Day of all the week the best."
It is the Lord's Day — sacred to his service, never to be
devoted in whole or in part to secular labors. The
Christian remembers the Sabbath day to keep it holy.
The day of the Lord's resurrection, when his Savior
rested from all his works of atoning mercy, is dearer to
him, and more sacred, than was the seventh day of the
week to the ancient Israelite.
But the Universalist has no such feelings. He ob
serves the day in some sense, it may be, but not as a
day set apart by God for himself. He affirms, that
XXIV. — The Christian Sabbath is a mere human
device.
The " Observance of Sunday among the Primitive
Christians," is the title of an article in the first volume
ofthe " Universalist Expositor," from the pen of Hosea
Ballou, jr. There, if any where, we may expect to

286

UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.

Sunday not the Sabbath. No authority for keeping it.
find the current views of the sect. The following ex
tracts will show, in what light the " observance of Sun
day" is now regarded by Universalists.
" It is a custom," he remarks, (p. 45,) " almost uni
versal, to call our Sunday by the sacred appellation of
The Sabbath, and to represent it as identically the insti
tution, which God delivered, under that name, to the
Israelites at Mount Sinai. Excepting the single cir
cumstance of its alleged transfer from the seventh to the
first day ofthe week, it is supposed to remain unchang
ed under the gospel dispensation, retaining its original
divine character, and possessing all the sanctions with
which it was first established and enforced." " Such is
the opinion, which has prevailed in the church for sev
eral ages. One object of this article is to point out its
incorrectness. We do not mean (p. 46,) that there is
any impropriety in our setting Sunday apart from the
rest of the week, as a season for religious improvement
and public worship. — But, then, such a use of the
day does not involve the notion, that it is the ancient
sabbath, and, consequently, subject to the laws of that
institution, or that it has been made peculiarly holy
time by any positive ordinance from Heaven. For this,
there is no proof."
He calls it (p. 47,) a " popular but unsupported opi
nion" " that Sunday is the Sabbath." He says, (p.
48,) " There is no command, not so much as a formal
recommendation, recorded for keeping Sunday as holy
time." He represents Paul (p. 49,) as holding the
opinion " that the observance even of the Sabbath was

CHRISTIANS HAVE NO SABBATH. 287
The change a fable. The S;il)bath long since abolished.
hke circumcision, a matter indifferent in itself;" and
that, by this he means the institution, and not merely
the particular day, is evident from the fact, that he de
nies, (p. 47,) " that the sabbath was ever transferred
from the seventh to the first clay of the week. The as
sertion," he remarks, " so often made, of that change,
is, like many other current stories, a mere fable."
In answer to the argument, that " if we have not the
precept of the apostles, we have what is just as valid
their example, for keeping Sunday," he remarks, (p.
49,) — " True, we have their example for holding meet
ings, at least sometimes, on that day ; but not for keep
ing it as the Sabbath." " That they abstained from
their ordinary employments through the whole of the
day, we have no evidence ; and the want of such proof
renders it rather probable that they did not." (p. 50.)
Referring to " the Christians of Justin's time," (p. 53,)
he observes — " They did not consider it as having any
connection with the sabbath, or as deriving any sacred
ness from the injunction laid upon the Jews to hallow
that day." " The amount of the whole is, that the
Apostles and primitive Christians understood the divine
institution ofthe sabbath to have expired with the rest qf
the Mosaic economy ; and that without any express or
dinance, it grew into a custom with them, in appoint
ing a day for their rehgious meetings, to choose Sun
day, from respect to Christ's resurrection."
Such, according to the younger Ballou, was the ori
gin of our present Sabbath. The sacredness ofthe day
is thus entirely taken away, and the day itself brought

288 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Merely a festival. Nothing more than a custom.
down to a level with our Anniversary of the declara
tion of Independence. Sunday is no more sacred than
the Fourth of July ! Hear him : — " In selecting Sun
day for the public services of the sanctuary, we but fol
low the same general principle on which our citizens
commemorate the landing qf the pilgrim-fathers, or the
birth of American Independence .'" (p. 54.)
Let these sentiments prevail — as they will wherever
Universalism prospers, and as they have already exten
sively prevailed in Germany, — and our Sabbaths will
not be at length as much respected as our Thanksgiv
ing-days. As it is, Universalist preachers do not hesi
tate to travel on Sunday, whenever it suits their con
venience. Yet they find it necessary, at times, to apo
logize for such conduct. " I regretted the necessity,"
says Mr. Skinner, (' Mag. & Adv.' VIH. 102,) " of tra
veling on Sunday ; for I always endeavor to avoid that,
where praticable. I consider the custom of setting
apart one day in seven, for rest and for purposes of re
ligious worship and moral instruction, as founded in wis
dom, sanctioned by reason, and approved by every true
religionist and philanthropist. Nevertheless, the Sab
bath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. It
is lawful to do good on Sunday, but it is not lawful to do
evil, either on that, or any other, day. Moreover, I
was encouraged by the prospect of being able to reach
New York in season to attend public worship in the
evening." Here is no recognition of the divine authority of the
Sabbath. It is only the creature of " custom." And a

CHRISTIANS HAVE NO SABBATH. 289
Sunday-traveling. Sunday not sacred.
man may, if he please, do any thing on that day, which
is not unlawful on any other day. So that Mr. Skinner
could take a steamboat at Verplanck's landing on the
Hudson, at 11 A. M., and spend the remainder of the
day until sunset in reaching the city. If it suits them,
they can set out on a journey as well on Sunday, as on
any other day. In the ' Universahst Union,' (IV. 223,)
Mr. Le Fevre publishes, beforehand, his intention to
leave the city for Rochester, " on Sunday, — by the eve
ning boat."
There is, however, but little said about the Sabbath
in any of their pubhcations. Now and then we find a
recommendation of its observance, but only, except in
a rare instance, as a good thing, a very useful institu
tion ; not as demanded by divine authority. Thus Mr.
Whittemore says, (' Plain Guide,' p. 315,) " The Chris
tian Sabbath is too good an institution to be neglected
and misspent by those who might otherwise be impro
ving themselves in Christian knowledge and grace."
It is " good," but not sacred.
A writer in the ' Gospel Anchor,' (H. 325,) observes,
" To the Christian philanthropist, and to the moralist,
a proper observance of the Sabbath will ever be an
object worthy of approbation." " The expediency of
resting on the seventh day does not appear to be so
imperative, or so generally acknowledged," as to labor
six days. Of course, he refers here to Universalists.
For the orthodox not only admit the expediency, but
the positive obligation to obey the divine command.
The writer proceeds to give several reasons " for the
25

290 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
A day for gaiety. Church-ordinances.
observance of the Sabbath," such as the promotion of
bodily health, grateful feelings, social affections, and
wordly prosperity ; but not one word about its divine
authority, which would have been the best reason of all.
The only exception to these remarks that I have
found, is in the case of Mr. Skinner, of Boston, who
has advanced some sentiments which meet with but
little favor among his brethren, in relation to the
divine appointment of the Christian Sabbath. And
even he is much afraid of having it observed in such a
way (p. 340,) as would " make the day unsocial and
gloomy," and keep up " the austerity and sadness of
former times." He has evidently no fondness for such
a Sabbath as the Pilgrim-fathers of former times de
lighted to observe. Were these men the only guardi
ans of this blessed institution, it would soon, with all
its hallowed influences, be stript of its sacredness, and
made as common as any other day in the week. Even
now, in Universalist families generally, and especially
among the more wealthy, it is the gayest of the seven.
Let us now proceed to ascertain in what manner
other Christian institutions are regarded. What do
they think of Baptism ? Is it a Christian ordinance or
not ? How do they regard the Lord's Supper ? Is it
binding on the followers of Christ, or not? To these
questions they reply, —
XXV. Church-Ordinances are of doubtful UTILITY.
Baptism has, every where, and at all times, among
Christians, been regarded as the door to the visible

baptism not binding. 291
Baptism useless. All ceremoniess discarded.
church, and as indispensable to membership in the
household of faith. But our Universalists, even in this
respect, beg leave to differ from nearly all the Chris
tian world. They consider its observance as a very
indifferent matter. Their ministers will baptize both
parents and their children, if it is desired ; but, in case
of objection to the administration ofthe rite, they treat
it as a matter of very little consequence.
" Baptism," says the author of the ' Universalist
Manual,' (pp. 114, 115,) " was not, even in the days
of the Apostles, regarded as an indispensable requisite
of Christian faith and practice." " But, if Baptism was
not strictly necessary and obligatory in the times of
the apostles, it has not been so since, and is not so now."
" If the original design of Baptism was the public
avowal of the Christian faith, its necessity and use
would seem to have nearly or quite ceased, where Chris
tianity is the known and general profession of the re
ligious community."
The author of this ' Manual ' would not have felt
warranted in making such assertions in a book design
ed as a ' Prayer-book ' for the denomination, had he
not known that they would be well received by the
order. He is borne out, moreover, in these statements,
by Mr. Grosh, who gives his opinion in the ' Magazine
and Advocate ;' (in. 268, 9.) " Having satisfied our
mind," he remarks, " respecting all ceremonies, we care
but little about them, and have avoided controversy on
the subject, not believing them worthy of it, and deem
ing the effects of such controversies worse than the per-

292 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
An initiatory rite only. Of no meaning now.
formance or non-performance of the ceremonies can be.
But having frequently been asked our views on the
subject of Baptism, we will now briefly state our
views on the subject."
He then proceeds to state, that, as an initiatory ordi
nance, it may have been enjoined on the Jews, " but
after they had been initiated, the rite could be of no
use to them or their descendants, because it is merely
a rite of initiation." He thinks it, therefore, evident,
that, in the case of " one brought up in a knowledge
of Christianity," " baptism is of no meaning ;" and
further, " to descendants from Jewish Christians, bap
tism is no longer of meaning, use, or binding force.
But to Gentiles, we believe that baptism never was of
use, meaning, or binding force." Compare, now, with
his statement, our Savior's own words, in Mark xvi.
15, 16 : " Go ye into all the world, and preach the
gospel to every creature ; he that believeth and is bap
tized shall be saved ; but he that beheveth not shall
be damned." If this is not a command to baptize " every
creature," in " all the world," that should believe, these
words have no meaning. But this passage Mr. G.
does not notice.
His conclusion is, that " water-baptism ceases to be
binding, if it ever was so, on either Jews or Gentiles,
to all who are reared up in a knowledge of the only
creed of primitive and uncorrupted Christianity — that
Jesus is the Christ — the sent of God — the Savior of
the world. If Pagans, Mahommedans, or Jews, were
now converted to Christianity, it might with some

BAPTISM NOT BINDING. 293
No plausible ground for it. Never made a test.
plausibility be urged, that they should be baptized
with water — bom of water — ' in the name of the Lord
Jesus ;' but on no grounds, that are at all plausible, in
our view, could it be urged that water-baptism is bind
ing on any other persons, or in any other cases."
He tells us also, (p. 221,) that " those who oppose
outward baptism, as firmly believe it abolished .by our
Lord, as is circumcision — and it would be as wrong to
insist on their being baptized, as it would to insist on
Baptists not being baptized." " I wish my brethren ,
every where, would cease the practice of water-bap
tism, which was never intended for their observance,
and is contrary to Christianity — but if they will con
tinue water-baptism to accommodate ' a spurious con
science,' let them not force others to do the same."
So numerous are they who agree with Mr. Grosh1 in
these views of the design of baptism, that they seldom,
if ever, make it a test of church-membership. In " the
Profession of Faith of the Universalist church in Utica,"
the matter is thus stated : — " As there is a difference of
opinion, (' Mag. and Adv.' III. 21,) among the sincere
followers of Christ," [Universalists,] " in regard to this
ordinance, and this difference ought not to separate true
disciples one from another ; we believe it is the duty of
every one to follow the dictates of his or her conscience,
leaving each to judge both of the subject and mode of
Baptism, as shall seem most consistent with Scripture
and reason." We learn also that such is the custom
of Universalists generally. So says Mr. Skinner ; (pp.
20, 21 ;) " Universalists in general, so far as we have
25*

