UMVERSALISM KOT OF THE BIBLE:

AN EXAMINATION OF MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY
TEXTS OF SCRIPTUEES, IN CONTROVERSY BETWEEN
EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS AND UNIVERSAMSTS,
O OUIIISOS
A REFUTATION OF UNIVERSALIST THEOLOGY, AND AN EXPOSURE
OF THE SOPHISTICAL ARGUMENTS AND OTHER MEANS
BY WHICH IT IS PROPAGATED;
WITH A
GENERAL AOT SCRIPTUBE INDEX.

BY EEV. N. D. GEORGE.

" Not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully ; but, by manifesta
tion of the truth, commending ourselveB to every man's conscience in the sight of- God.**
Paul.

NEW YORK:
FOB SALE BY CARLTON & PHILLIPS, 200 MULBERRY STREET.
BOSTON: JAMES P. MAGEE, 5 CORNHILL.
18 5 6.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1856,
Bt N.D. GEORGE,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Massachusetts.

Quo. C. Ra»d & Atsby, Piiistebb, 3 Cobmhill, Bostom.

CONTENTS,

PART I. PAGE
Examination of Scriptures in Controversy between Universalis and
Believers of Future and Eternal Punishment  9

PAET II.
Miscellaneous Arguments  321

PREFACE.

This book is designed to expose the errors of Universalism
and to aid the inquirer after truth. Does the reader desire
to find a passage of scripture connected with this subject ?
let him turn to the " Scripture Index," and he is pointed to
the page where the passage is explained. Does he wish to find
an argument or a fact stated ? he has only to turn to the.
" General Index," and he is directed to the place. It is not
pretended, however, that every text or argument which may
be used at times to teach Universalism, is examined in this
work. But it will be admitted by Universalists themselves,
that if their doctrine is not contained in these texts which are
examined, it is not found in the Bible. I have endeavored
to attend to all those upon which they rely with the greatest
confidence, and conclude that but few, if any, of this class
have escaped notice. Neither is it claimed that all the
scriptures which go to establish future punishment are pre
sented. The prominent texts are given, and the falsity and
absurdity of Universalist interpretations shown.
A work upon this plan, where so many texts of like im
port are examined separately, must of necessity involve some

PREFACE .

repe&tion of thought and language. This, however, is ob
viated in part, by references from one section to another.
For twenty years past I have been a close observer of the
modifications, tactics, and general operations of the order of
Universalists, and having availed myself of their periodicals
and books, by their principal men, am fully satisfied that,
whatever a few of its advocates may profess in certain locali
ties, no future punishment is the doctrine of the Universalist
body in the United States, the exceptions being very few.
There is but little regard among them for the future punish
ment views of the Restorationists. The force of their teach
ings for years, has been against them. See Sec. CXXXVI.
This fact furnishes the reason why particular reference has
been had to the no-future punishment sentiment and its con
comitants in writing this book. Restoration views, however,
are abundantly refuted in this examination.
I was a subscriber for, and constant reader of, the Univer
salist Trumpet more than two years before my conversion to
God, and, as might be expected, imbibed its spirit and sen
timents. Having known something of its blighting influence
upon my own heart, and witnessing it extensively upon others,
and believing that Universalism, as it exists among us, while
it professes a regard for the Bible, contains within it all
the elements of theoretical and practical infidelity, I have
endeavored to tear off the mask, and present its true features ;
how successfully the reader will judge.
Acknowledgments are due Messrs. P. R. Russell, A. Royce,
L. Lee, and C. Kingsley, for liberal extracts from their
valuable books ; also, to Rev. C. Munger, of the Maine Con-

PREFACE. VU
ference for two valuable articles contained in sections XX.
and CX.
Although I have availed myself of all the helps at hand, yet
it is believed that this production, for the most part, passes
over ground heretofore unoccupied by any other writer. It
has been prosecuted under a firm conviction of duty, and in
accordance with the advice of judicious brethren in the min
istry, whose opinions are worthy of respect. The book is
submitted to a candid public, with the earnest prayer of the
author, that it may be the means, under God, of saving
some soul from death, and thereby hiding a multitude of sins.
N. D. GEORGE.

UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE.

PART I.
EXAMINATION OF SCRIPTURES IN CONTROVERSY BETWEEN
UN1VERSALISTS AND BELIEVERS IN FUTURE AND
ENDLESS PUNISHMENT.
I. " And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will
bless thee, and make thy name great ; and thou shalt be a bless
ing : and I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that
curseth thee ; and in thee shall all the families of the earth be
blessed." — Gen. 12 : 2, 3. Repeated chapter 18 : 17, 18, also
22 : 13, with this variation, "In thy seed shall all the nations
of the earth be blessed." This is repeated to Isaac, chap. 26 :
4, and to Jacob, chap. 28 : 14. In Acts, 3 : 25, where Peter
quotes it, the phrase " all the kindreds of the earth," occurs.
This promise is often presented with great confidence, as
teaching the salvation of all men ; hence, Universalism has by
its advocates, been denominated the " Abrahamic Faith."
Before proceeding in our examination, it is proper to define
Universalism, and show when, where, and by what means, it is
contended that it will be accomplished. According to this
theory, the whole race of Adam, i.e.. all that ever have lived,
now live, or may hereafter live, will be made holy and happy,
not in this world, but in the future or resurrection stato. Says
2

10 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Pai't I.
Mr. Skinner-, "None, therefore, can be saved from all moral
evil here. Add to this the fact, that salvation includes redemp
tion from death, and you will see that the work will not be fully
accomplished, till this corruptible puts on incorruption. In the
morning of the resurrection we shall be complete in the Saviour,
and join in the song of Moses and the Lamb." — TI. III. and
Def., p. 261. Says Bir. Ballou, " the resurrection power, which
brought again from the dead the Lord Jesus Christ, will finally,
in- him, make the whole human family gloriously immortal and
incorruptible."' — Exp. vol. 1, p. 78. Again says Mr. Skinner,
" The resurrection introduces us into the kingdom of endless
blessedness." "We shall all be equal in the resurrection,"
" all are alike, all equally honorable, glorious and happy. We
shall be equal to the angels." " The resurrection is spoken of
as a victory over death, the grave, and sin." " In the victory
of the resurrection, there is no cause of regret. This is a vic
tory in which a world is redeemed and saved. U. III. and
Def, pp. 289, 293. Mr. Whittemore, in an effort to show
that dying in sin determines nothing relative to the future, says :
" The question touching man's future condition is not, how did
he die ? but how will he be raised ? What constitution will he
put on in the future existence ? — To the process of this change,
(the resurrection) we are happy to leave not only tho Jews, but
all mankind. — The sting of death, which is sin, will (then) be
destroyed ; ancl all will be reconciled to the Father." — Trumpet,
Oct. 6, 1855. See also a quotation from Williamson, in Sec.
XCV. Quotations might be greatly multiplied from leading
authors, but it is not demanded, as all who have any acquaint
ance with the system know what it attributes to the resurrection.
Observe, it is not by faith in Christ, it is not by the atonement
made by him, it is not by any conditions performed, but it is by
" the victory of the resurrection, that a world is redeemed and
saved." With this view, then, we are at liberty to construe tbe
promise to Abraham as follows, " In thy seed shall ihe whole
race of man le made holy and happy in the future state by the

Sec. 1.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 11
resurrection." We contend that Heaven never designed to
convey such instruction in this promise and that there is no evi
dence whatever that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, the
Prophets, or our Lord and his apostles ever so understood it ;
but on the other hand there ia an abundance in the Scriptures
to show that it has direct reference to the spread of Christianity
in the earth, and not to the unconditional holiness and happiness
of all men after death. This evidence will now be presented.
Mr. Whittemore in his Guide, p. 30, in what were once called
his " Ono Hundred Arguments," manufactures at least six of
them out of this promise. Now if we can show that his doctrine
derives no support from it, wo shall overthrow his six arguments
a1 once. In one he gives a quotation from Dr. Clarke on Gen.
12 : 3, in which the Dr. states that the Messiah's " gospel shall
be preached throughout the world, ancl innumerable blessings be
derived on all mankind, through his death and intercessions."
That all mankind have been graciously affected by the atone
ment is a truth to whieh we heartily subscribe, but it by no
means follows that all will be saved in the future state ; and Dr.
Clarke, as Mr. Whittemore well knows, never intended to teach
such a sentiment. That all the classes named, nations, families,
and individuals, are said to be blessed, without being uncondi
tionally saved in the future state, may be seen by referring to
the 'following scriptures: Fs. 33 : 12 ; Num. 22 : 12 ; Gen. 9 :
1 ; 2 Sam. 6:11; Gen. 39 : 5 ; Judges, 13 : 24 ; Gen. 17 :
20. In order to bring out the true import of this promise, let us
inquire :
1. What is meant by the seed of Abraham through whom
the nations are to be blessed ?
In Gal. 3 : 16, we read as follows : " Now to Abraham and
his seed were the promises made. He saith not, and to seeds,
as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ."
Here it is stated that Christ is the seed of Abraham. But it
will be seen by examining the chapter, that thc apostle states

12 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
with equal clearness that believers are Abraham's seed. Tins
matter is set in a very clear light in the following extract. "He
saith not and to seeds. It was one particular kind of posterity
which was intended : but as of one — which is Christ ; i.e. to
the spiritual head, and all believers in him, who are children of
Abraham because they are beUevers, ver. 7. But why does the
apostle say, not of seeds, as of many ? To this it is answered
that Abraham, possessed in his family two seeds, one natural,
viz., tbe members of his own household ; and the other spiritual,
those who were like himself because of their faith. Tbe prom
ises were not of a temporal nature ; had they been so they
would bave belonged to his natural seed ; but they did not,
therefore they must have belonged to the spiritual posterity ;
and as we know tho promises of justification, &c, could not
properly be made to Christ himself, hence we must conclude
his members to be here intended, and the word Christ is put
here for Christians. It is from Christ that the grace flows
whieh constitutes Christians. Christians are those who believe
after the example of Abraham ; they are therefore, the spiritual
seed. Cbrist, working in and by these, makes them the light
and salt of the world ; and through them under and hy Christ,
are all the nations of the earth to be blessed. This appears to
be the most consistent interpretation, though every thing must
be understood of Christ in the first instance, and then of
Christians only through him." — Clarke in loco.
That this view is correct, is evident from verses 7th and 29th
of the same chapter which read thus : " Know ye therefore that
they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham,"
i.e. they are the spiritual seed of Abraham. Again, "Ancl if
ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed and heirs according
to promise." Now what truth do we arrive at hy this view of
the subject and these plain declarations of scripture ? It is this :
All true Christians by virtue of their union with Christ, by
faith constitute the spiritual seed of Abraham, and that it is
through them that the nations of the earth are to be blessed.