294 universalism as it is.
The Eucharist. Not obligatory.
been acquainted with them, have been accustomed to
' think and let think ;' and have never, to our know
ledge, made the ordinances alluded to," [baptism, and
the Lord's Supper,] either a bar against, or test of, fel
lowship ; justly considering them not as the fundamen
tals of religion, but appendages to be used, or not used,
according to the conscience of each sincere Christian."
Similar are their views in regard to the observance
of the Lord's Supper.
The ' Universalist Manual' observes, (pp. 102, '3, '4,)
that " there are some varieties of opinion in the denom
ination of Universalists in relation to this Christian in
stitution called the Lord's Supper. Some consider the
observance and the due celebration of it, to be equally
binding upon Christians in all ages of the Christian
church ; whilst others think its obligation was only tempo
rary." " There are many of our ministering brethren, and
others, who, although they do not consider the celebra
tion of the communion, strictly obligatory on Christians
at present, are yet in favor of its regular observance ;
believing it expedient, and calculated to be useful as a
means of edification." " It is on the same ground,
namely, of expediency and utility, that I would choose
to place the present and continued observance of the
institution of the Lord's Supper."
Some of their preachers openly declare, that the au
thorized observance of the rite ceased with the Jewish
dispensation. Mr. Rogers says, (' Mag. and Adv.' VH.
5,) " We know that the coming of Christ to close the
Jewish dispensation, annulled the obligation ofthe eucha-

295
Of doubtful utility. Of but slight consequence.
ristic rite." He thinks, however, that it may even now
be useful. " If I am persuaded of its utility, (and I am,
decidedly,) I will, for the utility's sake, encourage its
continued observance." To which Mr. Grosh replies,
— " Br. Rogers' rule of action, as I understand him, is
a good one. Acting on it, and believing the observance
ofthe eucharist of very doubtful utility, I cannot observe
it." He says, (HI. 221,) "we have never tried to
convince our readers, that the institutions of water-bap
tism, and the eucharist, are not now binding on any
people — nor have been since the second coming of Je
sus, 1700 years ago, as we firmly believe."
" With respect to the communion of the Lord's Sup
per, we may be told," says H. Ballou, jr. (' Plain Guide,'
p. 326,) " that it is questionable, whether this institu
tion was intended as an absolute ordinance, that is, as
perpetually and universally obligatory by force of a
positive command. We think so too. We have
doubts of the existence of ordinances in Christianity ;
we mean, in the usual technical sense of the term."
Those among them, who believe that the observance
should be continued, as enjoined by the Savior on all
his disciples in every age, as is the case with the two
Messrs. Skinner, Messrs. Whittemore, Balfour and
some others, — are yet very indulgent to their brethren
who differ from them. " We know many estimable
and worthy Christians," says the elder Skinner, (' Mag.
and Adv.' HI. 21,) " both Universalists and Limitarians,
who do not view this subject in the same light that we
do. Nor do we esteem them any the less on that ac-

296 universalism as it is.
Every man his own master. Churches few in number.
count." In other words, it is a very small matter,
whether they observe the ordinance or not, they are
just as good Christians, just as worthy of esteem, as
though they did ! " It is the spirit of Universalism
(p. 22,) to allow every sincere believer in Christ to think
and practice as conscience shall dictate." To such, it
seems, there is no law — no rule : the command of
Christ may be utterly disregarded, simply because a
man takes it into his head, not to believe that it is a
command. That the number of Universalists, who believe either
in the authority, expediency, or utility, of the eucharist,
is small, appears by their own confessions. They ad
mit that their churches are.few in number. Of societies
they boast many. But a society is not a church,
though many of them endeavor to think so. " There
was, it is said, (' Exp.' IV. 216,) but one body, original
ly, in the Christian community — that is, the church ;
and why, it is asked, should we have more than one
body now — that is, the society, or congregation ?"
These societies are made up of all sorts of persons, save
the rigidly and devout orthodox. The younger Ballou
says, as quoted in the ' Plain Guide,' (p. 325,) that " in
New England, and, we believe, in most other places,"
" the society is gathered indiscriminately," and " consists
of all who choose to belong to it, from whatever mo
tive, or to share in the pecuniary burdens or profits of
building," &c. Societies thus composed would very
naturally be opposed to an " imperium in imperio" — a
church-government distinct from a society-government.

CHURCHES NOT POPULAR. 297
All ordinances now useless. Dev otional tendencies.
" Some object to churches," says Mr. Balfour, (' Exp.'
H. 35,) " beause they make a separation in the socie
ty." " Some also object to churches, because their es
tablishment would drive away from the societies the
richest men, who are the chief supporters of preaching."
And " some (p. 36,) object to churches as unscriptural.
Few, if any, would boldly affirm that churches never
were scriptural institutions ; but it is alleged, that they,
with the Lord's Day, Lord's Supper, yea, all Christian
ordinances are now useless ; or, if attended to, are mere
matters of expediency."
For these, and other reasons, Universalists, for the
most part, are unwilling to establish churches distinct
from, and within their societies. Of " many" of the
sect, Mr. Balfour remarks, (' Exp.' II. 50,) — " A large
meeting-house and a popular preacher are matters of
far more concern to them, than having a church among
them, obeying the commandments of Jesus Christ."
" Is it not a fact, (p. 54,) that hundreds of them can
live — their whole life-time, neighbors to each other,
yet pay no attention to churches and the observance of
Christ's ordinances ? Is this like Christians ? Is it
not more like heathens, persons who do not beheve the
gospel, or regard Christ's authority?" We have, here,
a beautiful comment on the devotional tendencies ofUni-
versalism, of which we shall see more presently. Well
might Mr. Balfour say, (p. 33,) — " Our enemies have re
proached us with neglect of churches and church-ordinan
ces : and too much occasion has been given them for it.
Churches have indeed existed in many places among

298 universalism as it is.
Neglect of churches. Not a test of standing.
Universalists, but not so generally as they ought."
" The neglect of churches seems now to be perceived,
and the evils, resulting from it, to be felt." Again, (p.
36,) " If churches are scriptural institutions, Universal
ists have too long neglected God's authority about
them. This neglect, in many instances at least, has
arisen, not so much from want of proper persons to com
pose churches among them, as from want of attention to
the Scriptures."
The extent of this neglect may be inferred from what
Hosea Ballou, jr., says; ('Plain Guide,' p. 325,)
" Now, it is an ominous fact, that in a very large pro
portion of our societies, probably in more than two-
thirds of our eight or nine hundred, there are no church
es, no associations ofthe kind whatsoever !"
Of course, by all these the observance of the Lord's
Supper is neglected. I cannot find, that it is adminis
tered, except where churches have been organized.
And even where there are churches, but a small part of
the society belong to them, (though the terms of ad
mission are very simple,) or come to the table. And
in the case of church-members, not all these regard it
as a duty to attend the communion. It is sometimes
expressly provided, as in the case of a Universalist
church in this city, that " a participation in the ordi
nances shall not be considered necessary to constitute
church-membership." And Mr. D. Skinner testifies,
as we have seen above, that " Universalists in general
have never made the ordinances either a bar against,
or test of, fellowship."

NO TESTS OF FELLOWSHIP. 299
Discipline deprecated. The middle wall broken down.
Such tests would be most firmly resisted by the most
of them. They cannot endure it, that such invidious
distinctions should be made in the societies. In relation
to a plan started a few years since, " of forming so
cieties under church-government and discipline," Mr.
Grosh says, (' Mag. and Adv.' HI. 14,)—" If the ordi
nances are to be made in the least degree ^obligatory,
either by moral or disciplinary influence, on persons be
coming members of the societies, it would be calcu
lated to prevent many from becoming members — we
allude to those who are conscientiously, or from prin
ciples of propriety and policy, opposed to forms and
ceremonies. Such distinctive measures we hope will
never be introduced among our brethren."
" We regret," says Mr. Whittemore, (' Plain Guide,'
p. 332,) " the present distinction of Christians into two
parties, the church and the congregation ; and we re
commend a measure which will abolish the distinction.
Let all Christian believers join the visible church.
This act is saying to the world, ' I believe in Christ, —
I am willing to have it known, — I am not ashamed of
my Lord, — I love the fellowship of his disciples, — and
I respect his ordinances.' If this recommendation
should be followed, the wall of separation between the
Christian church and the Christian congregation would
be thrown down ; and of the twain there would be one
flesh. All then, (excepting children not arrived to
years of sufficient judgment,) would join the celebration,
as they certainly should. It is too often the case now,
that when the Supper is administered, five-sixths ofthe

300

UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.

Euchurist but little thought of. The antipodes of the.orthodox.
Christians present, and sometimes more, rise and leave
the house, as though they had of right no part nor lot
in the matter whatsoever. ' These things ought not so
to be.' It is radically wrong, and the practice ought to
be changed as speedily as possible. It is wrong in it
self, as well as wounding to the feelings of the officia
ting clergyman, and to the members who remain, thus
to be forsaken, as it were, by their brethren."
We have, in this extract, a very plain confession of
the slight hold, which the ordinance of the Lord's Sup
per has even on those congregations, where churches
are established ; and an urgent appeal to all the con
gregations, with no further change than that of practice
in this particular, to adopt the name of a church ; for
they are all spoken of as " brethren ;" and Mr. W.
does not believe in what we call a change of heart : —
" As to a radical change of nature," he remarks, (p.
331,) " it is impossible in itself, and cannot, therefore,
be regarded as a qualification." " The only qualifi
cation, (p. 332,) required by the primitive disciples,
was a rational and practical faith in Jesus, as the Son
of God and the Savior of the world."
Such are the devotional tendencies of this " purer
faith." Such is the manner in which Christian Insti
tutions are regarded. Some believe in them, at least
for form's sake, and some care nothing about them ;
and these last are by far the majority ; while some are
decidedly opposed to them. Now as all the tendencies
of this sect are antipodal to the orthodox, as they ap
pear to strive to have but little, either in faith or

NO TESTS OF FELLOWSHIP. 301
What they will yet become.
practice, in common with others, it cannot be regarded
as doubtful what they will at length become, in respect
to the ordinances. The day is not far distant, when
notwithstanding the efforts of a few among them,
the ordinances will be almost or quite unknown. If
none but themselves were left in charge of the obser
vance ofthe Sabbath, Baptism, and the Lord's Supper,
how long would it be before the very remembrance of
such antiquated customs would cease from among men ?
Thank God, all are not such.

26

CHAPTER XXIII.
FRUITS OF UNIVERSALISM.
Moral efficacy — Fruits of Orthodoxy — Ministry of Christ and
Paul — Such should be its fruits if true — Their own conces
sions — Want of piety — No public measures of usefulness —
Dark prospects — Relish for piety not common — Disguised
Infidels — Character of leaders — Ropes of sand — A lifeless
theory — Sleepy Congregations — Hirelings poorly paid —
Prayer-meetings rare— Disastrous tendencies — Hypocrites —
A good description — Mr. Balfour's forebodings and experi
ence — Philadelphia — New York — No memorials of good
done — Affinity with infidelity — No secret, nor family-prayer
— Too great a risk.
" From thoughts so dreadful and profane,
Corrupt discourse proceeds ;
And in their impious hands are found
Abominable deeds.'' — Watts.
In our inquiry concerning the fruits of this system,
it has been ascertained that one of the results of the
general adoption of this scheme of doctrines would be
the prostration of every institution peculiar to Chris
tianity. The very bulwarks of religion, being thus
overthrown, what is to hinder a general depravation of
morals, such as is the case wherever the Sabbath is un
known, and the ordinances of Christianity are disre
garded, or held in contempt.