Sec. l.J UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 13
True Christians are Christ upon earth. They are his represen
tatives ; hence he said to his disciples when he sent them forth,
"He that receiveth you receiveth me." Matt. 10:40. Hav
ing ascertained from the scriptures who are the seed of Abraham,
we come to inquire :
2. What is meant by the phrases all nations, all kindreds,
fyc. ? Do they according to Scripture usage always mean a
universal whole ? What is their import in this promise ?
The phrase all nations, as used in the scriptures, does not
always indicate a universal whole. By a universal whole we
mean the whole posterity of Adam. This expression is some
times used to denote a great number. The Saviour says, "Is
it not written, my house shall be called of all nations the house
of prayer? " Mark 11 : 17. Does the Saviour mean to con
vey the idea that the whole race of Adam should call the temple
a house of prayer ? Certainly not ; for millions had died before
the temple was known, and millions have died since without a
knowledge of it. The Psalmist says, "All nations compassed
me about, but in the name of thc Lord will I destroy them."
Ps. 118 : 10. The fact here brought out is, the great number
of his enemies, ancl not that the whole of Adam's posterity had
surrounded him, as all will see. Other instances, were it neces
sary, might bo given where this phrase is used in a restricted
sense ; and although Universalist writers profess to see nothing
but the whole human family made happy in the future state by
the promise in question, because of the universal language em
ployed, yet in considering Matt. 25 : 32, where the same phrase
occurs, they can see with great clearness "all nations " gathered
at Jerusalem's destruction ! "All kindreds." Great stress has
been laid upon Peter's use of this in connection with the prom
ise, Acts 3 : 25, as though Universalism must be the truth of
God on account of it. In Rev. 1 : 7, we read, "Behold he
cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they
also which pierced him : and all kindreds of the earth shall
wail because of him." Upon this the following is submitted :

14 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
1. Believers in the second personal advent of Christ do not
consider this phrase to be here used in a universal sense.
Wailing is expressive of distress, grief and sorrow. But they
are warranted, by many other scriptures, to believe that the
second coming of Christ will be a time of joy to saints ; hence,
they restrict the application to those who shall be unprepared
to meet Christ as their judge.
2. But if, as Universalists will have it, the scene here de
scribed refers to some temporal calamity, then certainly the ex
pression "all kindreds of the earth," is not used to designate
the whole human race, as must be obvious to all.
The conclusion is, that these expressions are not always em
ployed in the scriptures to convey the idea of a universal whole,
but are sometimes used when a part only is intended, and the
sense of such phraseology must be determined either by the
connection in whieh it is found, or by other plain declarations of
scripture respecting the same subject. The question now prop
erly comes up, in what sense are these expressions used in the
promise under consideration ? Do they express a universal
whole, or are they used in a restricted sense ? We answer with
out hesitancy that they are used in a restricted sense, and not
as meaning the whole race of man, but as expressive of the
general spread of the gospel in the earth. This will be shown
by indisputable scripture evidence under the next head.
3. Our next inquiry is, what is the blessing promised,
and where and how is it received?
It has been already admitted that certain unconditional bless
ings are secured to the whole human race by virtue of the atone
ment, but we should never learn this fact, we think, from the
Abrahamio promise. The gracious and universal effects of the
atonement named, we conceive to be taught in other scriptures,
while the promise in question assures us of the triumphs of
Christ's kingdom in the earth. It is conceived, too, that the
particular blessing to which reference is had, is that of justifi
cation by faith, as preparatory to a well grounded hope for the

SeC. 1.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 15
future. Gal. 3:8; Heb. 6 : 18, 19. We propose now to ex
amine the prominent passages in the New Testament where this
promise is quoted or referred to, and see to what results we are
led. The first we present in proof of our position is found,
Acts 3 : 21, 26. "For Moses truly said unto the fathers, a
Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your breth
ren, like unto me ; him shall ye hear in all things, whatsoever he
shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul
which will not hear that Prophet, shall be destroyed from among
the people. Yea, and all the Prophets from Samuel, and those
that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold
these days. Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the
covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abra
ham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be
blessed. Unto you first, God having raised up his Son Jesus,
sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his
iniquities." (Sec. XXX.) The instruction imparted by the
apostle in this passage is very plain. He states that Moses fore
told the advent of Christ among the Jews as their prophet or
lawgiver, and that they were to hear or obey him in all things
whatsoever he should say, and declares to them that they should
be punished for disobedience. He then states that all the
prophets from Samuel, and those that follow after, had foretold
these wonderful days of the Messiah's reign already commenced.
They are then reminded of the fact that by natural descent they
were the children of the prophets and of the covenant made
with Abraham, and as such unto them first, God having raised
up his Son in the flesh, sent him to bless them, in accordance
with the promise made to Abraham, in turning every one of
them from their iniquities. It must be obvious to every reader,
we think, that Peter in this passage is speaking of the fact that
the Jews were the first to have the gospel preached to them,
and that gospel blessings in this world are the fulfilment of the
promise made to Abraham. It is clear too, that he is speaking
conditionally, when he says to the Jews that God sent his Son

16 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I,
Jesus " to bless you in turning away every one of you from his
iniquities," for all the Jews were not turned from their iniqui
ties, neither have they been to this day. Observe, God sent his
Son first to bless them, i.e. the Jews. This blessing is the one
promised to Abraham, (ver. 25.) But how shall we reconcile
the Apostle's words with the assumption that the promise is to
have its fulfilment in the resurrection state? Are the Jews to
be blessed first in eternity ? Are they to be turned from in
iquity in the future state ? Are the disobedient to be destroyed
from among the people beyond the grave ? Admit the fact that
the promise secures the triumph of the gospel in this world,
among "the nations of the earth," and all is plain. Christ
"came into his own," (John 1 : 11,) i.e. the Jews, ancl in the
commission given to his disciples they were to preach in " all
nations, beginning at Jerusalem," (Luke 24 : 47,) and thus the
offers of the gospel were first made to the Jews. In strict obedi
ence to this command the apostles as they went forth preached
first to the Jews. Thus did Paul and Barnabas. Acts 13 : 46.
" Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, it was necessary
that the word of God should first have been spoken to you :
but seeing ye put it far from you, and judge yourselves un
worthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles." "This
was spoken to Jews who rejected gospel blessings. We
learn then from the very passage in which the noted expression,
" all the kindreds of the earth" is found, that the promise
under consideration indicates the spread of the gospel in this
world, and not the salvation of all men in eternity.
The following is from the inspired apostle to the Gentiles,
who well understood the Abrahamic promise, and he conjoins
the blessing promised with faith. Gal. 3:8:" And the scrip
ture foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith,
preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, in thee shall
all nations be blessed." Now how should this read to harmo
nize with Universalist views ? Let the reader bear in mind that
Universalism asserts,

SeC. 1.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 17
1. That the Abrahamic promise pledges the unconditional
salvation of all men.*
2. That " none can be saved from all moral evil here."
3. That the resurrection " is a victory in which a world is re
deemed and saved."
To accord with these propositions, we are at liberty to para
phrase the apostle's words thus : " The scripture, foreseeing that
God would make the whole human family holy and happy after
death, by the resurrection, independent of their own agency,
preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, in thee shall
all mankind be blessed in eternity." Is this the mind of the
Spirit ? What a violent wresting of the Scriptures error de
mands ! In the text quoted, we have the apostle's application of
the promise, ancl learn,
1. That the blessing named is justification.
2. That the blessing is to be secured in this life, as it is
" through faith." None expect to obtain salvation in the future
state by an exercise of faith there-; for " faith cometh by hear
ing " the preached word. Rom. 10 : 14-17.
3. That conditions are sometimes implied when not expressed.
This is a prophetical promise, given in absolute language, with
out naming the conditions ; but Paul, in applying this promise
to personal salvation, explains it conditionally.
In Rom. 4 : 11, 22, 24, we read, " And he received the
sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith
which he had yet being uncireumcised, that he might be the
father of all them that believe though they be not circumcised,
that righteousness might be imputed to them also. And there
fore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not
* When the expression " unconditional salvation" is used in these pages, it
has reference to the future or final salvation of men. This, it is asserted, is
accomplished independent of man's agency here. The death of Christ,
even, has nothing to do with procuring it, (Sec. CV.,) and man's conduct
here cannot procure, prevent, or modify it. See a quotation in point from
Williamson, Sec. XCV. Universalists. with inconsistency, admit present
salvation to be conditional.

18 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
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 tho dead." Again, Gal. 3 : 26,
29: "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ
Jesus ; and if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and
heirs according to the promise." Again, ver. 9 : " So then, they
which be of faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham." In these
passages the apostle makes a conditional application of this
promise which need not be misunderstood, showing most conclu
sively that none can enjoy the blessing promised to Abraham
but such as are imitators of his faith. Take the following from
Acts 13 : 32, 33. " And we declare unto you glad tidings, how
that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath ful
filled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up
Jesus again." So far is the apostle from intimating that this
promise is to have its fulfilment in eternity, that ho explicitly de
clares that " God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children ; ''
i. e. he has raised Christ from the dead, the gospel is preached,
sinners believe, and thus the promise is fulfilled.
Take another passage, found in Rom, 15 : 8, 11. " Now I
say that Jesus Christ was a minister of tho circumcision for the
truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers,
and that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is
written : For this cause will I confess thee among the Gentiles,
and sing unto thy name. And again he saith, Rejoice ye Gen
tiles, with his people." Here we have the same view presented
concerning the promise, namely, tho spread of the gospel in tbe
world, not only among the Jews, but Gentiles also. Zacharias,
the priest and the father of John, refers to this promife, and
states its design. Luke 1 : C8-75. " Blessed be the Lord
God of Israel ; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,
and hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of
his servant David, as he spake by the mouth of his holy proph
ets, whieh have been since the world began, that we should be
saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us.

Sec. l.J UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 19
To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember
his holy covenant, the oath which he swore to our father Abra
ham, that he would grant unto us that we, being delivered out
of the hands of our enemies, might serve him without fear, in
holiness and righteousness before him all the days of our life."
Does Zacharias even intimate that its fulfillment is to be accom
plished by the salvation of all men after death ? Nothing of the
kind. He explains the design of the promise, which is of course
spiritual in its nature, to be a deliverance in this world from the
bondage of our spiritual enemies, that we may serve God without
slavish fear " in holiness and righteousness before him all the
days of our life."
It has now been shown most convincingly, we think, from the
word of God that that part of the covenant made with Abraham
under examination, finds its fulfillment in this world by the
spread of the gospel among the nations of the earth, that it is
conditional, and that none can enjoy its blessings but the spir
itual children of Abraham, or believers in Christ, such being
Abraham's seed, and the only legitimate heirs according to
promise. At this point let us introduce the testimony of a Universalist
minister. Mr. French delivered the Occasional Sermon before
the Maine Convention of Universalists, at Thomaston, June 28,
1843, in which he rebukes his brethren for some of their gross
perversions, and this promise among the rest; and says, "We
would not with unholy hands tear down what has been so long in
rearing, but you will permit us to query if the promise to Abra
ham, Gen. 22 : 18, may have any reference to tbe future world ?
Is it consistent to quote- it, especially if we deny that life and
immortality are brought to view in the Old Testament ? And
do not Peter, Acts 3 : 26, and Paul, Gal. chap. 3, both apply
that promise to this life ? Let our preachers be on good terms
of consistency, if we would make advancement. Why should
we furnish sticks for our enemies to beat us with ? " — Banner,
Aug. 5, 1843.

20 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
Whether or not all the ministers of this order understand the
import of this promise, is not for us to determine ; but we fear
that all have not the candor of Mr. French in expressing their
convictions. There is one consideration mo-e we gather from the subject
which should forcibly impress us all as moral beings. It is this :
that in order to possess a good hope of heaven, all should exert
their moral agency to become heirs of promise. Hear the apos
tle Paul upon this, Heb. 6 : 17-20. "Wherein God, willing
more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise the immuta
bility of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath ; that by two
immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we
might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay
hold upon the hope set before us ; which hope we have as an
anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth
into that within the veil, whither the forerunner is for us entered,
even Jesus."
In view of this scripture let us inquire,
1 . Who are the heirs of promise ? Not all men, but only
such as are Christ's. Gal. 3 : 29. All are not Christ's, for
" if any man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of his."
Rom. 8 : 9. The heirs of promise are believers in Christ, but
" all men have not faith." 2 Thess. 3 : 2.
2. Who have this strong consolation, and the hope which en
ters into heaven where Jesus is ? Do all men have it ? No :
for " the wicked is driven away in his wickedness ; but the
righteous hath hope in his death." Prov. 14 : 13. Some
are " strangers from the covenant of promise, having NO HOPE,
and without God in the world." Eph. 2 : 12.
A great play of words has been made upon the oath of God,
named in this passage, as though this were something in favor of
Universalism, and thus taking for granted what can never he
proved, viz : that the promise which is confirmed by an oath, se
cures the unconditional salvation of all men in the future state.
This we have shown again and again to be false, and it is re-

SCO. 2.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 21
futed in this very connection ; for to whom aro these blessino-s
named secured by the promise and oath of God, and who have
the hope of heaven like an anchor to the soul ? Not all men,
surely, but such as " have FLED FOR REFUGE to lay hold
upon the hope set before them." Has the neglecter, the swear
er, the drunkard, the extortioner, the self-righteous man fled for
refuge ? To name this is to refute it. Universalism the " Abra-
hamic Faith ! " What a gross perversion ! The extension of
Christ's kingdom in the earth is contemplated by it, and the
blessing of justification is secured to all believers as preparatory
for heaven.
II. Matt. 23 : 13. " Woe unto you scribes," &o.
Says Mr. Whittemore, "Jesus reproved the Pharisees for
shutting up the kingdom of heaven. ' Woe unto you, scribes
and Pharisees, hypocrites ! for 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.' Matt. 23 : 13. These Phari
sees were never charged with having shut up the kingdom of
hell ; that, they appear to have kept open. But they shut up
the kingdom of heaven. Jesus desired to have all men enjoy
his kingdom ; and we are assured that at last all shall know the
Lord, from the least unto the greatest. They will then all have
entered the gospel kingdom." Guide, p. 44. Does Mr. W.
admit that the " kingdom of heaven " here means salvation, or
the place of it in the future world, or does he believe in a future
hell? No: neither of them. Of the former he says, "the
phrase ' kingdom of heaven,' in its common use in the New
Testament, does not refer to the future world, but to the reign
of the gospel in this world." Guide, p. 88. Would he allow
that the Pharisees kept men from entering future heavenly
bliss ? If so, then Universalism is a fable. Yet he presents a
contest between Christ and the Pharisees on these two states,
confined as he will have them to this world, as evidence of the
salvation of all men in eternity 1 Truly a man must be very ig-
3