FRUITS OF UNIVERSALISM. 303
Moral efficacy. What it should be.

It becomes, therefore, a very important inquiry, —
What is the moral efficacy of Modern Universalism ?
Under the preaching of what is called orthodoxy, we
are accustomed to witness remarkable reformations of
life, and transformations of character, directly traceable
to the influence of these doctrines. No orthodox
preacher can be content without such testimonies to his
faithfulness as an ambassador of Christ. Such unques
tionably were the results of our Savior's preaching, of
the ministry of the apostles, and also of their coadju
tors and successors. To the Corinthians Paul writes —
(1 Cor. vi. 9, 10, 11,) " Be not deceived ; neither for
nicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate,
nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves,
nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortion
ers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were
some of you. But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified,
but ye are justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and
by the Spirit of our God."
Paul's preaching produced, or was followed by, such
remarkable conversions. If Universalism is the very
doctrine preached by the Apostle, we may certainly
look for similar results to follow its faithful promulga
tion. Yea, we may expect that in this respect it will
exceed every other creed ; that it will number among
its adherents, those, in considerable numbers, who,
having been fornicators, adulterers, thieves, and drunk
ards, have, by the mere influence of its peculiar doc
trines, become entirely changed in all these respects.
Let us then proceed to the investigation. " Ye shall

304 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Faith does not improve public morals. No public measures of benevolence.

know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of
thorns, or figs of thistles ?"
I shall continue to avail myself of their own state
ments and confessions, well knowing that in nothing
are men more liable to prejudice, than in judging of
the conduct of others. The following remarks from
the ' Magazine and Advocate,' (VIII. 4, 5,) may
throw some hght on this matter. " I aver," says Mr.
Rogers, (" that laborious and distinguished defender of
Universalism, who has traveled more than any preach
er in the denomination," see ' Trumpet,' XIII. 122.)
"' that the mere extension of our faith — will not, to any
great degree, improve public morals. — Its bearing upon
morals will be scarcely perceptible, except something
more is done. Is this denied ? Why, then, do we
find so many who entertain a firm faith in our doctrines,
and are not perceptibly influenced in their general prac
tice by that faith ?" This is not the language of an
enemy, but of one of their own preachers. It is an
undesigned confession of the impotence of the system.
Again he asks, — " As a Christian body are we not
too indifferent to experimental piety ? Does not our
horror of fanaticism carry us too far into the other ex
treme ? Our love to God ; is it not too closely allied
to a mere abstract and philosophical admiration ?"
Appealing to his brethren he adds, — " Do we not want
to be useful ? What are we doing toward this object ?
What public measures have we taken to this end ? I
do aver that it is high time that our principles were
more palpably visible in their bearings on the moral in-

FRUITS OF UNIVERSALISM. 305

Fearful apprehensions. Relish for piety not common.
terests qf society." This language speaks volumes in re
gard to the " palpably visible" results of this new scheme.
Mr. Rogers stands not alone. The fact is apparent
to the most of them. Many of them are sick at heart
with then own adherents, disgusted at their utter in
difference to all but doctrinal preaching, and exceed
ingly apprehensive that the days of the sect are num
bered. Mr. Balfour's concessions, considering that he
is one of their main pillars, are to be regarded as of
great importance. " Whether Universalism," he re
marks, ( ' Exp.' II. 32,) " shall go on prospering as it
has done, depends in a good degree, on Universalists
themselves. Unless they give heed to their ways, and
follow God's directions, as given in the Bible, they need
not expect increasing prosperity." And yet no man
among them has done so much to sap their confidence
in " God's directions as given in the Bible."
Again of those in other churches who believe in Uni
versalism, but join not the sect, he says, (p. 33,) — " It
will be time enough to blame them, when churches are
estabhshed, and a relish for personal piety and devotion
becomes common among us. The many merely nominal
Universalists, in some places, must give a revolting
view qf Universalism to many sensible piously-minded
people. They judge of the whole by the specimen be
fore them, and conclude we are only disguised infidels.'''
Nor has Mr. Balfour judged wrong. Such men, as he
here denounces, we do see, and in considerable num
bers, flocking to hear Universalist preachers, and glory
ing in their doctrines ; and the view is revolting ;
26*

306

UNIVERSALISM as IT IS.

Infidel leaders. Dissolution of societies frequent.
leading us to conclude, (with how much reason let this
exposition show,) that they are "only disguised in
fidels." Alluding to the " rich profane swearer, drunkard,
and semi-infidel," he says, (p. 36,) — " It is seeing such,
in some cases, the leaders and managers in our societies,
which makes Universalism a hissing and a by-word in
some places, and prevents many persons from uniting
with us." " A large meeting-house (p. 50,) and a
popular preacher are matters of far more concern to
them [many Universalists,] than having a church among
them, obeying the commandments qf Jesus Christ."
How little regard can they, then, have to the authority
of the Savior !
What wonder can it be that such societies should
soon crumble and cease, when they have, confessedly,
so little regard for Christ 1 "I may add another fact,"
says Mr. B. (p. 34,) " which makes the hearts of many
Universalists sad, — They see numerous Universalist so
cieties formed, and meeting-houses built ; but what is
the result ? After a few years, some meeting-houses
are sold, or shut up. In some others they have only
occasional preaching. And some societies, after a lin
gering consumption, die, and the place which once
knew them, knows them no more. Like ropes qf sand
they have fallen to pieces, and hardly a fragment of
them remains." Such examples, as every reader must
know, are by no means rare. But it is not always
that the fact is so plainly confessed. How wonderful
must be the vitality of such a system !

FRUITS OF UNIVERSALISM. 307
More theory than practice. A Universalist congregation.
Even the wily Mr. Whittemore, who, on one page
can say, — " It is but seldom, (' Plain Guide,' p. 282,)
that we now hear the objection urged against Univer
salism, which was formerly urged with frequency and
confidence, that it had a licentious influence on those
who beheved it," — on the very next page is constrained
to remark, — " The morals of the Universalist would,
and must, in the very nature of things, be purer than
the morals of those operated upon by different opinions,
were it not that he makes his religion too much a
thing of theory, and too little a thing of practice. This
is the fault of many Universalists." He thinks that
they ought to be the most moral, but where are the
facts to confirm his theory ? — where ? He cannot but
be sensible that as a sect they are very deficient in even
the appearance of piety. Therefore he says, (p. 293,)
— " If there be any one thing which particularly con
cerns the substantial interests of the Universalist deno
mination, it is the formation of Vital Godliness." Well
may he say — 'formation ;' for such a thing, in such a
place, may well claim to be regarded as a new creation.
The following from the same pen, (p. 307,) may be
regarded as a very graphic description of a large pro
portion of then societies : — " When he [the preacher]
goes to conduct the services of public worship, he sees
about half as many people as there are pews, scattered
over the house, some below, and some in the gallery ;
no singers, so that the joyful part they perform must
be omitted. He begins with a prayer, but there is no
feeling ; he knows not what to say ; he labors through

308

UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.

A scene from nature. Poor pay of their itinerants.
it, and it seems to every one a long, dull, and unsuitable
one. He announces his text, and endeavors to preach,
but it is lifeless reading after all. His congregation
have fixed themselves in a situation to suffer the least
torture ; if in summer, they sleep and nod ; if in winter,
they bury themselves in their cloaks, and go into a tor
pid state." Here is a picture evidently drawn from
nature. Both Mr. W. and his brethren are too familiar
with such scenes not to know how to sketch them.
But what an animating doctrine it must be to produce
such affecting interest !
" A wise observer," he tells us, (p. 312,) " has said,
— ' In many of our country societies, and among the
professed friends to our doctrine, where no society
exists, are to be found certain narrow-minded brethren,
who can talk much about the ' glorious gospel,' — and
how refreshing it is to them to hear the glad tidings
proclaimed ; but who never seem to think that five
dollars will go further than ninepence in the payment
of a poor itinerant preacher, when they are amply able
to pay the former sum a dozen times in a year !' "
How Universalism opens the heart, and prompts to
wondrous deeds of benevolence ! " What tales of sad
ness," adds Mr. W. (p. 313,) " some of our poor itine
rants could tell, who have traversed hill and dale with
the gospel-message on their tongues, for which they
have had the privilege of obtaining about half enough
to meet their expenses. I have heard some of their nar
ratives ; and I always feel, when I listen to them, as
though they had not only entered the kingdom ' with

FRUITS OF UNIVERSALISM. 309
Social meetings. Disristious omens.
much tribulation,' but had found a good share of it
within." Had they carried the true gospel with them,
they would have found that " the laborer is worthy of
his hire."
The absence of vital godliness among them may be
further shown from their want of interest in meetings
of a merely devotional character. "A good, social,
meeting," Mr. W. observes, (p. 316, 17) "of Christian
friends will do much for the spiritual advancement of
all who enjoy it. There is a lamentable indifference on
this subject. Too much is thought of mere minister-
meetings ; as if no others could be tolerated." How
rarely do we hear of prayer-meetings among our Uni
versalists ! That Universalists, with all their profes
sions of love, are very deficient in affection to their re
ligion, appears from what H. Ballou, jr. says (' Plain
Guide,' p. 328 ;) — " Most of the other sects never form
a society without a church. Has it not been observed,
that in general, (there are exceptions,) they rather ex
cel us in strong enduring attachment to their religion,
and to their social institutions ?" " We have a deep and
increasing presentiment, that there must be a thorough
change of this state of things," " or that its prosperity
[the society's] will not be permanent. At any rate,
we cannot conceive of general neglect, without the
most disastrous tendencies." But general neglect of
churches there will be among a people who maintain
that " all men are of the church ;" and these disastrous
tendencies must operate.
To the question, — " What are we doing ?" — -Mr.

310

UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.

A faith without work^. Hypocrites abound among tlicin.

Gurley replies, (' Univ. Union,' IV. 43,) some are alive
in the power and spirit of the gospel ; but too many
are cold and indifferent. There is a lamentable defi
ciency in many places of the fruits of a living faith.
Multitudes have a dead faith." " I cannot, I confess,
account for so much coldness, only on the ground that
a religious and devotional spirit has not been sufficiently
cultivated among us. Anti-endless misery is a very dif
ferent thing from Universalism ; and I very greatly
fear that the number is not small who have mistaken
the former for the latter." There cannot, then, be so
much Universalism in the land, as is pretended. In
deed it can scarcely be found at all, except in the form
of anti-endless misery and anti-all-future misery. But
this is not Universalism !
We find, too, a great many hypocrites in this curious
sect. " I doubt not," says Mr. Ackley of Hamilton,
New York, (' Univ. Union,' IV. 162,) " we have as
many [hypocrites,] in proportion to our numbers, as
other denominations." " Is not that man a dissembler
who professes to believe the Abrahamic faith, and to
love the glad tidings of a world's salvation, and, at the
same time, spends the sacred day at the tavern, the grog
shop, or in other places of wickedness ; and to whom
the Lord's day is a weariness, instead of delight ; his
holy sanctuary a prison-house, instead of the very gate
of heaven to his soul ; the Bible a dead letter, instead
of his only chart and compass ? — There are not a few,
of these views and habits, who profess to be Universa
lists." Again he says— (p. 161,) " There are thousands

FRUITS OF UNIVERSALISM. 311
What they were once. And stil are.
who endeavor to shelter themselves under the wings of
our faith, who are so afraid of being burned to death in
the hot fire of fanaticism, with which they are sur
rounded, that they have stood aloof, halting between
two opinions, until they are now frozen with the cold
frosts of criminal neglect, and are dead weights in our
cause." This is a doleful picture, truly, of a church
that professes Apostolical purity of doctrine !
We are told, (p. 166,) that " a Universalist now is
something different from what was supposed to be a
Universalist a few years since. A Universalist, former
ly, in the judgment of the world, was a good-humored
swearing, laughing, joking, Bible-neglecting, Sabbath-
disregarding, accommodating, and neighborly sort of
being, that had owned and lost ' Ballou on Atone
ment,' heard three Universalist sermons, and argued all
the orthodox out of all the bar-rooms in town." The
reader will be apt to think that the description still
holds good, especially after what has just been detailed
of the leanness of the sect.
Even in Connecticut, that church-going land, they
can hardly persuade their adherents to keep up public
worship. From the Southern Association of Connecti
cut, we learn, (' Union,' IV. 243,) that " it is sometimes
the case that individuals, known to be Universalists,
seldom attend church more than half a day, and some
times not at all. They seem to prefer almost any
thing to religious devotion." And yet they are " known
to be Universalists !"
After such exhibitions of the emptiness of Universa-

312

UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.

Will they go on prospering 1 Doleful experience of their preachcrB
lism, it may be well to introduce the prophetic declara
tions of Mr. Balfour, (< Univ. Union,' IV. 306, '7,) in
respect to the future fortunes of his adopted people.
To the question — " Will the cause of Universalism go
on to prosper in time to come, as it has in times past ?"
— he replies very doubtingly. He questions much
whether the " means" will " be continued and in
creased in the time to come." The " means" are
preachers, books, and periodicals. But " will men en
ter into the ministry equal to the increased demand for
them, as in time past ? We must doubt this, unless a
radical change takes place. Few men of talents, un
less mere loiterers, will seriously engage in the work
until they see more love and zeal among Universalists
to provide for them and their families. They see many
of their present preachers spending their time and
strength in the work, in poverty and comparative
misery, and die probably in debt, with a wife and fa
mily to mourn their loss." " They," [the preachers of
some societies,] " drag out for a year or two, a misera
ble existence as preachers in a place, leave it probably
in debt, hoping to find some other place, where Uni
versalists have more common sense, if not more of true
Christianity among them." " Until this shameful evil
is removed, let us be more sparing of our boasting
about the rapid progress ot Universalism." " Let
preachers' love and zeal for the cause of Universalism
be what you please, they must get discouraged, in see
ing so little evidence of its fruits in their hearers.
In some places, particularly cities and populous towns,

FRUITS OF UNIVERSALISM. 3 13
Doleful prospect for their preachers. The publishing business.
preachers are decently provided for, but this is by no
means generally the case with our preachers through
out the country."
He speaks also, of " then constant removal from one
place to another," as one of the " evils which ought to
be removed." " But why is this the case ? Some
times the people want him to go. They look on him
as a hired man by the day or year ; and like children
tired of an old play thing, dismiss him. They hire
another, and are soon tired of then new rattle, and he
is again dismissed for another, perhaps not so good as
the two former." " / am surprised that any preacher
continues in the ministry, or that any should enter it
under such a state of things, unless it be for the pur
pose of changing them for the better."
Here, then, is a doleful prospect as to a future supply
of preachers, and a sad comment on the ingratitude and
unfruitfulness of those who hear them. What, when
they owe all their hopes of future bliss to the oft-re
peated assurances of these very preachers, can they not
keep them from want and begging ?
" By me thy greatness grew ; tby years grew with it,
But thy ingratitude outgrew them both."
Mr. Balfour proceeds, in the next place, to show the
improbability of much advance in the publishing line,
and to give some account of his own sad experience.
" Few, if any, among Universalists, have published
more books of this kind than myself." But, " so far
from my publications being a profit to me, they have
27

314 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Heart-sickness. Ingratitude ofthe sect.
only been a bill of expense, and much perplexity, in
addition to all my labor in writing them, so much so,
that J have been tempted to curse the day I ever published
a book." (The day is coming when he will curse it
bitterly !) " Many Universalists seem to feel little in
terest in reading and improving themselves as to their
professed faith." (Why should they? they have
learned to think for themselves ?) " What is still
more painful, some, not a few, have got my books, and,
either from want of honesty, or carelessness, have for
gotten to pay for them." " Who will be such a fool
as I have been" (truly !) " to publish books on Univer
sal Salvation, if this is the way their labors are to be
rewarded ? I am heart-sick of it ; and to be told, my
books have contributed much to the rapid spread of Uni
versalism, has no tendency to remove this kind of sick
ness." Hence he concludes that there is but poor en
couragement to write such books, and that thus one
great means of spreading their tenets will be disconti
nued. How strong must be the love of the people for
their religion, when their poor authors, who labor night
and day to build them up in the faith in spite of the
English Bible and the orthodox, must pay their own
expenses, and die with a broken heart ! If such has
been Mr. Balfour's experience, — a man who has de
served more of the sect than any other man — what
must be the fate of the " lesser lights."
It is not strange that, as Mr. B. remarks, the life of a
Universalist, " who publishes a book on Universalism
and sends it to persons indiscriminately, who send for

FRUITS OF UNIVERSALISM. 315
A proper precaution. Leaves and blossoms.
it to sell on commission, — is a life of misery, and
gives him far more painful labor than the writing of
it." He thinks that there is so httle ground for confi
dence among his own people, that were he to com
mence his " writing-life" again, he would sell none of
his books on credit, " except to persons" he remarks,
¦" whom I knew to be trust-worthy, either from my
own personal knowledge, or from the testimony of
others on whom I could depend." Now as the ortho
dox seldom either buy or sell his books, these remarks
must relate enthely to Universalists, and show how
little confidence they have reason to have in one ano
ther. What an admirable system ! How " worthy of
all acceptation !"
The fate of then periodicals has been much the same.
" Very few of them have been a source of much profit
to their proprietors ; many of them have been a dead loss
and abandoned ; and some of them are struggling for
life, uncertain but death will be the issue." And this
is owing to the fact " that we have much chaff
among us."
From this review of the past and present, Mr. B.
concludes that " the same means, and the same degree
of them, will not answer as in times past. The tree of
Universalism has put forth leaves and blossoms ; but
people now look for solid fruits from it. People must
live Universalism as well as talk it, showing out of a
good conversation their works with meekness of wis
dom. They must turn then attention to every other
part of the will of God made known in the Bible, and

316 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
A barren tree. Universalism in Philadelphia.
not suppose that it only teaches Universal Salvation.
They must show that they are saved, — shine as lights
in the world."
It is, then, admitted by one, who has every reason to
know, who has given the sect a fair trial, that this
glorious doctrine has hitherto brought forth little else
than " leaves and blossoms." The " solid fruits" are
yet to be seen. Alas for the barren fig-tree ! ' Why
cumbereth it the ground ?'
It was confessed by Mr. Fuller of Philadelphia, in
1839, (< Univ. Union,' IV. 342,) that their " two places
of pubhc worship — were, ten years ago, as well attend
ed, or nearly so, as they are now ;" — that (p. 327,) as
to one of their societies, " those they deemed their
right-hand men, have deserted from their ranks, or
abandoned their posts in the citadel of truth, for the
barbarous habit of spending their Sundays in rambling
for recreation, or in lounging and loitering for ease."
And of those who remain in the two societies, it is said,
(p. 342,) — " some attend, say once in four weeks,
some once in twelve, some once or twice a year, and
some, when some celebrated brother visits us." And
(on page 388,) we are told that " there are many peo
ple calling themselves ' liberal' in this city, who sel
dom or never favor us with their company at church,
nor do they in any way aid our cause," and yet they
are " great Universalists," in their own estimation.
" Not more than one-half of the nominal Universalists
in this city, who are abundantly able to pay for one of
our best weeklies, take one of them." The writer

FRUITS OF UNIVERSALISM. 317
Bible seldom read. Universalism in New York.
thinks, (or did think, for he has since deceased,) that
it cannot be for want of time to read them, " espe
cially where (p. 359,) people read the Bible so little
as Universalists generally do, who take none of our
papers." Are these the fruits of Universalism ? They are, if
we may believe those who ought to know best. This
is not ' orthodox slang,' but genuine Universalist truth.
What is here said of Philadelphia, it is thought would
hold good of New York. Fifteen years since the pros
pects of the sect were at least as good as, if not better
than, they are now. Then a flourishing society of Trin
itarian Restorationists were accustomed to assemble in
Duanestreet; andtheirplace of worship was overflowing.
This society has become entirely extinct ; and their house
of worship is now in the hands of the Roman Catholics.
The first Universdlist Society of Unitarians separat
ed from the former, and built a large brick church in
Prince-street, where for a time Mr. Kneeland preached.
This society has also become extinct, and their former
house of worship is owned by Associate Presbyterians.
The second Universalist Society was formed by a se
cession from the first, under the counsel and conduct of
Mr. Kneeland, and worshiped for a time in the Mason
ic Hall, until, Mr. K. having declared the Bible to be a
fable, the key was turned upon him by the Treasurer of
the Society. The fragments of the body, which was
then broken in pieces, were afterwards gathered togeth
er, and now form the second society under the care of
Mr. Sawyer, worshiping in Orchard-street. A third was
27*

318 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Slow advances. Poor encouragements.
organized a few years since, and erected a large house
of worship in Bleeker-street, but are without a pastor,
very few in number, burdened with an enormous debt,
and unable to pay it. Their house will probably have
to be sold. A fourth was organized in November,
1838, and was, until last July, under the charge of Mr.
Whittaker, and worshiped in the house formerly occu
pied by the Restorationists. But the house having now
been sold, they are left without a home, and will find
it, feeble as they are, a difficult matter to hang togeth
er. Their present preacher is Mr. Williamson. There
is, therefore, now in reahty but one Universalist Soci
ety in this city, that may be regarded as fully establish
ed. The remaining two are sickly infants.*
Thus in fifteen years they have either lost ground, or
gained but little, if any thing ; while in the same time
the population of the city has nearly doubled, and or
thodoxy in all its branches has made rapid advances.
This is surely poor encouragement, and augurs darkly
for the future.
* Since the above was written, an individual, engaged in
school-teaching in Chambers street, and holding fellowship as
a preacher among them, has opened a hall in the Dry Dock
section of the city, and has preached three or four weeks to a
society, recently and in consequence organized, in that neigh
borhood. With two other societies in the city struggling for
existence, it may well be regarded as a Quixotic adventure.
There are, however, iufidels enough in the neighborhood to fur
nish, for some time, a congregation, respectable at least for
numbers. The hall in which they meet is quite contracted,
and so easily filled.