22 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
norant or wicked to construct such an argument for such a pur
pose ; for, remark, this is the whole of one of his " One Hun
dred Arguments," to prove Universalism, i. e. the salvation of
all men in the resurrection state.
But it is not quite enough for his purpose that Jesus reproved
the Pharisees thus ; so it is added, that " we are assured that at
last all shall know the Lord, from the least to the greatest."
The passage to which Mr. W. refers, is found Jer. 31 : 33, 34.
By turning to it, it will be seen that tho covenant is not made
with the whole human family, but with " the house of Israel."
" For they shall all know me." Who ? Not the whole race of
man, but the " HOUSE OF ISRAEL ; " v. 33. Now what
ever the blessings herein contained, they are promised only to
the house of Israel, and the application of these words to all
men, to prove that they will all be saved in heaven, is but
another instance of gross perversion. The prophet is speaking
of a prosperous state of things in this world, and not of the sal
vation of all our race in eternity.
III. " For ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Gal. 3 : 28.
"Paul saith to the Galatians, 'There is neither Jew nor
Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor
female ; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye he
Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to
promise.' According to what promise ? Answer : According
to the promise of God to Abraham, that in him, and his seed
[Christ] all the nations, kindreds, and families of the earth
shall bo blessed. In Christ, therefore, none of the distinctions
are known of which Paul there speaks. ' Ye are all one in
Christ Jesus.' That point being settled, he adds, ' and if ye be
Christ's, [as he had proved,] then are ye Abraham's seed, [that
is, not by lineal descent, but spiritually,] and heirs according to
promise.' " Guide, p. 49.
Here we have the argument with all its comeliness, built upon
a gross perversion of the Scriptures. It is assumed that " all "

SeC. 4.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 23
in the text, means tho whole human race. But is it so ? Look
at the context, and it will be seen who " are all one in Christ
Jesus." "Te." Who? All men? No, but believers ; for
such he is addressing. They are those who had " put on
Christ," v. 27, and such only. Taking those scriptures which
are applied by the inspired penman to a particular class of men
where the words all and every chance to occur, and applying
them to the whole race of man, has been a very common work
with writers of this school. This may deceive the ignorant, but
it can never deceive the man who is acquainted with his Bible.
The perversion of the Abrahamic promise, to make out the argu
ment, is exposed in Sec. 1.
IV. " Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man,
it shall be forgiven him ; but whosoever, speaketh against the
Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world,
neither in the world to come." Matt. 12 : 32 ; Mark 3 : 29 ;
Luke 12 : 10.
The course pursued by Universalist writers upon this text, is
both evasive and sophistical. The author of the Guide labors
first to contradict the Son of God by quoting Isa. 1 : 18, and
1 John 1 : 7-9, to show that all sins are pardonable, " the sin
against the Holy Ghost not excepted ; " then to show that the text
is a Hebraism, and is not to be understood absolutely. To sus
tain this, a quotation is given, purporting to be from Grotius,
the correctness of which we have not the means of ascertaining.
He then brings to his aid the Doway, a Catholic translation.
Now we suppose the Catholic priests are about as honest as Uni
versalist expositors, and are equally anxious to promulgate the
doctrine, in opposition to the Saviour, that sins of all kinds are
pardonable, since they blasphemously assume the prerogative to
pardon sin : and to admit that some are unpardonable, would
curtail their revenues. After stating that a Catholic writer as
serts that there is no sin which cannot be forgiven on repentance,
Mr. Whittemore says, it is a " conclusion to which many of the

24 UNIVERSALISM NOT OE THE BIBLE. [Part I.
very best orthodox writers have come, that all manner of sin and
blasphemy is more easily forgiven than the sin against the Holy
Ghost." Who these " many ofthe very best orthodox irriters "
are, we are not informed. This is probably a mere make-weight
thrown in without any foundation in truth. Ancl then if it is in
accordance with the Divine government that all kinds of sins are
pardonable, what folly to talk of some sins being more easily
forgiven than others ! Cannot Omnipotence pardon one sin as
easily as another? For Mr. W. to labor to show that any sin
" if duly and sincerely repented of" may be forgiven, is only
to raise a false issue ; for none, to our knowledge, ever disputed
it. If there is evangelical repentance, God is bound by the
principles of his own government, as revealed in his word, to
forgive ; while the same principles bind him not to forgive if
men do not repent. The sin against the Holy Ghost places men
where they will not and cannot repent as the gospel requires,
and of course they will never be forgiven. Paul speaks of the
same class of sinners (Heb. 6 : 4-6) when he says, " it is im
possible ... to renew them again unto repentance." (Sec.
LXXX VIII.)
Nothing is gained to Universalism by limiting this sin to the
Jews, who attributed the miracles of Christ to the power of the
devil, as Dr. Clarke and some others are disposed to do ; for if
those Jews, and those only who were guilty of this died, unfor-
given, and are to suffer eternal damnation, Universalism is just
as false as though millions suffered it. Nearly two pages of the
Guide are occupied by an effort well calculated to bewilder tbe
superficial reader of the Bible. He is first carried to Heb. 9 :
26, and 1. Cor. 10 : 11, where the expressions " end of the
world" and " ends of the world " occur; then to Eph. 2 : 7,
where the phrase " ages to come " is found. It is then assert
ed that the passage in Matthew under consideration should read,
"shall not be forgiven, neither in this world," or age, which
ended when the gospel age began ; " neither in the world," or
age, " to come," that is, the age which succeeded it. The au-

Sec. 4.J UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 25
thor of the Guide then adds; " Now, although the sin against
the Holy Ghost was not to be forgiven neither in the then exist
ing age or world, nor in the age or world which succeeded it,
yet (mark, reader,) in the worlds to come, [for it is the same
Greek word in Ephesians which you find in Matthew,] God will
show the exceeding riches of his grace." The sentiment here
put forth is this : the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall
not be forgiven, neither in the Jewish age, neither in the Chris
tian age, but in the ages to come : i. e., after the Jewish and
Christian ages or dispensations have passed away, blasphemy
against the Holy Ghost shall be forgiven. The Jewish dispen
sation is already past, and the Christian dispensation will con
tinue till the end of time, till Christ shall deliver up the king
dom to the Father. 1 Cor. 15 : 24. It is in the future world,
then, that blasphemers against the Holy Ghost are to be par
doned ; so of course such sinners are found in eternity with guilt
and condemnation upon them, or they would not need forgive
ness after the Christian dispensation is past. Now if guilt is in
the future world, there must be misery, and thus the no-future
suffering doctrine so much insisted on by Mr. W. is destroyed
by his own interpretations. Truth lies in a straight line, but
error is crooked like the old serpent who is the father of it.
Again, if this sin is not to be forgiven either in the Jewish or
Christian age, then those who commit it must " die in their
sins,'' and those who die thus must be excluded from heaven
where Christ has gone. John 8 : 21 ; Acts 1 : 11. So nothing
in reahty is gained to Universalism, even by this interpretation.
But the Lord from heaven has brushed away at a stroke all this
web of sophistry which has been thrown around his truth ; for
as if he foresaw that men would rise up in these last clays and
attempt to prevent this truth of his, as given by one of his ser
vants, he inspires another to present it to the world in language
not to be quibbled away. Hear him : "He that shall blas
pheme against the Holy Ghost HATH NEVER FORGIVE
NESS, but is in danger of ETERNAL DAMNATION."
3*

26 universalism not of the bible. [Part I.
Mark 3: 29. If "hath never forgiveness" means that all
shall be forgiven, and if eternal damnation means eternal bliss
in heaven, then may Universalism be true. No man can be ex
posed to that which does not exist, and if no such thing as eter
nal damnation exists, then was Christ a deceiver. Mark, reader,
this was addressed to Jews, who were believers in eternal dam
nation. That the Jews so believed, is fully admitted by Univer
salist writers. (Sec. CXXXII.) Such language could not
fail to be understood by the Jews as teaching endless punish
ment ; and as they understood it, so should we.
Since writing the above, a pamphlet has come to hand, by J.
F. Witherell, in which the " most popular objections" to Univer
salism are " fairly stated, candidly examined and fully an
swered." This is the profession. We take the following
entire argument from the work. " Objection 4. " The Bible
teaches that some sin hath never forgiveness." Well, sup
pose it does, is that any proof that all mankind will not even
tually be made holy ancl happy ? Surely not. I say to the
objector, that if he supposes the phrase, hath never forgiveness,
is an objection to the doctrine of a world's salvation, he hath
never properly understood it ; but that is no proof that he never
will. This little pamphlet hath never been burned, but that is
no proof that some good brother, who cannot endure sound
doctrine, will not commit it to the flames. Because a thing
never has been, that of course is no reason why it never will
be ; and hence, because a certain sin committed eighteen hun
dred years ago, at that time had not been forgiven, that is no
proof that it has not long since been forgiven ; especially when
the Saviour hath positively said that all manner of sin shall be
forgiven." p. 25. Here we have the objection "fairly stated,
candidly examined ancl fully answered" ! ! We see by this,
also, what kind of coin passes current with the order • for in the
author's note to the reader, in which he boasts of its ready sale
and the wonders it has accomplished, ho says, " It received
complimentary notices from the Universalist presses throughout

Sec. 5*.] universalism not of the bible. 27
the country, and was cordially approbated by our minsterino-
brethren generally." Such a flat contradiction of the Saviour's
words carries its own antidote to all honest minds. The sense
of the passage is this : all sins are pardonable on repentance,
BUT the sin against the Holy Ghost. This sin formed an
exception to the rule, hence, Luke reports the Saviour thus :
"Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it
shall be forgiven him ; but unto him that blasphemeth against
the Holy Ghost, it SHALL NOT be forgiven him." ch. 12,
v. 10.
• V. "And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written,
There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn
away ungodliness from Jacob. Rom. 11 : 26.
The first clause of this text we often find either in blazing
capitals or significant italics, to prove most positively that the
whole of the Jewish nation are to be saved unconditionally in
tbe future world, than which nothing can bo more false, as we
shall now show. Here let us inquire, what is the scope of the
apostle's reasoning in this part of the Epistle ? Is he laboring
to prove that all the Jewish race will be unconditionally saved
in eternity? Nothing like it. In the 9th, 10th and 11th
chapters he is setting forth the equal privileges of Jews and
Gentiles under the gospel, and shows that the Gentiles, if they
believed, should share in its salvation ; and that the Jews, if
they disbelieved, should not be saved by its provisions. See
chapter 11: 1-24. "Without entering into detail, a few points
will be fixed upon connected with the salvation of which the
apostle is speaking, to show most clearly that it is conditional,
and that he does not teach the absolute certainty of the salva
tion of the whole Jewish nation, and by parity of reason the
whole human family, but a different sentiment. The course
the apostle pursues lies with mighty weight against the Univer
salist notion. He says, in this same epistle, " Brethren, my
heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might

28 universalism not of the bible. [Part I.
be saved." Chap. 10 : 1. Why this intense emotion on the
part of the apostle, if he was confident that all would be saved ?
What should we think of a Universalist minister in our day who
should go about with the deep-toned feeling here expressed,
praying that a particular class of men might be saved ? We
should think that his practice grossly conflicted with his theory.
And who does not know that it is the boasted bliss of Univer
salism that it delivers its votaries from all such trouble about the
salvation of men. Was Paul a Universalist ? These remarks
are based upon the assumption that the apostle is speaking of
future salvation when he says, " And so all Israel shallbe
saved ;" for this has not a single mark of future state reference
which may not be found in chap. 10:1-10-13 and chap. 11 : 14.
When the apostle says, " So all Israel shall be saved," he is
speaking of the same salvation that he is all through chapters
10th and 11th; and this salvation is secured by confessing,
believing, ancl calling upon the name of the Lord. Chap. 10:
9-13. As all must see, we think, this declaration of the apos
tle's has reference to that salvation which is the result of saving
faith in Christ in this world, as preparatory to future bliss.
Whether the time will come when in the progress of Christianity
all the Jews who shall be then living will experience this salva
tion, or whether only a general reception of it, admitting of
exceptions, is indicated, is a matter about which good men
have differed. But one thing is clear: all, God's true and
persevering Israel shall be saved, whether Jews or Gentiles by
birth, for Christ "has become the author of eternal salvation
unto all them that obey him." Heb. 5: 9. " All are not
Israel that are of Israel," Rom. 9:6; but " we are the circum
cision (that is, the true Isruel) which worship God in the
spirit and rejoice in Jesus Christ, and have no confidence in
the flesh." Phil. 3:3. We shall obtain light upon this subject
by examining the prophecy referred to and in part quoted by
the apostle. He declares, "all Israel shall be saved ;" and
adds, " as it is written." Where is it written? In Isa. 59 : 20,