FRUITS OF UNIVERSALISM. 319
What has it done ? Downward tendencies.
What now, I ask, has Universalism done for the good
qf the world ? — what, that would not have been better
done without it ? Where are its memorials — its living
witnesses ? What drunkard has it made sober, whom
orthodoxy had given up ? What debauchee, utterly
incurable by the latter, has been made whole by the
former ? What backslider has it ever induced to rear
again the family-altar, and become a serious and de
vout Christian ? The Rev. Mr. M H. Smith, formerly
a Universalist preacher, recently stated in a public lec
ture, as reported by the ' Congregational Observer', that
" during a ministry of twelve years he had never known a
single instance of a reform — qf an improvement even —
under his preaching. And he never heard of any real
reform under the preaching of any others of his per
suasion. He had seen men growing worse, but he had
never seen any_ growing better. He had known re
peated instances of transition, in those who became
Universalists, from that doctrine to Infidelity and thence
to Atheism. Its tendencies were all and always down
ward. Its strongest supporters were in reality in very
many cases nothing less than disguised, if less than
avowed, infidels. Of its ministry, he said, within six
years past, he had known twenty-six abandon the doc
trine, and for the most part in disgust with the morals
of its professors." (See ' N. York Observer,' XIX. 1.)
A similar statement was made to myself by the Rev.
Mr. Whittaker of this city, on the very day of his re
nunciation. In a conversation a few days afterwards

320 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
A powerless system. No prayers to boost of.
with Mr. Sawyer of this city, I urged him to tell me
what had been the moral results of his own preaching,
and could obtain no satisfactory answer. He thought
that he knew of those who had been made better, but
not an instance was given ; and the absence of such
results was attempted to be accounted for, by the belh-
gerant attitude which the sect have been obliged to as
sume, from its rise until the present time.
It is not said that they never preach against sin —
that they never warn men against immorality. This
they may do, but such preaching has hitherto, unaccom
panied by the mighty sanctions of gospel-truth, proved,
and must ever prove, utterly powerless. I cannot re
member to have seen in all my researches^ in any one
of their publications, one single exhortation from one of
their number to a faithful discharge of the duty of se
cret vocal prayer — or any attempt to inculcate the duty
of family-prayer ; though in some instances I have
seen an attempt to ridicule the latter, as altogether too
Pharisaical for a liberal Christian. " Do not those,"
says Mr. Sawyer, (' Letters to Remington,' p. 145,)
" who assume much of the religion ofthe land, the pi
ous and praying people, (I mean such as have piety
and prayers to boast of,) oppose and persecute Univer
salists, and for the same reasons that the Pharisees of
old persecuted the disciples of Christ ?" They want no
" prayers to boast qf," and verily they have it according
to their wish.
I have been informed by one that had much oppor-

FRUITS OF UNIVERSALISM. 321
No family-prayer. Mot worthy of trust.
tunity to know, having himself been one of their
preachers, that it is a very rare thing to see the household
of even one of their ministers called together for family-
prayer, and that, when it is witnessed, it is only, for the
most part, on extraordinary occasions, and not as a
daily duty ; that it is even rare to hear God's blessing
invoked at the table of his bounty ; and that, judging
from his own habits, and what he knew of his former
brethren, he had no reason to believe that even then
preachers are accustomed to maintain closet-prayer.
And yet these men pretend to know better the will of
God, than they whose daily delight it is to hold com
munion with God in secret, and seek by earnest prayer
the guidance of the Holy Spirit ! And this, they say, is
the religion taught by Christ and his apostles !
"  Credat Judreus Apella,
Non ego."
Let the credulous debauchee, the profane libeler of the
humble followers of Jesus, the careless devotee of Fol
ly and Fashion, beheve in such expounders ofthe mind
and will of a holy God, if they can ; and trust their
souls to such prayerless preachers, if they will. But
we have learned to set a higher value on our souls, and
on the promise of God to hear and answer prayer, than
to look up to men as our spiritual guides, whose closets
are never visited to seek and obtain the wisdom which
eometh from above, who never advise their hearers to
utter prayer in secret, and who even ridicule those, who

322 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
We cannot trust them.
so feel their own weakness, and so rely on God's prom
ise, as to pay their vows every morning and evening at
their private altar, and pray to him who has promised
to reward them openly. To those who urge us to fol
low such leaders we must therefore say — " Have me
excused."

CHAPTER XXIV.
LEARNING OF UN I V E R S A L I S T P R E A C H E R S .
The work done — The charge conceded — Utterly unlike every
other scheme — A mass of heresies — A man's creed of no con
sequence — Latitudinarians — A modern Pantheon — Is this
the Bride ? — Their peculiar claims on our confidence — Lite
rary character of James Relly — Of John Murray — Of Hosea
Ballou — Of Abner Kneeland — Of Walter Balfour — Of the
junior preachers — Qualifications necessary to their preachers
—Of A. B. Grosh— Of J. D. Williamson— Of their whole
ministry — Final appeal to the reader.
" But muse ! forbear; long flights forbode a fall;
Strike on the deep-ton'd chord the sum of all ;
Hear the j ust law — the judgment of the skies :
He that hates truth shall be the dupe of lies ;
And he that will be cheated to the last,
Delusions, strong as Hell, shall bind him fast." Cowpek.
The work is done. Modern Universalism in America
has passed in review before us. It has been permitted
to speak for itself. We have seen the Tree and its
fruits — the doctrines and their results. We have lis
tened to its arrogant claims, and have suffered ourselves
for the moment to be unchurched. The learning, and
wisdom, and piety of all past time have been made

324 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Opposition to every other faith A mass of heresies.
foolishness by its unbounded pretensions. Truth appears
to have fled the earth, until it found a resting-place in
the breast of Mr. Ballou !
" Now, Truth ! perform thine office." Say to what
belongs this scheme ? Whence came it ? Whose is
it ? Are they, who espouse it, all right, and all the
world besides in error ? That they stand out alone
from all the Christian world, they themselves confess.
" There is no denomination," they say, (' Mag. & Adv.'
III. 349,) " to take us by the hand, acknowledge us as
a member of the Christian family, admit any of our pe
culiar opinions as even the shadow of truth, or in any
wise, to feel towards us the least degree of friendship or
fellowship. It is the doctrine, the whole doctrine, and
nothing but the doctrine, that draws down on us dis-
fellowship, reproach, and persecution. Our faith, as
of 'old, IS OPPOSED, IN EVERY MATERIAL
PART THAT CAN AFFECT THE HONOR OF
GOD AND THE HAPPINESS OF MAN, TO THE
FAITH OF THE RELIGIOUS WORLD."
That this declaration is true must now be apparent
to every reader. There is no " material part" of Chris
tian faith which these innovators have not done their
utmost to subvert. Let this concession never be for
gotten. Other systems of error have, for the most part, con
tented themselves with a single departure from the
faith. But this is a complete mass of heresies. It
openly advances, as constituent parts of itself, the very
worst features of Pelagianism, Antinomianism, Saddu-

learning of universalist preachers. 325
Willi whom tliey hold fellowship. The greet 'st latitude allowed.
ceeism, Arianism, Monophosytism, Socinianism, and
Materialism. It embraces within its ample arms all,
no matter what they else believe, or how abhorrent
their other views may be, who believe in the final
holiness and happiness of the human race. It pro
fesses to regard it as of no consequence whether
a man be a Trinitarian, Arian, or a Socinian; a Ma
terialist or Immaterialist ; whether he believes one
creed or another, provided, though even this affects
not at all his future welfare, he agrees with them in
the result. They, the followers of this creed, maintain
fellowship with Deists, and Libertines, and Atheists,
but withhold it from Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Bap
tists, and Methodists. While they ridicule the devout,
and earnest, and zealous labors of the latter, they
join hands with the former in laughing at, what they
call, the bigotry and superstition of your " pious and
praying people." They make common cause with the
infidel, by their constant efforts to unsettle the confidence
of their hearers in the common translation of the Bible,
delighting to make use of those texts which most plainly
speak against their doctrine, and so to torture them
as to  " Make the worse appear

The better reason, to perplex and dash
Maturest counsels.-'
Of all Latitudinarians these are the most worthy of
the name. No heretic can wish more liberty than is
here allowed. As in the ancient Pantheon, every prin-
28

326 universalism as it is.
A modern Pantheon. Why are they to be believed 1
cipal heresiarch may here find a niche for himself, and
receive the homage of his followers. The greatest
amity pervades the brotherhood, whether Jove, or Ve
nus, or Bacchus be the presiding deity. Nor must the
lines be tighter drawn, lest some good free-thinking
brother take offence and desert the holy cause !
Is this the Bride ? Is this the reality of what John
saw in vision, when one of the seven angels said to him
— " Come hither, I will show thee the Bride — the Lamb's
wife !" Where is the " fine linen, clean and white,"
arrayed in which she then appeared ?
"If thou beest she ! but Oh ! howfall*n! how chang'd!"
Is this she that is " comely as Jerusalem, terrible as an
army with banners 1" — to whom the Bridegroom says,
" thou art all fair, my love ! there is no spot in thee ?"
Alas ! " all her beauty is departed." " How is the gold
become dim ! how is the most fine gold changed !"
But, ere we receive this system as true, as the very
system of Christ and his Apostles, we may be permitted
to ask — What peculiar claims have its advocates to be
regarded as the only true expounders of Scripture ?
As we have already seen, in its present form it has
not seen a quarter of a century. Some of its peculiar
doctrines have been professed in former ages, but,
always, by only a small portion of the Christian world.
Not one of them has ever been the exposition of the
church. Not one of them has not been again and
again condemned by the vast body of professing Chris
tians. The multitude in every age since the earliest

LEARNING OF UNIVERSALIST PREACHERS. 327
The marks of truth. Learning of Relly.
have given their voice against it. How is this to be
accounted for ?
I know, that " the voice of the people" is not always
to be regarded as " the voice of God ;" and that it is
written, " Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil."
But what has been believed in every age, in all circum
stances of the church, in every land where the Bible is
read and studied, bears on its very face the marks of
truth — of common sense. At all events, it is not to be
railed at ; it is not to be discarded, as unworthy notice,
" absurd and ridiculous ;" it is not to be set aside, un
less those who advocate a contrary opinion can show,
that they have had superior advantages for arriving at
the meaning of the sacred oracles.
Who, then, are these Universalist authors and preach
ers, that they should lay claim to such superior wisdom ?
Are they, or have they been, the most profoundly versed
of all men in the knowledge of either their own lan
guage, or the original languages of Scripture ? — men of
the most shrewd, and penetrating intellects ? — the
most subtle of logicians ? — the most unfettered by pre
judice, superstition, or bigotry ? — the most free to think,
and determine for themselves ? — the most humble, spi
ritual, devout, and prayerful of men ?
Who are these Universalists ? The founder of the
sect in England was James Relly. But who was James
Relly, that he should have known more than all the
wise men who flourished in the days of Watts, Guyse,
Gill, Seeker, Potter, Doddridge, Newton, Wesley,
Whitefield, Edwards, Jenyns, Witherspoon, Hopkins,

328 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Of Murray. Of the elder Ballou.
Styles, Watson, Paley, &c. &c. ? Mr. Relly was a
preacher or exhorter under the direction and patronage
of Mr. Whitefield in the first instance, destitute, as far
as I can learn, of all knowledge of any other language
than his own, of which he knew just enough to enable
him to speak and write passably. Such was the man
who set himself in array against the giants of that age,
as the only one to whom the true meaning of the Bible
was known ! Will it be said, that Mr. Relly was the
only one of that age, who dared to think for himself —
an age so fruitful in free-thinkers ? The very supposi
tion is absurd.
And who was John Murray ? Let any man read
his " Life," and he will find enough to warrant the
conclusion, that Murray was possessed of nothing more
than a very common English education, utterly un
versed in theology — a perfect changeling — a creature
of circumstances, and utterly unfitted for the work of
expounding the sacred oracles. This last charge is now
confessed by our modern Universalists, who are fully
persuaded that his views of Scripture were all wrong,
save in the one particular of Final Universal Salvation.
They have discarded all but that. Neither Relly nor
Murray, from aught that appears, had any, even the
slightest knowledge of the Hebrew or Greek languages,
but gathered their system from the Enghsh translation
alone. But neither of these were properly the sires of the
race whose tenets we have now considered. Who,
then, is Hosea Ballou ? His books speak for them-

LEARNING OF UNIVERSALIST PREACHERS. 329
Ignorance of Mr. Ballou. Credulity of his adherents.
selves. They show no acquaintance with any lan
guage but his vernacular, and of this, even at the pre
sent period, a very imperfect one. When he embraced
Universalism, he had " never read any thing on the
doctrine, the Bible excepted," and was so uninformed,
that he did not know, " that there was any thing pub
lished in its vindication in the world." In the process
of discarding " the doctrine of the trinity, and the com
mon notion of the atonement," he " had the assistance
of no author or writer." Nine or ten years after he be
gan to preach, as I have been informed, and after he
had embraced most of his present views, he set himself to
learn the English grammar ! Even to this day, Mr.
Ballou makes but little pretensions to learning, and of
scholarship he has none. Yet he knows better what
the Bible teaches than the most erudite scholar of the
age ! This is the man who has given form and feature
to the whole system that has now passed in review be
fore us ! ! They who have come after him have only
polished the rude materials received from him.
Is it not the very height of presumption now, for
one of such very humble attainments, one, who, to say
the least, is not remarkably distinguished for piety, to
set up his own judgment in opposition to nearly all the
learning, wisdom, and piely of this and every preced
ing a<re, and require us all to follow where he leads 1
And is it not the extreme of credulity for any one to put
more confidence in him than in all his coevals and pre
decessors ? Until Mr. Ballou can show us some more
valid reasons for reposing in his superior judgment, and
knowledge of the will of God, we must be allowed to
28*

330 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Of the younger preachers. Of Mr. Rnlfour.
" stand in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths,
where is the good way and walk therein."
Nor have we any better reason to confide in Mr.
Ballou's disciples. With a very few, if any, excep
tions, they are devoid of all claims to our confidence as
expounders of Scripture. Some there are, a very few,
who have some acquaintance with the original lan
guages of the Bible. But these, the most of them, ac
quired that knowledge after that they had embraced
Universalism, and sought it for the veiy purpose of
making the people have a greater regard to their pre
conceived opinions of truth. Like Mr. Kneeland, they
were " denied in early life the benefits of a classical
education, entering into the ministry totally ignorant of
the dead languages." Many of them previously seem
to have been " to nothing fixed but change ;" as in the
case of Mr. Balfour, who, bred in the church of Scot
land, next became an Independent, or Congregational-
ist, then a Baptist, and at last a Universalist ; — so as to
give occasion to an opponent to say that he changed
his " opinions annually." This is the erudite scholar,
to walk in whose light the whole Universahst denom
ination have forsaken all the ancients and nearly all the
moderns ; a man whose " First Inquiry" amounted to
no more nor less than this : viz. that the doctrine of fu
ture punishment must rest on Gehenna alone ; that this
word will bear no other application than to the destruc
tion of Jerusalem, and that therefore, as one has it,
" there can be no punishment after death for any indi
vidual, because Jerusalem was destroyed in this world !"

LEARNING OF UNIVERSALIST PREACHERS. 331
His writings characterized. Unblushing arrogance.
His " Second Inquiry" is no inquiry at all, but a de
fence of views already cherished as he tells us in his In
troduction, p. 7 ; " believing that the common doctrines
of the devil and eternal punishment have long been a
disgrace to the church of God, I have ventured to at
tempt their removal." His whole labors in these In
quiries have well been characterized by one of the
greatest Biblical scholars of the age as " rash and ad
venturous criticisms, evidently the offspring neither of
patient investigation, nor yet of serious desire to know
what the Bible has decided, but intended only to remove
the difficulties which the Scriptures throw in the way
of his opinions." His " scholarship" has been well
characterized by another, and a Restorationist too, as
follows : — " though he makes a great display of He
brew and Greek learning, whoever will take the trou
ble to examine his writings will readily see, that a great
part of his criticisms are quotations from other authors ;
as to his own criticisms, they are almost invariably cri
ticisms upon a single term. And any novice who
knows the Hebrew and Greek alphabets, can take
Parkhurst's Hebrew and Greek Lexicons, and criticise
in the same manner." Yet the same writer adds, and
very justly, " that his writings show more learning than
judgment ."' But the Universalists are determined to
have it that he is the wisest man ofthe age ; — " to whom
they all gave heed, from the least to thegreatest, saying
' This man is the great power of God.' "
Nothing can exceed the assurance, with which near
ly every upstart Universalist preacher in the land now

332 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
Lrarning required of their preachers. Ignorance of English Grammar.
decries the orthodox ministry as blinded, bigoted, and
ignorant of the obvions meaning of Scripture-words.
They can talk most learnedly of Sheol, Hades, Tarta
rus, and Gehenna, Satan andDiabolos, Olam, Aion and
Aionios ; and yet not one in ten of them can tell an Al
pha from an Omega, and not one in twenty, if as many,
a Beth from a Daleth !
What are the qualifications necessary to become a
preacher of this sect ? A few years since one of their
associations established a rule to require " the study of
theology, for six months, under a Universalist preacher,
an acquaintance with English grammar," " logic," and
" rhetoric," and " the delivery of a moral or religious
essay before a committee." And yet, meagre as was
the requisition, it drew forth a loud remonstrance. The
first requisition was pronounced (' Mag. and Adv.' III.
335,) " absolutely useless," " one of the abominations
of Partialism," " threatening ill to the welfare of our
order," and " the beginning of an evil that will ulti
mately drive from our order the honest, liberal, and in
dependent-minded, and sink us into the intolerance and
despotism of our Partialist brethren." Nay, more, in
relation to the requirement of " an acquaintance with
the English Grammar." Mr. Grosh further observes,
(p. 342,) — " We do consider this an absurd requisition
for the candidate for the ministry — particularly when
MANY OF OUR BEST AND ABLEST PREACHERS COULD NOT,
EVEN NOW, PASS THE REQUIRED EXAMINATION" ! ! ! The
other requisition he considers equally useless, (and so
do we,) for a Universalist preacher.

LEARNING OF UNIVERSALIST PREACHERS. 333
Their most popular preachers. Of Mr. Grosh and Mr. Willian son.
In the ' Gospel Anchor,' (II. 141,) we perceive it re
marked by a correspondent of the ' Christian Messen
ger,' that " at the present time ( 1832,) many of our
MOST POPULAR AND MOST USEFUL PREACHERS have no
pretensions of that sort, and are in fact unable to
write a sermon correctly, that is, without gross vio
lations of the most common principles qf rhetoric and
English Grammar !" And though the editor is " of
the opinion that this remark is incorrect," (and the
opinion of the one is just as good as that of the other,)
he is free to say — " We have no doubt the time has
been when a preacher of this stamp might have been
popular and useful !" The only difference between the
two, is not in the fact, but, in point of time. Such
either are, or have been, the men by whose labors Uni
versalism has been promoted. Tbe reader will proba
bly determine, from his own observation, that they both
have been and still are. The editor, moreover, observes,
concerning this test of ministerial fellowship, (p. 157,)
— " This act of the Association seems likely to meet
with a pretty spirited opposition from many of our mi
nisters and editorial brethren." Both Mr. Grosh and
Mr. Williamson confess that such a test would have
excluded them from fellowship at the time they were
received ; and the latter states expressly, (p. 157,) that
he entered into the ministry utterly unqualified to dis
charge its duties with credit to the cause ;" and, he adds,
" we sit not down to write a sermon without deeply
feeling our want of a more liberal education, and a
mind better disciplined and improved by study." This

334 universalism as it is.
All may preach that will. Such guides abjured.
is the man, who in an ' Exposition of Universalism,'
largely quoted in this work, having preached but little
more than ten years, with such wonderful previous ad
vantages, does not hesitate to pronounce the contrary
scheme of doctrine, unscriptural, unreasonable and ab
surd. But what shall we say in regard to the distinguished
claims of the Universalist ministry, when we hear this
same editor confess as follows ? (p. 165,) " It is true
that committees have been appointed [by the associa
tions,] for the purpose of examining candidates for the
ministry, but these committees have never been told,
whether they must require a man to be able to read or
write. Tlie consequence has been that every man who
has applied has received letters of fellowship ; or at least,
we have never known an instance, where a man has
been told that he must qualify himself better in a literary
point of view, before he could be placed in the ministe
rial office !!!" And to crown the whole, any young man
among them may preach, if he please, without fellow
ship, and before he has attained these wonderful quali
fications required by the "Hudson River Association"
of Universalists, if he can induce any to hear him.
Must we be called bigoted, superstitious and intoler
ant, because we decline receiving such men as our spi
ritual guides, and to admit that they only have ar
rived at the true meaning of the sacred oracles 1 Must
we be required to forsake the wisdom of all past ages
to sit at the feet of such teachers — meekly receiving all
their dogmas as inspired truth ? Must we give up

CONCLUSION. 335

I3jii.il leaders ofthe blind. Appeal to the render.
long-established principles of interpretation and all con
fidence in the best lexicographers, Hebrew, Greek, and
English, for the oracular lessons of men, who cannot
agree that a correct knowledge of English grammar is
essential to the Christian ministry ? " They be elind
LEADERS OF THE BLIND ; AND IF THE BLIND LEAD THE
BLIND, BOTH SHALL FALL INTO THE DITCH."
In now taking leave of the reader, I cannot forbear
a word of admonition. Nothing but a thorough con
viction of the dreadful delusions of this vaunted creed,
and a most ardent desire to do something to open the
eyes of the community to the fallacy of this system,
and the danger of listening to its syren songs, would
have induced me, in the midst of other very numerous
and arduous avocations, to have given this exposition to
the world. To none of the followers or advocates of
Universalism do I owe the least ill-will, or aught but
love. "My heart's desire and prayer to God for"
them " is, that they might be saved." And for this I
have written, labored and pleaded. Having underta
ken the investigation for my own satisfaction, I have
felt it due to my own congregation, and the communi
ty with which I am associated, to spread before them
the results of this investigation, and some of the autho
rities from which my conclusions are drawn.
The reader can now see what Universalism is ; — not
as represented by its opposers, but as it is exhibited by
its founders and warmest friends. Let me ask — Is it
" worthy of all acceptation ?" Can you lay your hand
on your heart and say, that, if you had never heard a

336 UNIVERSALISM AS IT IS.
The Univeisalist not at r^sr. Strong delusions.
Universalist preacher, or read a Universalist book, or
talked with one of their sect, you would have gathered
such a scheme from the pages ofthe Bible alone ? — Nay
more ; Do you not even now, if you have embraced
the doctrine, find it extremely difficult to make it coin
cide with the plain, direct words of the Bible ? Are
you not driven to depend almost entirely on what you
either read or hear from your preachers, in order to an
swer your opponents and stifle the rising doubt in your
own bosom ? Have you ever seen the time when, for
any considerable period, you were perfectly at rest, and
free from all doubt of the truth of this system ? Has
not the intelligence of a sudden and awful death fre
quently disturbed your composure ? Can you say that
you are now fully and perfectly confirmed in this
faith ?
If you can answer all these questions with perfect
confidence in the truth of your creed, it by no means
proves that your faith is in accordance with Scripture.
You may be of the unhappy number of whom it is
said, — (2 Thess. ii. 11,) "For this cause God shall
send them strong delusions, that they should believe q
lie." And how can you be assured, while under the
influence of this blinding spirit, that your faith is not a
" strong delusion ?" The firmness with which you be
lieve it is no evidence of its truth. Millions have more
firmly believed a grosser falsehood. Do you appeal to
the judgment of Christians of all ages ? Alas ! your
scheme was unknown until the present century. The
best of men in all ages have condemned your pecuhar

CONCLUSION. 337

A rash confidence. A better way ,
doctrine. Do you rely on the superior wisdom, learn
ing and piety of your preachers ? But ah ! you have
vastly more reason to believe that they themselves are
all the -victims of this strong delusion, than that they
alone, — few in number, and confessedly, with here and
there an exception, illiterate in a shameful degree, —
have been able to read and understand the word of
God aright. The wise, the learned, the profound, the
intelligent, and the mighty in every age are against you.
Who are the deluded ? Which is the safer scheme —
- the scheme that presents the strongest claims to your
better judgment ? With such men and such multi
tudes of sincere and humble Christians of all sects
against you, can you believe that the creed of the Uni
versalist is true ? Is it not subjecting yourself to a haz
ard too dreadful, to trust your interests for eternity to
such a forlorn hope ?
Oh that you would but make a trial of our faith,
our hope, and our joy ! One at least of your number,
who for years professed not only but preached your
faith, and who has since made trial of that which he
then despised and destroyed, has assured me again and
again, that while a Universalist he was a perfect stran
ger to that peace, which subsequently has filled his soul
to overflowing. Thousands can say the same. And so
will it be with you, if you, too, become a humble fol
lower of our Lord and God, — Jesus Christ. " Come
THOU WITH US AND WE WILL DO THEE GOOD.'-'

29

BOOKS OF REFERENCE.