Sec. 5.] universalism not of the bible. 29
as follows : " And thc Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto
them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord."
Here we see who the Israel are to be saved and the condition-
ality of their salvation. They are those who " TURN FROM
TRANSGRESSION." This salvation, then, is predicated of
God's spiritual Israel, and not of the whole Jewish race. But
should it be contended still that the apostle has virtually said
that the Deliverer (Christ) promised he would turn away un
godliness from all the Jewish race, i. e. all of them who have
ever lived, now live, or may hereafter live, we ask when this is
to be accomplished ? Is it to be accomplished upon the Jews
before death ? This will not be pretended, for tens of thousands
of them have died in their iniquities, Universalists themselves
being judges. Now this must be brought about either before
or after death, for we cannot possibly conceive of the soul as
existing neither in the body nor out of it. As it must be
admitted that all the Jews are not turned from their sins in this
life, it follows that, if ever, they must be turned from ungodliness
after death ; and if so, ungodliness or sin, and consequently
misery, must exist after death, and thus the favorite doctrine of
modern Universalists, that death puts an end to sin and misery, is
all a fable. Truth never contradicts itself. All God's faithful
Israel will be saved both in this world and that which is to
come ; and there is no authority, as we conceive, for denying
that the time is coming when all the Jews then living upon the
earth shall embrace the Messiah. But this idea furnishes no
evidence that all men, or even the Jewish race, shall be saved
in the future state. In view of the very common perversion of
this text, how timely the rebuke of Mr. French, one of the
ministers of the order, in a sermon before the Maine Conven
tion of Universalists, as follows : " We as a denomination, have
advocated the doctrine that all men shall be saved. But in
our zeal to bring an abundance of evidence, have we not caused
some of our proof texts to bear the marks of violent wresting ?
For instance, these words of Paul have been adduced as proof

30 universalism not of tuts, bible. [Part I.
that all the Jews shall be happy after death : " and so all Israel
shall be saved." Rom. 11 : 26. But does this passage have
any more reference to their future state, than it does to the
preservation of Noah ancl his family in the time of the flood ?
And yet, as if we had not enough of our own, we are at the
expense of importing such arguments and such methods of
proof." — Banner, Aug. 5, 1844.
VI. " He that is dead is freed from sin." — Rom. 6 : 7.
If a man availing himself of his Universalist license, dies hy
drunkenness or suicide, this text is called into requisition on the
funeral occasion, to prove most conclusively that he has been so
wise as to rid himself of sin and all its consequences by his
hasty departure. In an able work before us the perversion of
this passage is exposed as follows: "Persons are said to be
dead in several different senses. A person is dead when the
connection between body and soul is dissolved ; at other times a
person is said, in Scripture language, to be dead wben his soul
has lost the favor of God ; and at other times, a person is said
to be dead who is crucified to the world and the world crucified
to him. Now the question is, in which of these senses does the
apostle use the word dead in this text ? I answer without hesi
tation in the sense of being crucified to the world. Look at the
context. See how the apostle introduces the figure .- " How
shall WE (Christians) that are dead to sin live any longer
therein ? " ver. 2. Here then you see that the persons who
were dead were the living apostle and his Christian brethren at
Rome, ancl the death which was upon them was a death to sin.
So in the following context, tho same idea is repeated : " Now
if we (Christians) be dead with Christ, we believe that we
shall also live with him." Here then you see that the apostle
is not speaking ofthe death of the body, but on the contrary,
of that death whieh is a crucifixion to the world."  Russell.

Sec. 7.] universalism not of the bible. 31
VII. " For none of us liveth to himself and no man dieth
to himself. For ivhether we live, we live unto the Lord ; and
whether we die, we die unto the Lord ; whether we live there
fore, or die, we are the Lord's" — Rom. 14 : 7-8.
Mr. Whittemore builds one of his arguments upon this pas
sage to prove the salvation of all men, and says : " The terms
dead and living evidently signify all the race. Of course all
the human race are Christ's- forever." — Guide, p. 48. Here is
another instance in whieh the children's bread is cast to the dogs.
Now we say that those terms do not evidently signify all the
human race. Suppose that after a battle an officer should re
ceive orders to repair to the field and take charge of " the dead
and living ;" should we infer from that that he was to take charge
of the whole human race ? By no means. Paul is speaking of
Christ's lordship over believers and none else, as we conceive.
The context binds us to this. He is addressing Christians and
not all men. He is cautioning them against uncharitably judg
ing each other concerning things indifferent, and adds, " For
none of US," Who? All men ? No, but Christians, " liveth
to himself," &c. " For whether we live, we live unto the Lord ;
and whether we die, we die unto the Lord." Do all men live
and die unto ihe Lord ? Does the drunkard, the swearer, the
neglecter, the self-righteous live unto the Lord, and do such
die unto the Lord ? But suppose we admit that Christ's lord
ship over the whole human family is intended, what then ? Does
it follow as a conclusion that all will be holy and happy ? Cer
tainly not ; for according to this assumption he is now Lord over
the human race and has been for ages past, but the whole of
mankind are not saved. This being the fact, we can see no
reason why he may not exercise his lordship to all eternity, and
still the sufferings of some of the race continue. For all men
to be subjects of God's government is ono thing, but for all
men to be made holy and happy in the future world is quite
another. So we see that take either view of it we please, Uni
versalism cannot be possibly wrung out of the passage,

32 universalism not of the bible. [Part I.
VIII. " But the heavens and the earth which are now, by
the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the
day of judgment andperdition of ungodly men." — 2 Pet. 3 : 7.
Instead of an explanation, as the purchasers of his book had
a right to expect from the statement in his preface, the author
of the Guide has given this striking text the go-by as follows :
' ' This passage has been frequently used to prove the destruc
tion of the material earth, and a day of judgment in the future
state. We have shown repeatedly in these pages that God's
judgments are in the earth. But as this text is not generally
adduced in support of strict endless misery, we pass it here."
He then refers us to three or four works where he says the text
is explained ; works which not one in a hundred of his readers
will ever see. " God's judgments are in the earth." The
reader will turn to Sec. LI. where this idea is examined. He
says, " But as this text is not generally adduced in support of
strict endless misery, we pass it here." Observe, tho apostle
speaks not only of the day of judgment, but also of the "perdi
tion of ungodly men." Do not Christians generally believe
the pordition of ungodly men to be endless misery? Most
certainly they do, and Mr. Whittemore must have known it.
We go to Balfour's Essays, one of the books referred to by Mr.
W., and he says, " this passage refers to the day of God's
temporal vengeance on the Jews." — p. 260. He also statea
with much confidence respecting ver. 13, that " it is universally
allowed, that the new heavens ancl the new earth refer to the
kingdom of the Messiah, which was to succeed the Jewish dis
pensation, and was predicted in the Old Testament." — p. 261.
Mr. Balfour was either wanting in honesty, or ignorant of the
subject upon which he wrote, for we find by consultation that
instead of its being " universally allowed," such commentators
as Clarke, Scott, Chalmers, Dwight, Wesley, Storr, Rosenmiil-
ler, and Benson are directly against him, and yet this baseless
assertion comprises the main force to be found in his evasion of
this passage. .^Iniversalists profess to be full of wonder that

Sec. 9.} universalism not of the bible. 33
the word hell occurs no oftener, if there is any future pun
ishment taught in the Bible. But we ask, if the glowing
descriptions of judgment and punishment found so often in the
Bible had their fulfilment in the destruction of the Jews, is it
not very strange that the expression Jerusalem, or Jerusalem's
destruction, is NEVER found in connection with Such descrip
tions in the New Testament ? Yet such is the fact. Examine
the context, and it will be seen that there is not the least evi
dence that the apostle is speaking of Jerusalem's destruction,
or that those for whom he wrote once entertained the thought
that that eity would be spoiled by the Romans. The people
addressed were Hebrew Christians, who had been educated in
the belief of a future day of judgment and perdition of ungodly
men. These doctrines were believed both among Jews and
Gentiles. This is admitted by Universalist writers. Now can
it be entertained for a moment that Peter would take this great
event believed in by them, and use it as a figure to represent
the destruction of one city ? He brings up historical facts, viz :
the creation and the deluge, and then institutes a comparison,
not between those events and the destruction of the Jewish city,
but between those events and the passing away of the heavens
and the earth, and the appearance of a new material system in
their place. The thoughts are majestic, but they are not the
dress of fiction or poetry. The context, the comparison, the
language used, the belief of the people addressed, the absence
of every thing indicating the Jerusalem catastrophe, all bind us
to believe the apostle is speaking of the day of judgment, as
commonly understood, and of the eternal perdition of, not
merely Jewish men, but, all ungodly men.
IX. And the times of this ignorance God winked at, but
now commandeth ail men every where to repent ; because he
hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in
righteousness, hy that man whom he hath ordained; whereof
4

34 universalism not of the bible. [Part I.
he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised
him from the dead." — Acts 17 : 30, 31.
The perversion would be so glaring that but few Universal
ists, it is believed, have ventured to refer this text to Jerusa
lem's destruction, for all would at once see the absurdity of
making the apostle urge the Jewish calamity as a reason why
the Grecians should repent of their idolatry. But certain men
are*never at a loss for expedients, especially when a text of
Scripture stands in their way, so they will have it that the day
of judgment appointed is the gospel day. Guide, p. 176.
But we are not quite ready to receive this forced and unnatural
interpretation. That Paul did not have reference to the gospel day is evident
from the fact that he uses the future tense. " He (God) hath
appointed a day in the which he will judge," &c. Now the
gospel day had then come. Paul was then preaching the gospel,
and the gospel bad spread and was then spreading rapidly, as all
know who are acquainted with the history of the church. Fur
thermore, Paul when speaking of the gospel day uses the pres
ent tense, and says, " Behold now is the day of salvation." 2
Cor. 6 : 2. Observe,, St. Paul does not say to the Grecians,
God hath appointed this day in which he now judges the world ;
but he speaks indefinitely and of the future : "He hath appoint
ed a day in the which he will judge." By this it will he seen
that it is a perversion to apply these words to the gospel day.
But why should the apostle speak of the world's being judged
in righteousness at a set time or in the gospel day. According
to Universalism, to talk of a day appointed in which God will
judge the world in righteousness, is the height of folly. Are ire
not told that every man is judged, rewarded and punished ac
eording to his works as he passes along? If this be so, the
world is no more judged in righteousness in the gospel day, than
it was under any former dispensation. It is 6bvious too, that
the apostle here presents the day of judgment as a motive of
alarm, as a reason why "all men every where should repent."

Sec. 9.] UNIVERSALISM not of the bible. 35
But what had the Athenians or any othef people to fear from
the gospel day, especially if Universalism is the gospel, which
proclaims bliss for all, and hell for none in the future, whether
they repent in this life or not. Mr. Balfour enters into a labored
Greek criticism, in his Essays, to make this passage mean that
Christ is about to rule the Roman empire. But where do we
find the fulfilment of this prediction ? Did Christ ever rule the
Roman empire ? Are we pointed to the reign of Constaiftine ?
We deny that in the sense in which Christ governs, he governed
the Roman empire then. His " kingdom is not of this world."
But admitting that he did govern the Roman empire in the time
of Constantine, his reign did not commence till A. D. 313, so
that Mr. Balfour's about to rule did not take place till about
three hundred years after the declaration was made ! What in
fluence could that day exert upon the Greeks at Athens to move
them to repentance ? . And how absurd the thought that Paul
took this blind method to teach the Grecian Philosophers that
God had appointed a gospel day which was nearly three hundred
years in the future in which Christ should rule the Roman em
pire ! Admit the truth declared, namely : a future judgment,
and all is clear. The Greeks admitted the doctrine of future
retributions ; they believed that Minos and Radamanthus would
be the judges, while the apostles taught that Christ would judge
the world ; hence, when Paul spoke of the judgment of the
world, they could but understand him as teaching a future judg
ment. We see by this how to account for the fact that they raise
no opposition to the doctrine of a judgment, but when they
heard of the resurrection, "some mocked." Ver. 32. The first
named doctrine, so far as the idea of a future judgment is con
cerned, was received by them, while the resurrection was re
jected. The apostle evidently speaks of the same judgment
here that he does in Rom. 2 : 16 ; 14 : 11, 12 ; 2 Cor. 5 : 10,
11 ; Heb. 6 : 2-9, 27. See by the index where these scriptures
are examined.

36 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
X. And have hope towards God, which they themselves also
allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of
the just and unjust." Acts 24 : 15.
Strange as it may seem to some, this text has been adduced
in proof of Universalism. " Paul hoped for the resurrection of
all men which he would not have done if a part were to be
endlessly miserable ; therefore Paul was a Universalist." This
in substance is the argument.
This argument is built upon the assumption that we believe
that the resurrection procures and fixes the eternal doom of the
sinner, whereas we entertain no such opinion. The wickedness
of men in the present life is the cause of their suffering in the
future state, and not the resurrection of the body. So we see
upon our principles that Paul could hope for the resurrection,
without hoping that some would be eternally miserable. He is
however giving a statement of his belief rather than an expres
sion of his desire. Dr. Clarke's exposition of this text is cor
rect. " And have hope towards God, &e. I not only do
not hold anything by which the general creed of this people
might be altered, in reference to the present state ; but, also, I
hold nothing different from their belief in reference to a future
State ; for if I maintain the doctrine of the resurrection of the
dead it is what themselves allow." Clarke in loco. We have
most striking evidence from this very passage that Paul was not
a Universalist. " And have hope towards God, which they them
selves allow." What did the Jews aUow concerning the resur
rection ? Did they allow that all would be holy any happy in
the resurrection ? Were the Jews who believed in a. resurrec
tion Universalists ? By no means ; for Universalists themselves
assert that they believed in the endless punishment of a part of
mankind. Now if Paul was a Universalist, he must have
beheved that all would be holy and happy in the resurrection,
which was a very different thing from the Jewish belief. How
then, we ask, could he in truth declare that he believed as they
d!d concerning the resurrection ? Did Paul dissemble? Or

See. 11.] UNIVERSALISM NOT of the BIBLE. 37
rather, is it not rendered as clear as a sunbeam that he was not
a Universalist ; that it never entered his mind that all men were
to be saved by the resurrection ? We have another instance
where the apostle declared himself a Pharisee, and a believer in
the resurrection, and thus secured to himself the favor of the
Pharisees. Acts 23 : 6-9. If Paul was a Universalist, he
could not have failed of preaching the salvation of all men in
connection with the resurrection, for no Universalist in our day
would be guilty of such an omission. But were the Pharisees,
those staunch believers in endless punishment, so friendly to a
Universalist preacher, as to espouse his cause on the announce
ment of the very doctrine which Universalists in our time con
tend teaches the salvation of all men, and declare (v. 9) that
" we find no evil in this man'? " Reader, think of this.
XI. "For whosoever will save his life, shall lose it ; and
whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it." Matt.
16 : 25. ParaUels, Matt. 10:39; Luke 17:33; John 12:25.
On the last named text, see Sec. LXVIII.
We are told ( Guide, p. 108) that the word rendered soul in
the 26th verse, is the same as the one in the 25th verse rendered
life; and that the life here spoken of is natural life. One doc
trine cherished by Mr. Whittemore is, that the future existence
" cannot in the nature of things, as it seems to us, be affected by
the conduct of men in this life." Notes on Par. p. 354. If this
be true, we ask how does the man who will^ lose his natural life
for the sake of Christ, find it, or (John 12 : 25) "keep it unto
life eternal," any more than he will save his naturahlife ? Upon
this principle the man's eternal life is just as secure who dies
opposing Christ, as is his who dies for the sake of Christ. These
words of the Saviour present a pyramid in argument against the
notion that man's conduct here does not affect his condition in
the future, which all the sophistry of its advocates cannot over
turn. We have never seen an attempt to explain this text in
any of their writings. It is found in the Guide, but all the au-

38 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
thor does with it is to show that the Greek word rendered soul
in v. 26, is the same as the one -rendered life in this, and con
tends that both mean natural life. The obvious sense of tho
text is this ; " Whosoever will save his natural life, by neglect
ing, through fear or otherwise, to do his ^christian duty,- shall
lose it ; that is, shall lose his eternal life : and whosoever will
lose his natural life for my sake, shall find it ; that is, shall find
eternal life." That we are correct in understanding eternal
life as used in antithesis with the life of the body, may be seen
by the parallel passage, John 12 : 25. " He that loveth his
life shall lose it, and he that hateth his life shall keep it unto
eternal life." See Sections XII and LXVIII.
XII. " What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole
world, and lose his own soul." Matt. 16 : 26.
It is contended that the word soul in this text might be ren
dered life, to which we have no objection so far as our argument
is concerned. But what life is meant ? Not temporal life sure
ly, for Christ is urging them to risk that in his cause : for he
says, " Whosoever will save his life, shall lose it ; and whoso
ever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it," v. 25. That
there are two kinds of life named here is evident, for no man
who saves his natural life will lose it, and none who lose their
natural life for Christ will save their natural life. All must see
that the life gained by losing our natural life for Christ, must he
a life in the future state ; that is, eternal life : and also that the
life lost by an unwillingness to surrender natural life for Christ,
must be eternal life. That wc are to understand eternal life
here as used in antithesis with natural life, is clear from the par
allel text. John 12 : 25. (Sections XI and LXVIII.)
The Saviour is urging his disciples to take up their cross, and
do their duty by following him through every danger ; and as
motives to stimulate to action, he assures them that if they were
called to be martyrs for his sake, they should find eternal life
after the death of the body; but if they should save or seek to

Sec. 13.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 39
save natural life at the expense of conscience and casting aside
the cross, they should lose eternal life in the world to come. He
then, to set it home with force, inquires, " What shall it profit a
man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul," (life,)
i. e. his eternal life. It will require but little attention to the
text and context to see that the loss of eternal life is indicated
here. Indeed, no other construction can be given without re
ducing it to nonsense. But admitting, as Universalism con
tends, that the death of the body is intended, then the text lies
with weight against that theory ; for a question in this form is. a
strong negation. The sense is, that if a man in his avaricious
pursuits were to gain the whole world and die in the effort, he
would in reality gain nothing. Now all unite in the sentiment
that heavenly bliss is inconceivably greater than everything en
joyed in the present life, even by the most holy ; hence, the
apostle says of himself " to die is gain." Universalism says,
this gain is for all ; even though some gain the whole world by
their wicked and avaricious schemes, yet by death they shall
gain as much as Paul, for it teaches heaven for all and hell for
none, — that all shall be equal. (Sec. XC.) It goes farther.
It teaches that the more wicked men are here, the more will they
gain by death, inasmuch as the wicked suffer more in this life
than the pious, therefore escape more by death, and enter into
the same bliss with the most .exalted saints. The Saviour speaks
of a character which shall gain nothing by the death of the
body ; but Universalism says all, whether holy or unholy, shall
be gainers by death. As Christ is to be considered a compe
tent teacher in these matters, the conclusion is, Universalism
must be false. The Saviour is speaking either of the loss of
future and eternal life, or of the loss of natural life ; either of
which is fatal to Universalist views.
XIII. " And it shaU come to pass in the last days, that the
mountain ofthe Lord's house shall be established in the top of
the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all
nations shall flow unto it." Isa. 2: 2.

40 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I
We here give one of the " One Hundred Arguments,"
entire. " It is said that all nations shall flow unto the moun
tain of the Lord's house, — a figurative representation of the
covenant of the gospel." Guide, p. 39. Well, suppose it is
such a representation, does it prove the salvation of all in the
future state ? A man must be brought to a great strait to con
struct such an argument to prove Universalism. Q'he connec
tion, as all may see who will consult the chapter, shows that the
glorious triumphs of Christianity over heathen nations in this
world is prophesied here, and not the salvation of all men in
eternity. But, then, the word all is in the passage, so it must
mean Universalism !
XIV. " I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that
thou mayest be my salvation unto the ends of ihe earth." Isa.
49:6. This is brought in argument by Mr. Whittemore to prove his
favorite doctrine ; and he says of it, (Guide, p. 41,) "In this
verse .the prophet affirms that the blessings of the gospel should
not be confined to the Jews. " I will give thee for a light to
the Gentiles ; " for what purpose ? Answer : " That thou may
est be my salvation unto the ends of the earth." Mr. W. then
asks, "Is this consistent with the supposed fact, that countless
millions of the human race shall never hear of -the blessings of
tbe gospel? " To adopt the same method with another text, it
can be proved that the whole human family were made holy and
happy nearly three thousand years ago. The Psalmist says, (Ps.
98 : 3.) " All the ends of the earth HAVE SEEN the salva
tion of our God." Is this consistent with the supposed fact that
millions of the human race are this moment sinnino- and suffering
to an alarming extent ? Now if by " salvation unto the ends of
the earth" we are to understand the holiness of all in heaven,
and if the Psalmist declared three thousand years ago that " all
the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God " it is
quite clear that the whole human race were saved in heaven at

SeC*15.J UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 41
that time ! The passage under consideration declares the gen
eral spread of the gospel in the earth, and giving it a future
state reference to serve Universalism, is a gross perversion'.
XV. " Our Father which art in heaven." Matt. 6 : 9.
As the question of divine paternity involves several texts, it
will be considered somewhat at length in this section. It is
worthy of remark that those our Saviour taught to pray were' his
disciples, which is destructive to the idea that this prayer teaches
that all men are the children of God. But it may be replied
that Christ said to the multitude, (Matt. 23 : 1-9,) that " one
is your father which is in heaven." Admitting that the Saviour
meant to teach that God was the father of that multitude, then
there is nothing gained to Universalism, unless it can be shown
that this relation secures the salvation of all men in the future
state. This, then, is the point at issue : is God the father of all
men in such a sense as to secure their final holiness and happi
ness? We admit that there is a sense in which God is the
father of all animate and inanimate creation, and of course the
father of all men. He is the father of the rain, (Job 38 : 28,)
that is, he produces the rain. The prophet inquires, (Mai. 2 :
10,) " Have we not all one father ? Hath not one God created
us? " Said a heathen poet, and Paul adopted it, (Acts 17 :
28,) "For we also are his offspring." These passages teach
us that God is a father in the sense of creator. Frequent ap
peals are made to human sympathy in connection with this
subject. The argument, brought into a small compass, stands thus :
God is the father of all. No earthly parent would inflict endless
punishment upon his children. God is better than earthly
parents ; therefore he will not inflict such punishment upon his
creatures, but will make them all holy and happy. To make
human sympathy the basis of such a conclusion, may deceive the
unthinking ; hut those who reflect, will see that the originators of
such arguments are obnoxious to the charge of making the
4#

42 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
Almighty altogether such an one as themselves. This mode of
argument lies with all its weight against matter of fact, namely,
the present sufferings of the human race. It will avail nothing
to say that present suffering shall result in the good of all in the
end, that it is only a disciplinary process, such as a kind father
would adopt for the good of his children. A kind earthly parent
may be under the painful necessity of inflicting discipline,
because it is not in his power to reform his children by any other
means ; but, we ask, is the Almighty under such necessity ?
Reasoning from the attributes of God, as Universalists are in the
habit of doing, and asserting that all will be saved because God
has almigkty power, infinite wisdom, and unbounded goodness,
they eannot contend for a moment, with any consistency, that
God is under the necessity of making the race of man suffer six
thousand, or individuals scores of years, before he can make them
holy and happy. Certainly it must have been as easy for the
Almighty to have prevented evil, as it is to destroy it. He
stood in the relation of father, the same before Adam fell as he
now -does ; and if the paternal character of God is not pledged
to save men from committing sin now, how can we view it as a
pledge that all shall be saved from the results of sin ? Again,
if it is consistent with the paternal character of God that sin and
misery should exist six thousand years, it may be equally con
sistent with his paternal character that some may suffer endlessly.
(Sec. CXIV.) Making human sympathy, which is ever liable
to lead us wrong, the test of the principles of the Divine govern
ment, and the truo index of the future condition of man, is not
only dangerous to man, but is highly dishonorable to God ; for
he is made by it as bad as the worst of men.
Let us illustrate this. The Lord rained fire and brimstone
upon the Sodomites, and destroyed them. Would a kind earthly
parent treat his children in this way ? Certainly not. Then
God is not a kind father ! A parent has a family of children,
all happy and in perfect health. If he is a kind parent, he will
ardently desire to perpetuate their happiness. But what should