1. The Modern History of Universalism, by Thos. Whittemore :
Boston, 1830.
2. The Life of Rev. John Murray, written by himself; Fifth edi
tion, with Notes and Appendix by Rev. L. S. Everett : Boston, 1833.
3. The Plain Guide to Universalism, by Thomas Whittemore :
Boston, 1840.
4. The Gospel Anchor ; (a weekly periodical ;) Clement Le
Fevre, Isaac D. Williamson, Editors ; Vol. II. : Troy, N. Y.
1832-3. 5. An Exposition and Defence of Universalism, by Rev. I. D.
Williamson : New York, 1840.
6. The Universalist Expositor ; (a bimonthly periodical ;) Vol. I.
H. Ballou, and H. Ballou, 2d, Editors : Boston, 1831.
7. The Expositor and Universalist Review ; (a bimonthly period
ical;; Vols. n. III. IV ; Edited by Hosea Ballou, 2d: Boston, 1838,
1839, 1840.
8. A Discussion between Ezra Stiles Ely, D. D- and Abel C.
Thomas, both of Philadelphia : New York, 1835.
9. The Universalist Companion, with an Almanac and Register,
containing the Statistics ofthe Denomination for 1841 ; A. B. Grosh,
Editor: Utica.
10. Letters addressed Rev. W. C. Brownlee, D. D., by T. J-
Sawyer : New York, 1833.
11. Letters to the Rev. Stephen Remington, by T. J. Sawyer :
New York, 1839.
12. A Treatise on Atonement, by Hosea Ballou ; Fourth Edition :
Boston, 1832.

340 BOOKS OF REFERENCE.
13. Penalty of Sin ; a Sermon by T. J. Sawyer, Pastor of the
Orchard-street church : New York, 1839.
14. The Universalist Union ; (a weekly periodical ;) conducted by
P. Price ; Vols. IV. V. VI. ; New York, 1839, 1840, 1841.
15. A series of Lecture Sermons, delivered at the Second Univer
salist Meeting, in Boston, by Hosea Ballou, Pastor ; Third edition,
stereotyped : Utica, N. Y., 1840.
16. Notes on the Parables of the New Testament, by Hosea Bal
lou ; Fifth edition, stereotyped : Boston, 1832.
17. Reply to Professor Stuart's Exegetical Essays on several
words relating to Future Punishment, by Walter Balfour : Boston
1831. 18. Salvation for all Men, Illustrated and Vindicated as a Scrip
ture-doctrine, by one who wishes well to mankind — [Charles
Chauncy, D. D.,] ; Boston, 1782.
19. Letters on the Immortality of the Soul, the Intermediate
State ofthe Dead, and a Future Retribution, in reply to Mr. Charles
Hudson, by Walter Balfour : Charlestown, Mass. 1829.
20. Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate ; (a weekly pe
riodical ;) Aaron B. Grosh, Dolphus Skinner, and Stephen R.
Smith, Editors ; Vols. III. VII. VIII. : Utica, 1832, 1836, 1837.
21. Universalism Illustrated and Defended, by Otis A. Skinner,
Pastor ofthe 5th Univer. Soc. in Boston ; Boston, 1839.
22. An Inquiry into the Scriptural import of the words Sheol,
Hades, Tartarus, and Gehenna, all translated ' Hell' in the common
English version. By Walter Balfour ; Second Edition : Charles
town, Mass. 1825.
23. Notes and Illustrations of the Parables, arranged in the order
of time in which they were spoken, by Thomas Whittemore : Bos
ton. 24. A series of Lectures on the Doctrine of Universal Benevolence,
by Rev. Abner Kneeland ; Second edition : Philadelphia, 1824.
25. An Examination of the Doctrine of Future Retribution, by
Hosea Ballou: Boston, 1834.
26. An Inquiry into the Scriptural Doctrine concerning the Devil
and Satan, by Walter Balfour. Second edition : Charlestown,
Mass. 27. Three Essays, by Walter Balfour : Charlestown, Mass. 1828.
23. Universalism against Partialism, by Woodbury M. Fernald :
Boston, 1840.

BOOKS OF REFERENCE. 341
29. The Process andT-mpire of Christ, from his Birth to the End
of the Mediatorial Kingdom : A Poem, in 12 books, by Elhanan
Winchester. 30. Theological Works of Thomas Paine : Boston, 1834.
31. Letters and Sketches of Sermons, in 2 vols, by John Murray.
32. Universalist Manual, or Book of Prayers, and other Religious
Exercises, by Menzies Rayner : New York, 1840.
33. Trumpet and Universalist Magazine; (a weekly periodical ;)
by Thomas Whittemore. Vol. XIII. : Boston, 1840.
34. The New Testament in Greek and English, by Abner Knee
land. Vols. I. II. : Philadelphia, 1823.
35. The Works of the Rev. Robert Hall, in 3 vols. Vol. III.
New York.
36, Pro and Con of Universalism ; by G. Rogers; Cincinnati, 1840.
37. New York Observer; (a weekly periodical;) Vol. XIX.;
New York, 1841.

29*

J. A. HOISINGTON,
THEOLOGICAL, SCHOOL, CLASSICAL, AND
MISCELLANEOUS BOOKSELLER,
No. 156 Fulton Street,
THREE DOORS EAST OF BROADWAY,
NEW YORK.
Where books may be had at very reduced prices. — Students,
Clergymen, Literary Gentlemen, and Booksellers from the coun
try, are respectfully invited to examine the subscriber's stock,
among which are the following:

Scott's Family Bible in 6 vols, and
in 3.
Henry's Family Bible in 6 vols.
and in 3.
Clarke's Commentary on the Old
and New Testament.
Cottage Bible, 2 vols.
Mant and D. Oyley's do. 2 vols.
Gill's Commentary in 9 vols, and
in 3.
Comprehensive Commentary
complete in 6 vols.
Encyclopedia of Religious know
ledge, 8vo.
Bush's illustrations ofthe Scrip
tures, 8vo.
Companion to the Bible.
Robinson's Calmet's Dictionary of
the Bible.
Home's Introduction to the study
ofthe Scriptures.
Dwight's Theology, Dick's The
ology, and all the other sys
tems of Theology now in use.
Baxter's (Rev. Richard,) Works,
4 vols. 8vo.
Stackhouse's History of the Bible,
1 vol. 8vo.
Cruden's Concordance.
Gill's Body of Divinity.
Rev. Wm. Jay's Works, 3 vols.
8vo.
Rev. A. Barnes on Isaiah.
Rev. A. Barnes' Notes on the New
Testament, 5 vols.
Hegstenberg's Chrystology, com
plete, 3 vols. 8vo.
Milner's Church History.
RolUn's Ancient History, various
editions. 1

Cudworth's Intellectual System,
2 vols. 8vo.
Jahns' Biblical Archaeology.
Bloomfield's Critical Digest, 8
vols. 8vo.
Bingham's Christian Antiquities,
8 vols. 8vo.
Appleton's (Rev. Jesse,) Works, 2
vols. 8vo.
Mellvill's Sermons, 2 vols. 8vo.
Fox's Book of Martyrs.
Campbell's complete Works, 2
vols. 8vo.
The whole works of Mrs. Sher
wood, in 15 vols. 12mo.
The whole works of Hannah
More, in 7 vols. 12mo.
The whole works of Mrs. Edg-
worth, in 10 vols. 12mo.
Robinson's Greek and English
Lexicon.
Gesenius' Hebrew Lexicon, by
Robinson.
Dwight's Theology, 4 vols. 8vo.
Webster's quarto and octavo Dic
tionaries.
The whole works of Rev. Jacob
Abbott.
The whole works of J. S. Abbott.
Encyclopedia Americana, 13 vols.
Svo.
Waverly Novels, complete in 5
vols. 8vo.
Waverly Novels, complete in 27
vols. 12mo.
Leverett's Latin Lexicon.
Southey's Poetical Works.
Dick's (Rev. T.) Works, uniform
in 7 vols. 12mo.
Works of Rev. R. Hall, 3 vols. 8vo.
1

HOISINGTON S CATALOGUE.

Murdock's Mosheims Ecclesiasti
cal History.
Watson's Body of Divinity.
Jones's History of the Church.
Sherlock's Works, 5 vols.
Godman's Natural History, 2 vols
Goldsmith's Animated Nature, 4
vols.
Goodrich's Pictorial Geography,
I vol. 8vo. plates.
Aikin's British Poets.
Sale's Koran, 2 vols.
Bloomfield's Greek Testament, 2
vols.
Townsend's Chronological Old &
New Testament.
Malte Brim's Geography, com
plete, 6 vols.
Blake's Biographical Dictionary,
1 vol. 9vo.
Marshall's Life of Washington, 3
vols.
Burke's (Edmund,) Works.
Butler's Ancient Geography and
Alias.
Josephus' Works.
Scolt's (Sir Walter,) Works, 7
vols. 8vo.
Irving's (Washington,) Works, 12
vols. 12mo.
Coit's Edition of the Bible.
Webster's, do. do. do.
Brooks' Universal Gazatteer.
Robinson's, Malcom's, and other
Dictionaries of the Bible.
Curiosities of Literature.
Upbams' Mental Philosophy.
Stuart's do. do.
Brown's, do. do.
National Portrait Gallery, 3 vols.
8vo.
Works of the Rev. John Howe, 2
vols.
Works of the Rev. John Newton,
2 vols.
Magee on the Atonement, 2 vols.
8vo.
Goodrich's Ecclesiastical History.
McKnight on the Epistles.
Watts' (Rev. Isaac,) Sermons.
Massillon's Sermons.
Bishop Berkeley's Works.
2

Warburton's Divine Legation, 2
vols. Svo.
Gurnall's Christian Armour, 2
vols. 8vo.
Campbell on the Miracles.
Hugs' Introduction to the New
"Testament.
Selections from German Litera
ture, by Profs. B. B.Edwards
and E. A. Park, Theol. Sem.
Andover.
Storr and Flatt's Elements of
Theology, translated by Prof.
S. S. Schmucker.
Stowe's Introduction to the Study
ofthe Bible.
Stuart's Comment'ry on Hebrews
" on Romans.
" Hebrew Grammar, 6th edit.
" " Chrestomathy, 3d
edition.
" Course of Hebrew study.
" New Testament Grammar.
" Ernesti on Interpretation.
" Letters to Channing.
" Letters to Miller.
" On Greek Accents.
" Study of the Original Lan
guages.
" On Baptism.
Coleridge's Aids to Reflections.
Buttmann's Larger Greek Gram
mar. Translated from the
14th German edition, by Prof.
Robinson. Second edition.
Bush's Hebrew Grammar.
" Notes on Genesis, 2 vols.
12mo.
Campbell's Four Gospels, 2 vols.
8vo. cloth.
Cicero on the Immortality of the
soul. With notes by Prof.
Stuart.
Porter's Lectures on Homiletics
and Preaching, 1 vol. 8vo.
Porter's Lectures on Eloquence
and Style.
Porter's Analysis of Rhetorical
Delivery. Eighth edition.
Porter's Rhetorical Reader j adap
ted to High Schools and A-
cademies.