Sec. 15.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 43
we think of him, if, with a full knowledge of the consequenoes,
he suffers a disease to come among them which mars their beauty,
destroys their health, and renders them wretched all their days,
when he could have prevented it as well- as not ? We should
think him a fiend incarnate. Now if human action and sympa
thy are to govern our views of God, what character shall we
give him ? The first pair were holy and happy ; but God not
only failed to prevent sin, but, according to some leading Uni
versalist writers, is the author of it (Sec. LXXXV) ; and mil
lions are this moment groaning with untold agonies, as a conse
quence. To accord with Universalist notions, how are we to
view him ; as a kind father, or a fiend incarnate ? The latter,
most certainly ; and thus God is dishonored. Again, what
should we think of the parental character of a man who having
the power to mould the will and affections of his son into perfect
love and obedience to himself, and thus render all painful disci
pline unnecessary, but instead of so doing should suffer his son to
remain in disobedience, and continue to inflict the stripes ? We
should think him a hard-hearted wretch. Universalists repre
sent God, by their arguments upon his perfections, as able, not
only to have prevented evil, but to destroy ' it now ; yet instead
of doing so, he has been inflicting stripes upon his children for
thousands of years. Would a kind father do so ? - Never. So
God is not a kind father !
. In view of such reflections, as a result of the reasonings of
this class of writers, might Jehovah not inquire concerning them
as he did of certain wicked men anciently, " If I then be a
father, where is mine honor? " Mai. 1 : 6. The sympathies
of our nature can never be a just rule by which to determine
what is right in the Divine government ; for earthly parents are
not always governed by true mercy nor strict justice. The son
of a former governor of Kentucky was clearly convicted of mur
der, but was saved from the gallows by a pardon from his
father, when it is evident he would have withheld pardon from
another man under the same circumstances. Here paternal

44 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
sympathy was not only arrayed against justice, ljut also against
mercy ; for this murderer was suffered to go at large, and, as we
have been informed, took the life of another man. This teaches
us the folly of making sympathy the rule to determine what God
will do, who does not act from sympathy, but from his own im
mutable justice. Universalism would have God a father, and
nothing else, led about by sympathy and caprice, just as earthly
parents are. But the Bible not only represents him as a father
to his children, but as a governor, lawgiver and judge, who
will take vengeance and pour out wrath upon the ungodly.
In the time of our Saviour, the wicked Jews set up an argu
ment in their favor from the Divine paternity, and said, " We
have one Father, even God. (John 8 : 41, 42.) The differ
ence between this and the claim set up by Universalists seems to
be this : while both base their safety upon the Divine paternity,
one confined the Divine favor in this respect to the Jews, and
the other extend it to all men. The Jews counted themselves
perfectly safe, notwithstanding their great wickedness, because
God was their father. Universalists consider all men, no mat
ter how vile and wicked, perfectly safe, because God is their
.father. But the Saviour, denied this claim of the Jews, and
said, " if God were your father, ye would love me ; " and fur
thermore he told them, " Ye are of your father the devil ; " and
whether or not if he were now upon earth he would treat those
with less severity who are wallowing in the mire of sin, yet
basing their claims of heaven on the Divine paternity, the
reader must determine. If all men are the children of God in
such a sense as to secure their eternal salvation, then Elymas,
the sorcerer, (Acts 13 : 10) was a child of God ; for his wicked
ness, according to Universalism, could not destroy that relation.
Paul then was wrong in calling him a child of the devil, and
should have said, " O ! full of all subtilty and mischief, thou
child of God, thou enemy of all righteousness ! " If the Bible
teaches that all men, by virtue of the relation they stand in to
god as Creator, are candidates for future bliss, then we are

Sec. 15.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 45
bound to believe it; but where is such instruction given ? One
thus saith the Lord upon this subject, would do more upon candid
minds than all the arguments based upon the sand of human sym
pathy that have ever been constructed. Christ called the wicked
Jews the children of the devil, and Paul called Elymas a child of
the devil ; and John says, " In this the children of God are mani
fest, and the children of the devil ; whosoever doeth not right
eousness is not of God." 1 John 3 : 10. Now according to
Universalism, a man may be a child of God and a child of the
devil at the same time ! But let us view this subject more par
ticularly in the light of the Scriptures.' Gal. 4 : 4, 5. " But
when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, made
of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were
under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons."
Now if all are the children of God by creation, in such a sense as
to secure eternal bliss, they were so before the Saviour was
given, for God was their Father in this sense prior to the gift of
his Son.
Here is a thought, then. If all were sons, and their salva
tion sure as a consequence, where was the necessity of the great
sacrifice of Heaven in giving his Son to suffer and die that they ¦
might receive the adoption of sons ? This single text demolishes
at once all the arguments that our opponents have ever built
upon the paternal character of God. Take the idea of adoption.
What is it ? It is not making a son of a son, but it is making a
son of one who is not. John 1 : 12. " But as many as re
ceived him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God,
even to them that believe on his name." Here it will be seen,
that they were not the children of God, but had power given them
to become such. Rom. 8 : 14. " For as many as are led by
the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." Are all men led
hy the Spirit of God ? But few will assert this. The passage
clearly implies that all men are not led by the Spirit of God,
and that those who are not led by the Spirit of God, are not the
sons of God. Rom. 8 : 17. " And if children, then heirs ;

46 , UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
heirs of God, ancl joint heirs with Christ ; if so be that we suffer
with him, that we may be glorified together." This supposes
that some are not the children of God, and that such as are not
children are not heirs of God, neither are they joint heirs with
Christ. The apostle says, "if so be that we suffer with him,
that we may be glorified together." Now according to Univer
salism, all men are sons in the sense to be heirs, and of course
all will be glorified with Christ, which plainly contradicts the
apostle's reasoning. Which shall we believe ? That this has
respect to future glory, is clearly established by the scripture
following the last quoted text. (Sec. Cn.) What folly to
argue the salvation .of men from a relation which does not con
stitute them heirs of heavenly bliss ! How clear it is from these
passages that salvation depends upon the relation saints sustain
to God by adoption, and not by any relation we sustain to him
by creation. Again, " For ye are all the children of God by
faith in Christ Jesus." Gal. 3 : 26. This was not spoken of
all men, but of Christians, as. will be seen by the context ; and
shows that all are not the children of God in a true Christian
sense. We might extend our remarks, and produce other scrip
tures against the assumptions of Universalism and to sustain our
views, but deem it unnecessary, as wo conceive what is presented
to be a complete refutation. Remember, reader, that it is not
even pretended that there is one text in the Bible that teaches
directly the salvation cf all men in the future state, as the result
of the Divine paternity ; but it is enforced by appeals to sym
pathy, and inferences drawn from a mode of reasoning most
unsound and sophistical.
XVI. " Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sake,
that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus,
with eternal glory." 2 Tim. 2 : 10.
What is the object of the apostle's intense anxiety and labor ?
It is that the elect, or Christians, may obtain the salvation which
is in Christ, with eternal glory. It seems that Paul never once

See. 17.] universalism not of the bible. 47
thought that all men were sure of eternal glory. In view of this
plain declaration, how false is Universalism ! How unlike is
this to the teachings of its advocates, who boldly toll us that all
are sure of Christ's salvation and eternal glory. Which will
you receive, reader ; the teachings of these men, or those of
Paul, the Christian apostle, who received his instructions from
heaven ? Yet we are told, with great confidence, that Paul was
a Universalist ! The great labor of his professed successors in
this faith is, to make the people beheve that they cannot possibly
fail of eternal glory ; and let one of them express a doubt upon
this point, and labor like Paul that men may obtain it, and ho
would at once be cast out of the Universalist synagogue.
XVII. " For I will not contend forever, neither will I be
always wroth ; for ihe spirit should fail before me, and the
souls which I have made." Isa. 57 : 16.
" Is this declaration consistent with the doctrine of endless
misery ? According to that doctrine, will not God contend for
ever ? will he not be always wroth ? " So inquires Mr. Whitte
more, ( Guide, p. 41) ; and this forms one of his " One Hun
dred Arguments." If tbe reader will turn to the passage in the
Bible, he will find that this is not predicated of all men in eter
nity, but of those who put their trust in the Lord, v. 13, and of
those who are of a " contrite and humble spirit," v. 15. It has
respect to the gracious chastisements of God in this world, and
on compliance with his requirements these chastisements were to
cease, and they were to " possess the land and inherit his holy
mountain," v. 13 ; " while the wicked are like the troubled sea
when it cannot rest," v. 20. The subject npon which the
prophet is speaking is notJ;he salvation or damnation of all or
any men in the future state ; and to base an argument upon it
to prove the salvation of all men in the next world, can hardly
be called sophistical. It is another instance of glaring per
version.

48 universalism not of the bible. [Part I.
XVIII. " With whom is no variableness, neither shadow of
turning." James 1 : 17.
" Now faith is the substance of things hoped for." Heb.
11:1. Before us is a tract by A. C. Thomas, containing a set of
questions artfully constructed, designed to bewilder the minds of
those who think but little, and in that state to plunge them into
the quagmire of Universalism. The following is a sample.
' ' Is God ' without variableness or even the shadow of turn
ing ? '
" If God loves His enemies now, will Ho not always love
them ? If God will always love His enemies, will He not al
ways seek their good ? ' '
In reply we ask, Is God without variableness or even the
shadow of turning ? If God hates a certain class of persons,
and is angry with them now, (Ps. 5 : 5 ; 7 : 11,) will ho not al
ways hate and be angry with them ? If he always hates and is
angry with them, will he not always seek their hurt ; and if so,
will they ever be holy and happy ? See Sec. XCV. also
XXXVII. Again Mr. T. inquires, " Is faith the substance of
things hoped for?" Heb. 11 : 1. Do you hope for the truth of
the doctrine of endless misery ? If endless misery be not a thing
hoped for, can it form any part of the Christian faith? "
In reply we ask, Is " faith the substance of things hoped
for ? " Do you hope for the truth of the doctrine of misery in
the present world ? If misery in this world is not a thing hoped
for, can it form any part of the Christian's faith ? Did primi
tive Christians hope for the dreadful calamities which befel the
Jews, including innocent women and children, at the siege of
Jerusalem ? If it was not a thing hoped for, could it have
formed any part of their faith ? Yet Universalists will have
it that the destruction of that city formed a very important part
of their faith, so much so that almost every terrific thing they
uttered referred to that event ! The logic is this : If a man
cannot hope that his friends or himself will suffer in the state

Sec. 19.] universalism not of the bible. 49
prison, the existence of such a place where criminals are pun
ished, must form no part of his belief ! Such reasoning is well
worthy the cause it is designed to support. Again he asks, ' ' If
God would save all mankind but cannot, is he infinite in power ?
If God can save all mankind but will not, is he infinite in good
ness ? " What of force there is here, hes with all its weight
against matter 'of fact, namely, the present sufferings of our race ?
Is it said that present sufferings are disciplinary, and are the
means God adopts to secure good to man in the end ? We beg
leave to ask, If God would save all men without present suffer
ing, but cannot, is he infinite in power ? If he can save all
men without present suffering, but will not, is he infinite in
goodness? With the license this writer takes, Universalism
may be swept away at a stroke. We have seen a string of ques
tions upon the same plan with Mr. T.'s tract, by a crafty athe
ist, concerning the being of God and Divine revelation ; and we
should think Mr. T. had taken that writer as his beau ideal. It
were an easy matter to answer the whole tract, and turn its force
upon his own theory, if space would admit. It presents a fine
specimen of the priestcraft of Universalism.
XIX. "Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from
henceforth : Tea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their
labors; and their works do follow them." Rev. 14 : 13.
Here a class among the dead are named as enjoying exalted
bliss. They are such as die in the Lord. But Universalism
asserts that all are equally blest, and all rest from their labors,
for beyond death there is no difference between the righteous
and the wicked. We are aware that some of its advocates, in
order to pare off a little of the absurdity, admit a difference in
degrees of happiness growing out of a difference in capacity for
enjoyment; but, nevertheless, all are holy and happy, for death
puts an end to sin and all suffering. By the way, does not this
idea border a httle upon Partialism ? Why did not God create
and place men in circumstances perfectly equal all through their

50 universalism not of the bible. [Part I.
whole existence ? But it is said " their works do follow them."
How can this be, if the present has nothing to do with the fu
ture ? This text stands directly opposed to American Univer
salism. XX. " And as it is appointed unto men once to die, bat
after this the judgment ; so Christ was once offered to bear
the sins of many ; and unto them that look for him shall he
appear the second time without sin, unto salvation." Heb. 9 :
27, 28.
Since the no-future punishment notion has come into vogue,
this passage has become exceedingly troublesome to Universal
ists. That it taught a future judgment was never called in
question till about 1818. Since that, various expedients have
been resorted to in order to destroy its force. Mr. Balfour, in
controversy with Mr. Hudson, says of it, " He (Mr. Hudson)
will then ask me, what judgment comes after death? I answer,
the judgment God pronounced on all mankind, (Gen. 3 : 19,)
' dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return.' Here is a
judgment which comes after death, which is visible, universal,
certain, and disputed by no man." Essays, p. 271. So when
tho unconscious body turns to dust, that is the judgment ! ! This
needs no comment. To show the liberty taken with the Bible
by these men of many inventions, we give the following upon
this passage, found in a sermon by W. A. Stickney :
" As it is appointed unto men (human kind,) once to partake
of flesh and blood, whereby the soul is subject to spiritual death,
and after this the judgment of justification by a spiritual, im
mortal life, when the earthly tabernacle to which the spirit was
first united is put off in natural death ; so Christ once took on
him flesh and blood, and when his body was thus put off, was
once offered to bear (away) the sins of the many ; that is, to
make known, as the Mediator, or witness of the new covenant,
the way in which full deliverance from moral death, and the
power of sinful influence, is to be obtained " Trumpd,
No. 723.

Sec 20.] universalism not of the bible. 51
This, as-all must see, is a theological curiosity." It is but justice,
however, to say that these once true interpretations have become
nearly obselete in the order. The most popular method to get
rid of the troublesome text is the following : " As it is appointed
unto men (the high priests), once to die, (in their sacrifices,)
and after this the judgment, (which they bore upon their breast ;)
so Christ was once offered (that is; in a sacrificial manner) , to
bear the sins of many." Guide, p. 268.
It appears that the credit of this invention belongs to Mr. H.
Ballou. See Section CXXXIII.
Our business now is to expose the sophistry of this stereotyped
exposition, so often put forth with great confidence, by Univer
salist ministers, both great and small. In their criticisms, they
tell us that the definite article should be placed before the noun
men, so as to read, " As it is appointed unto the men once to
die," &c. To this we do not object. But who are the men
appointed to die ? Not the Jewish high priest, as they affirm,
for, 1. They were never appointed to' die, either figuratively or
literally, as such. We call upon Universalists to show us such
an appointment from the Scriptures. They often refer us to Ex.
28 : 29, 30, which reads thus :
"And Aaron shall bear the names of the children of Israel
in the breast-plate of judgment upon his heart, when he goeth
in unto the holy place, for a memorial before the Lord con
tinually. " And thou shalt put in the breast-plate of judgment the Urim
and the Thummim ; and they shall be upon Aaron's heart, when
he goeth in before the Lord : and Aaron shall bear the judg
ment of the children of Israel upon his heart before the Lord
continually." Not a word is said here, or elsewhere in the Bible, about the
appointment of high priests to die figuratively, in their sacrifices ;
and it is an unwarranted assumption to say that they were so
appointed, or that they so died. The high priest typified Christ's

2 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [-Part I.
priesthood, but did Christ die as priest ? Certainly not. He
died as sacrifice, and was typified in this respect, not by the
high priest but by the sacrificial lamb, offered by the high priest.
Hence he is called " the Lamb of God." See, also, 1 Peter,
1 : 18, 19; also Heb. 7 : 22, 25, where the apostle shows that
Christ, as priest, "ever liveth to make intercession" for his
people. 2. The high priests were appointed to enter "into the holy
place every year, with the blood of others." Ver, 25. Bu$
the men spoken of in the text were appointed once to die. It
is said, " as it is appointed unto men once to die, so Christ was
once offered." But if the men refer to the Jewish high priests,
and the death to their sacrifices, then it must read thus, " As it
is appointed unto the high priests once to die every year in their
sacrifices, so Christ was offered once every yean," and "then
must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world,"
(ver. 25,) and thus is the apostle contradicted by this exposi
tion. But who are the men appointed once to die ? Ans. The
many, (ver. 28,) for whom Christ died. ' ' Christ was once offered
to be'ar the sins of many." The adjective "many," is here put
for the noun " men." Many men, or " the many" as it is in
the original. Now, as the adjective " many " is here used for,
or instead of, the noun " men," all that is necessary to express
the exact sense, is to use the noun "men" instead of the
adjective "many," i. e., the men instead of ihe many. The
sense of the text, then, is fully expressed thus : as it is ap
pointed unto the men once to die, so Christ was once offered to
bear the sins of the men. Now who are the men for whom
Christ died? Ans. "Tbis is my blood of the New Testa
ment, which is shed for many, (or ihe many, Gr.,) for the .
remission of sins." Matt. 26:28. "He, by the grace of
God, tasted death for every man." Heb. 2 : 9. Thus we see,
that ihe many, or the men, for whom Christ died are all men,
every man.
We are now prepared to state the argument thus :

Sec. 20.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 53
1. The men appointed to die, named verse 27, are the many
for whom Christ died, named verse 28. As it is appointed unto
the men once to die, so Christ was once offered to bear the sins
of the men — that is, the men appointed to die.
2. The many, named verse 28, for whom Christ died, were
all men, " every man."
3. Therefore, the men appointed to die are all men, and
not the Jewish high priests, to die figuratively, as Universalists
assert. So we see that their own criticism, by which they add the
definite article the to the common translation, goes to destroy
the exposition they give of this passage. Here we state, with
out fear of successful contradiction, that the expression ihe men
is never used in the Scriptures to designate the Jewish high
priests, but on the contrary, they are called high priests, to dis
tinguish them from the men, that is, the generality of men.
Heb. 5:1.
This exposition contains the following false assertions :
1. It asserts that the high priests were appointed to die in
their sacrifices, i. e., figuratively; which is false. It is mere
assumption without a shadow of proof in the Bible.
2. It makes the text assert this : as the high priests died
figuratively in their sacrifices, so Christ was offered figuratively
in his ; for it says, as the high priests, so Christ, thus making
the death of Christ figurative instead of real !
3. It asserts that the High priests were appointed once to die,
or offer sacrifices; that is, only once. This contradicts the apos
tle, for he says, ver. 25, that they entered "into the holy place
every year, with the blood of others."
4. It asserts that the high priests died figuratively themselves,
which is false, and again contradicts the apostle ; for he says,
ver 25, they offered" the blood of others."
5. It makes the text assert, that, as it is appointed unto the
men, i. e., the high priests, once to die, so Christ was once offered
to bear the sins of the many, or the men, who are' th*- Jewish

54 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Parti
high priests. Thus limiting Christ's atonement to the Jewish
high priests !
6. It asserts that the phrase the men is used to designate the
Jewish high priests, when it is never so used in the Bible.
To these thoughts, add the fact that this Epistle was addressed
to those who had been educated in the belief of a future judg
ment and also, that among all the expositors of Scripture, for
nearly eighteen hundred years, whose writings have come down
to us, no one ever discovered this to be the meaning of the text :
and that even Mr. Ballou, who it seems was so exceedingly
anxious to get rid of the text, never made his discovery until
he had been a constant student of the science of divinity for
twenty-nine years, twenty-seven of which he was a Universalist
preacher. (Sec. CXXXIII.) Take all these things into ac
count, we say, and who does not see that the exposition given is
unnatural, absurd and false.
The passage uuder consideration is too plain to need any
comments, were it not that Universalists have so distorted its
features. It will be seen, by the context, that the points con
nected with this passage are the two-fold appearing of Christ,
which the Apostle was laboring to establish. Christ had once
appeared as a sin offering, " to put away sin." He is to appear
a " second time without sin,".i. e., without a sin offering, " unto
salvation," to those who look for him.
The substance of the Apostle's reasoning may be stated thus :
all men are appointed to one temporal death, and only one ;
therefore, it was necessary for Christ to offer himself once, and
only once, to redeem them ; and as all men are accountable for
the improvement they make of this grace, during their probftr
tion, and are to be judged after death, that is, after their pro
bation has closed, so Christ will appear a second time to judge
them, and to such as look for him, (not all men,) or believe in
him, will he appear unto salvation. Christ came at the end of
the Jewish dispensation as Redeemer. He will come at the end
of the Gospel dispensation as judge.

Sec. 22.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 55
The Apostle is speaking, doubtless, of the same event in this
text that he is in Chap. 6 : 2 of the same Epistle, where, in the
order of his arrangement, in _giving a summary of Christian
doctrines, he places " eternal judgment" after the " resurrection
of the dead."
The passage teaches just what it seems to teach to an unso
phisticated mind. It remains a truth, then, that men must die,
and after this the judgment.
With the exception of a few thoughts, this refutation was
furnished by Rev. Charles Munger.
XXI. " After this I beheld, and lo, a great multitude,
which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds,
and people," t}c. Rev. 7 : 9, 10.
This passage has been pressed into the service of Universal
ism. Pro and Con, p. 105. But does it say one word about
the salvation of all men ? Does it say' " I beheld, and lo, all
men stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed in
white robes, and palms in their hands," crying, Salvation to our
God, &c. ? Nothing like it. A particular class possessing
peculiar quaHfications is spoken of, and not the whole race of
men. When it is shown that the whole of Adam's posterity
will come up before the throne, having their robes washed and
made white in the blood of the Lamb, Universalists will have
done something to their purpose. What do Universalists be
lieve concerning the efficacy of the blood of Christ to save in
the future state ? Just nothing. (Sees. XXIX and CV.)
XXn. "If any man be in Christ Jesus, he is a new
creature." 2 Cor. 5 : 17.
The author of the Guide, p. 48, constructs an argument to
prove his theory as follows : " Paul saith, as in Adam ali die,
even so in Christ shall all be made alive." 1 Cor. 15 : 22.
" If any man be in Christ Jesus, he is a new creature." 2
Cor. 5 : 17. Hence if all shallbe made alive in Christ, they shall

56 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
all be new creatures in the resurrection of the dead. The text
in 2 Cor. 5 : 17, refers to the state of the regenerated man in
this world, and not to the resurrection, as may be seen by turn
ing to tho passage. The text from 1 Cor. 15 : 22, refers to the
resurrection of the body, and not to the renewal of the heart.
These scriptures referring to different subjects altogether, are
brought together in good Universalist style, and are made to
teach the salvation of all men in the future state. What cannot
be proved in this way ? In Gen. 4 : 8 we read, " Cain rose up
against his brother Abel and slew him." In Luke 10 : 37 it
is said, " Go, and do thou likewise." Hence, to murder a
brother as Cain did, is to obey the scriptures ! Is'not one argu
ment as good as the other ? Can a system of truth, given from
heaven, require such work with the Bible to sustain it ? Never.
For an examination of 1 Cor. 15 : 22, see Sec XC.
XXXIII. " And every creature which is in heaven and on
the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in ihe sea, and
all that are in them, heard I saying, blessing, and honor, and
glory, and power be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and
unto the Lamb, for ever and ever." Rev. 5 : 13.
It is seldom that we see an effort to prove Universalism from
the scriptures without the use of this text. But does it prove
the doctrine ? Let us see. We have been told for the hun
dredth time that Prof. Stuart said, in controversy with Dr.
Channing, that spiritual worship is here intended, and also that
here we have an instance of the common periphrasis of tho
Hebrew and New Testament writers for the universe, and the
inference drawn by Universalists is, that if all the universe wor
ship the Lamb then the whole human race will be saved. That
the whole universe is here intended is doubtless correct; but
with all deference to Prof. Stuart, with the Bible for our guide,
we must dissent from his opinion that spiritual worship is in
tended. If spiritual worship is meant, then we have tbe whole
universe, planets; angels, men, beasts, birds; fishes; creeping