J. A. HOISINGTON'S CATALOGUE.

Wiseman's Lectures on the Con
nection between Science and
Revealed Religion. With Map
and Plates, 1 vol. 8vo.
Woods' Letters to Unitarians,
Woods' on Infant Baptism.
" on the Inspiration of the
Scriptures.
Works of Rev. Jesse Appleton, D.
D. late President of Bowdoin
College, 2 vols. 8vo. with Por
trait.
Tyndale's Newe Testamente,with
Marginal Readings.
Elements of Popular Theology,
by S. S. Schmucker, D. D. 1
vol. 8vo.
Harmony ofthe Gospels, in Greek
with Newcome's Notes. Ed
ited by Prof. Robinson.
Gibbon's Rome, 4 vols. 8vo.
Russell's Modern Europe, 3 vols.
Robertson's Historical Works, 3
vols. 8vo.
Hallam's Middle Ages.
Prideaux's Connections.
Saurin's Sermons.
Plutarch's Lives.
Good's Book of Nature.
Robert Hall's Works 3 vols.
Crabb's Synonymes.
Wesley's Works, 10 vols. 8vo.
Prescott's Ferdinand and Isa
bella.
Bancroft's History of the United
States.
Lowth on Isaiah.
Geisler's Ecclesiastical History, 3
vols.
Tholuch's Commentary on John.
Baxter's Saints Rest.
Doddrige's Rise and Progress.
Hume, Smollett, and Miller's Eng
land, 4 vols.
Rev. Robert Philip's Works.
Memoirs of the Rev. Wm. Milne,
Missionary to China, 1 vol.
12mo.
The Life and Times of Whitefield,
Compiled from Original Doc
uments, by Robert Philip,
12mo. cloth.

The Life and Times of John Bun-
yan, by Robert Philip, 1 vol
large 12mo.
Lady's Closet Library.
The Marys, or Beauty of Female
Holiness, 1 vol. ISmo. cloth
extra.
The Marthas, or Varieties of Fe
male Piety, 1 vol. 18mo. cloth
extra.
The Lydias, or Development of
Female Character, 1 vol.
13mo. cloth extra.
Devotional and Experimental
Guides, by Robert Philip,
with an Introductory Essay,
by Rev. Albert Barnes, 2 vols.
12mo. containing
Guide to the Perplexed,
" Devotional,
" Thoughtful,
" Doubting,
" Conscientious,
" Redemption.
Young Man's Library, by Rev.
Robert Philip, with an In
troductory Essay, by Rev.
Albert Barnes, 1 vol. 12mo.
Love of the Spirit, traced in His
Work ; a Companion to- the
^Experimental Guides," by
Robert Philip, 18mo.
Redemption, or the New Song in
Heaven, (Philip's Guides,)
ISmo. cloth.
Physical Theory of Another Life,
by the Author of "Natural
History of Enthusiasm," 2d
edition, 12mo.
Home Education, by Isaac Tay
lor, author of "Natural His
tory of Enthusiasm," &c.
12mo. cloth.
Rev. J. A. James' Works.
The Young Man From Home ; in
a Series of Letters, by the
Rev. John Angell James, 1
vol. 18mo.
James' (John Angell,) Anxious
Inquirer After Salvation, di
rected and encouraged, 12nio.
cloth.

A. HOISINGTON

CATALOGUE.

James^ Christian Professor, 3d
edition, 18mo. cloth.
Dr. Sprague's Works.
Soutngate's Travels in the East.
Narrative of a Tour through
Armenia, Kurdistan, Persia,
Mesopotamia, and other parts
of Asiatic Turkey ; by the
Rev. Horatio Southgate, 2
vols. 12mo. numerous plates
and cuts.
Scripture and Geology, on the
Relation between the Holy
Scripture and some parts of
Geological Science ; by John
Pye Smith, D. D. F. G. S.
1 vol. 12mo.
Hare's Parochial Sermons. Ser
mons to a Country Congre
gation ; hy the Rev. Augus
tus William Hare. 1 vol.
large 8vo.
Guizot's History of Civilization.
General History of Civiliza
tion in Europe ; byM.Guizot,
12mo. second edition.
Griffin's Remains ofthe Rev. Ed-
mond D. Griffin — compiled
by Francis Griffin, with a
biographical Memoir of the
Deceased, by Rev. John Mc
Vickar, D. D., 2 vols.8vo.
Bickersteth's Complete Works, —
Library edition, 1 vol. 8vo.
sheep.
Library of Religious Knowledge,
12mo.
Vols. 1,2, 3, Tyerman and Ben
nett's Journal.
Vol. 4, Bates' Harmony of the
Divine Attributes.
Vols. 5, 6, Wilson on the Eviden
ces of Christianity.
Worcester's Watts' Psalms and
Hymns, entire, with 476
Hymns from various Authors,
12mo.
" " " 18mo.
" " " 32mo.
" Select Hymns, separate,
morocco.
Kingsley's Social Choir, vol. I.
i

Kingsley's Social Choir, vol. II.
Kelley's First Spelling Book,
18mo.
Cogswell's Manual of Theology
and Devotion, 12mo.
" Theological Class Book, for
Biblo Crasses and Sabbath
Schools, ISmo.
Stowe's Edition of Lowth's He
brew Poetry, 8vo.
Butterworth's Concordance to the
Holy Scriptures, with con
siderable corrections and im
provements, 8™.
Baxter, Richard, Life, Times and
Writings of, 2 vols. 8vo.
SCHOOL BOOKS.
Adam's Latin Grammar, sheep.
" Roman Antiquities, new
edition, plates, sheep.
Blair's Lectures, 18mo. with ques
tions, sheep.
Bonnycastle's Algebra, sheep.
Blake's Geography, numerous
plates, half bound.
Bennett's Book-keeping, half roan
" Arithmetic, half roan.
Beck's Chemistry, new edition,
sheep.
Blake's Conversations on Chem
istry, sheep.
Cobb's Juvenile Readers, No. 1,
2, and 3, half bound.
Charles XII., French, sheep.
Day's Algebra, sheep.
" Mathematics, sheep.
" Trigonometry, half-cloth.
" Mensuration, "
" Navigation and Surveying,
half-cloth.
Emerson's Arithmetic, Nos. 1, 2,
and 3, half-bound.
Gale's Natural Philosophy, for
schools, sheep.
Graeca Minora, sheep.
Graca Majora, 2 vols, sheep.
Hale's United States, with Ques
tions, half roan.
Jacob's Greek Reader, sheep.
" Latin Reader, sheep.

HOISINGTON S CATALOGUE.

Kirkham's Grammar, sheep.
Leusden's Greek and Latin Testa
ment, sheep.
Lempnere's Classical Dictionary,
sheep.
Levizac s French Grammar,
sheep.
Lacroix's Algebra, last edition,
boards.
Murray's Grammar, 12mo. sheep.
" Exercises, " "
Reader, " "
" Sequel, "
Mair's Syntax, "
Neuman and Barreti's Dictionary
18ino. sheep.
Olmsted's Natural Philosophy, 2
vols. Svo. sheep.
OslrandL-r's Mensuration, boards.
-Olmsted's Astronomy, 8vo. sheep.
Playfair's Euclid, sheep.
Patterson's Csesar, "
Paley's Philosophy, 12mo. with
Questions, sheep.
Ryan's Astronomy, sheep.
Recueil Choisi, "
Valpy's Greek Grammar, sheep.
" Virgil,
Whelpley's Compend of History,
and Questions, sheep.
Webster's United States, 18mo.
sheep.
Woodbridge's Geography and
Atlas, half bound.
Whateley's Logic, last edition,
sheep.
Angell's Union Series of Common
School Classics, being a com
plete series of Spelling and
Reading Books, in six num
bers, by Oliver Angell, A. M.
Principal of the Franklin
High School.
Union Series No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and
6.
Frost's Easy Exercises in Com
position.
Parley's Common School Histo-

Introductory Arithme'

lith's

Smith's tic.

Smith's Practical and Mental
Arithmetic.
" Productive Grammar.
" Geography and Atlas.
National Reader, by Pierpont.
Introduction to National Reader,
by Pierpont.
Young Reader, by Pierpont.
American First Class Book by
Pierpont.
Brown's Grammar.
Willett's Geography and Atlas.
" Arithmetic.
Bently's Spelling Book.
Webster's '/ "
Cobb's '<
Town's " "
Woodbridge and Willard's Geog
raphy and Atlas.
Olney's Geography and Atlas.
Mitchell's " "
English Readers.
Daholl's Arithmetic.
Andrew's and Stoddard's Latin
Grammar.
" Latin Reader. '
" " Exercises.
" Keys to the above.
Quarto Bibles, plain and extra
from 81 75 to S10, Pocket Bibles
and Testaments of every descrip
tion. N. B. All new works of interest
received from the different pub
lishers in Philadelphia, Boston
and Baltimore, as soon as they
are issued from the Press.
Colleges supplied with Libraries
and Text Books, on the most ac
commodating terms. Teachers
supplied at wholesale prices.
Country merchants will find it
to their advantage to call at 156
Fulton street, 3 doors East of
Broadway, before making then-
purchases. Orders from the coun
try promptly attended to.

J. A. HOISINGTON'S CATALOGUE.

J. A. HOISINGTON,
Keeps constantly on hand all works needed in the various
departments of education.
All the different kinds of Bibles, from the plain or Polyglot
32mo. (50cts.) to the elegant folio, Bagster's London edition,
($50.) All the Biblical Commentaries in common use : A variety
of Hymn Books, with a general assortment of Miscellaneous
Works, for sale in any quantity at lowest market prices.
BARNES' NOTES on the New Testament, for Sabbath
Schools, Bible Classes, and Families. This work consists of
two 12mo. volumes, making about 800 closely printed pages,
on the Gospels — one on the Acts ofthe Apostles — one on the
Romans, &c. They are bound uniformly, to sell in sets or
singly, as preferred. This familiar Commentary has been
found to be admirably adapted to the wants of this age of
Sabbath Schools, and has met with unparalleled success.
QUESTION BOOKS about the size of those of the Union
Question Books have been prepared also by Mr. Barnes.
CALMET'S DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE, 8vo, and
also abridged for young persons, 18mo.
BUTLER'S ANALOGY, with Barnes' Essay; a stereo
type edition of this valuable standard work.
RHETORICAL READER, by the late Dr. Porter. Stereo
typed. JAY'S EVENING EXERCISES, for the Closet.
All the Andover Sacred Classical Works for sale at the
lowest prices.
JACOB ABBOTT'S FIRESIDE SERIES, with steel en
gravings. Vol. I. Fireside Piety.
Vol. II. Mother's Friend.
Vol. III. China and the English.
Vol. IV. Real Dialougues on the "Evidences of Chris
tianity." JUVENILE FIRESIDE SERIES, just commenced, ex
pressly designed to improve the taste and morals of the
young. Vol. I. The Way for a child to be Saved, with engravings.
Vol. II. Every Day Duty, " "
P. S. These books are from the most popular and success
ful writers of the day, and well fitted for the Domestic and
for the Sabbath School Library. 6

3 9002 08844 3974