SeC. 23.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 57
things, in a word, all animate and inanimate creation, engaged in
it, speaking a language and ascribing blessing, honor, glory and
power to God and the Lamb ; and to carry out the Universalist
idea, these are all to be holy and happy ! The human race form
but a small part of the universe. Christ sent his apostles to
preach the gospel to every creature (Mark 16 : 15) ; but the
subject, the implied ability of those to whom it was sent, to
receive or reject it, shows that by this moral agents are intended
who are inhabitants of the earth ; but in the case before us, not
only is every creature which in heaven, earth, under the earth
and in the sea, but also all that are in them, are giving these
ascriptions. But should Universalists cease to quote Prof.
Stuart and change their ground, as they sometimes do, and take
the position that the human race, and not the whole universe, is
intended, then they gain nothing. Observe, the assumption in
the argument is, that the revelator had a view of all men saved
in the future state. Now if human beings are intended by
" every creature," and their so called spiritual worship is evi
dence of their salvation, a difficulty is at once encountered by
the fact that these creatures, or human beings, doing this wor
ship, are not only in heaven but on ihe earth, and under the
earth, and in the sea ! But when all shall be saved in heaven,
will a part of them be on the earth, and under the earth, and in
the sea ? Yet to such a conclusion are we driven by such pre
mises. The truth is, this figurative passage, from the most
figurative book in all the Bible, was never designed to teach the
salvation of all, or even any men in the future world. Its sole
design is to give a luminous description of the glory of Him that
sitteth upon the throne and of the Lamb ; hence the whole uni
verse is personified and represented as uniting in ascriptions of
praise to them. The Psalmist calls upon all animate and inani
mate creation to praise God, (Ps. 148,) but did he once think
that this was equivalent to calling all the race of Adam to be
holy and happy after death ? Mr. Hosea Ballou, 2d, rebukes
his brethren for their gross perversion of this text thus :
5

58 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
" Universalists have not wholly ceased to quote as proof of the
final reconciliation of all men, this text, Rev. 5 : 13, a text
which, if we mistake not their views concerning the general plan
of this book, they can by no means suppose, on careful reflec
tion, to refer to a period yet future." U. Expositor, v. 3., p.
196. Says Mr. Sawyer, a preacher in the order, " It has been,
and may well be, doubted whether any part of tho Apocalypse
relates to the future and eternal world." Pen. of Sin, p. 16.
Yet Universalist preachers continue to use this text to prove
their doctrine, just because the phrase "every creature'' is
in it.XXIV. " And we know that this is indeed the Christ the
Saviour of the world." John 4 : 42, also 1 John 4 : 14.
It is inquired, " How can he be the Saviour of the world
without saving it?" U. 111. and Def, p. 268. This class of
writers can see no possible way in which Christ can he tho
Saviour of the world, unless every human soul is saved. Lot
us help them a little upon this point. All are not saved now
nor will they be, if Universalist views are correct, till the resur
rection. Now observe, the text under consideration was spoken
eighteen hundred years ago, and he was declared then to be the
Saviour of the world. But millions have remained unsaved
from that to the present, and if Christ has been the Saviour of
the world for eighteen centuries and millions remain unsaved, we
ask by what process in reasoning will it be made to appear that
some may not remain unsaved forever, and yet Cbrist be the
Saviour of the world. A man may by office be the surgeon of
a whole regiment, but it does not follow that he must perform a
surgical operation upon every one in the regiment. So Christ
is tbe given or appointed Saviour of the world, but the effectual
Saviour of those only who obey him. Heb. 5 : 9.

SeC. 25.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 59
XXV. " The wicked is driven away in his wickedness, but
ihe righteous hath hope in his death." Prov. 14 : 32, also
Prov. 11 : 7.
The twist given to this text to destroy its force is this : " In
character, he (the wicked) is far away from Christ and God.
He docs not enjoy their companionship. He is in a peculiar
sense without Christ and without God." Banner, March 23,
1850. So. it docs not refer to the dying hour.but to tho prac
tice of wickedness in this life. He is driven away from Christ
and God here. To be driven implies involuntary action, that is,
force. But is not a departure from God, or sin, a voluntary
act ? Most surely, or it is not sin. And then who drives the
wicked away from Christ and God in this world ? Thc idea is
repugnant to the whole gospel plan, which instead of driving the
sinner from Christ and God, invites and welcomes him to them.
Every unsophisticated mind will see that in this text the condi
tion of the righteous and the wicked in death is contrasted.
" The wicked is driven away," ho goes reluctantly into the
future world, is unwilling to die. He "is driven away in"
not out of or from his wickedness, but carries the same moral
character into eternity he bore when death found him. Of sim
ilar import is Prov. 11 : 8. " When a wicked man dieth, his
expectation shall perish ; and the hope of unjust men perisheth."
Now we ask, Universalism being true, what more the righteous
man may hope for in death than the wicked man ? Does the
righteous man hope for heavenly bliss ? May not the wicked
do the same ? Does he hope to escape the ills of this life ?
May not wicked men hope the same ? Universalism says to all
men, without respect to character, "you may hope in your
death." But the Bible restricts it to the righteous only. The
Bible nowhere says tho wicked hath hope in his death. But
this dogma says to the desperately wicked, " You may hope for
a greater deliverance by death than the righteous, inasmuch as
you are more wretched here and will fare just as well hero-
after 1 " Which shall we follow, Universalism or the Bible ?

60 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
XXVI. " Tou that are troubled rest with us," &c. 2
Thess. 1 : 7-10, also 1 Thess. 4 : 15-17.
Universalist truth upon this passage used to be promulgated
by Father Ballou as follows : " This fire is that in which Christ
is revealed, and it comes from heaven. Is not this the fire with
which he baptizes ? Is not the fire revealed to destroy the hay,
the wood, and the stubble ? Undoubtedly ; and is the endless
misery of the sinner to be proved from the action of that divine
firo which alone is able to affect his salvation ? But the objector
says, the text reads for itself, ' Who shall be punished with
everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from
the glory of his power ; ' and if the sinner is punished from the
presence of the Lord he cannot be blessed in it, where there are
joys forever more. Answer : There is not a place in the universe
which is out of the presence of an omnipresent God ; therefore
to put a sinner from the presence of the Lord he must be put
out of the universe. But what means the text? says the reader.
Answer : That divine light and heat, which destroys moral dark
ness, and purges man from all sin, is from the presence of the
Lord as a production of the divine presence ; as it is written con
cerning the man of sin, whom the Lord shall consume with the
breath of his mouth, and destroy with the brightness of his
coming. If God were not able to punish the sinner in the man
ner described in the text, I should despair of his salvation ; but
blessed be that divine spirit of light and love ; it truly takes
such vengeance on the sinner as is worthy of a God." T. on
Atonement, p. 183.
This positive truth has long since become obsolete, and now
this class of writers, to which Mr. B. belongs, are just as posi
tive that this passage had its fulfilment in the destruction of the
Jewish polity by the Romans, as they once were that, "punished
with everlasting destruction," " flaming fire," and "taking
vengeance " meant, that divine light and heat which destroys
moral darkness, and purges man from all sin ! !

Sec. 26.] UNIVERSALISM NOT .OF THE BIBLE. 61
In order to give plausibility to his interpretation, the author
of the Guide remarks as follows: "Who were those that
troubled the Thessalonians? Answer: The Jews. See Acts
17 : 5-7. See also 1 Thess. 2 : 15, where Paul, speaking of
the Jews who had persecuted the Thessalonians, says : ' Who
both killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have
persecuted us.' " Here a falsehood is presented by withholding
a part of the truth. We turn to 1 Thess. 2 : 14, 15, and read
as follows : " For ye brethren became followers of tbe churches
of God which in Judea are in Cbrist Jesus ; for ye also have
suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have
of the Jews : who both killed the Lord Jesus and their own
prophets' and have persecuted us." By this we learn that their
" own countrymen" perseeuted-the Thessalonians as well as the
Jews named, Acts 17 : 5-7. Did Mr. Whittemore know no
better than to present the subject in this light, or did he do it to
deceive ? Judge ye. The Greeks then as well as the Jews
troubled them.
" When the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with
his mighty angels," &c. This we are told was fulfilled when
the Roman army destroyed Jerusalem. In reply we say, there
is nothing in the history of that event which corresponds with
the description given by the apostle. How was Christ " revealed
from heaven," the place to which he ascended after his resur
rection ? What is there connected with the Jerusalem catas
trophe to answer to this ? The Roman armies we are told were
the angels that accompanied him. And were those fierce pol
luted heathens the holy (Matt. 25 : 31) angels of the immacu
late Jesus ? Did they come from heaven with him ?
" Taking vengeance on them that know not God and obey
not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." Were the Jews at
Jerusalem the only people who knew not God ? The scriptures
represent the Jews as distinguished from all other nations by
their knowledge of the true God, and Paul in writing to this
same church and giving them directions how to walk, says :

62 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
' ' Not in lust of concupiscence as tho Gentiles which know not
God." 1 Thess. 4 : 5. The Gentiles, then, " know not God,"
which precludes the idea that the Apostle had exclusive refer
ence to the Jews. This being the case he could not be teaching
Jerusalem's destruction, for that was a punishment upon the
Jews and not the Gentiles. At his coming, Christ is to take
¦vengeance on them who "obey not the Gospel." Were the
Jews at Jerusalem the only people who disobeyed the gospel?
Admitting that they were, it does not follow that this was Fpoken
of Jerusalem's overthrow, for observe, this Epistle was written
sixteen years before that event, and vast numbers of those, in
Judea who were living in disobedience to the gospel when Paul
wrote, were dead long before tbe city was destroyed ; ancl so far
were they from suffering vengeance, that at that timo tbey were
enjoying heavenly bliss- — ¦ i. c., if Univcrsaliam be true. But
Gentiles disobeyed the gospel as well as Jews, and persecut
ed Christians as we have seen. See also Acts, chapters 16 and
19. Now as vengeance was taken upon the Jews only in the
destruction of Jerusalem, it follows that the Apostle does not
refer to that event.
" Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from
the presence of the Lord and the glory of his power."
"God permitted them (the Jews) to be driven away from
their own land by the Romans under Titus." Guide, p. 192.
This we are informed is the everlasting destruction from the
presence of the Lord. Upon this we submit tho following :
1. History informs us that at tho taking of Jerusalem by Titus,
one m'llion ono hundred thousand of thc Jews perished in that
city, and two hundred and fifty thousand elsewhere. These,
then, instead of going "from the presence of the Lord," were
brought immediately into bis heavenly blissful presence — that is,
if Universalism is true ! The reader can see the sense attached
to the expression, "presence of the Lord," by the New Testa
ment writers, and by Paul in particular, by turning to Heb.
9 : 24 ; 2 Cor. 5:8; also Jude 24.

Sec. 26.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 63
2. As to the Jews being driven away from their place of
worship, it is not in point at all. Of whom was the Apostle
speaking ? Not of the Jews as a nation or a class, as has been
shown, but of a class of wicked persons who " know not God
and obey not the gospel; " including Gentiles as well as Jews.
Were Gentiles driven away from their plaee of worship and
religious privileges at the time of Jerusalem's destruction?
The Jews are not mentioned in the whole epistle. No more
need be said.
" Rest with us."
We are told that after the Jewish power was broken by the
Romans, that" Christians in all parts of the world had a glorious
season of rest from persecution, and that this is the rest that
Paul refers to here. But we look in vain to the history of that
period for any such days of tranquility to the church as these
writers assert. The Saviour, in Matt. 24 : 9-1G, which Uni
versalists apply to Jerusalem's destruction, represents that event
as a time of great temporal calamity to Christians ; and history
informs us that "for two hundred and sixty years from the
death of Christ, they had but short intervals of rest from perse
cution; fur when the emperors themselves were not sanguinary,
there were always inferior magistrates, who, under some pre
tence or other, hirrassed the poor, inoffensive Christians. It is
supposed that three millions perished in three centuries." Rei.
Enc. , Art. Persecution. Was this the glorious rest that the
faithful were promised ? It is a " rest with us." It is not true
that Christians at Thessalonica were to rest with Paul and othei s
as a result of Jerusalem's destruction ; for Paul suffered death
under Nero at least four years before Titus sacked that city, and
many others to whom and of whom he wrote were dead before
that event. It is worthy of remark that Universalists, in order
to fritter away the true sense of our Saviour's words, Matt.
10:28, (Sec. XCII.) contend that ho is there giving instruction
concerning tho Jews and the Roman power ; that the disciples
need not much fear the Jews, as they were quite harmless,

64 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
having not legal power to take life, but that they were to fear
the Roman power. But in order to get rid of the passage under
consideration, they will have it that the Jews are the terrible
ones, and that when their power should be broken, Christians
should enjoy great rest and peace under the Roman power !
In the one case the Romans are the lion and the Jews the lamb,
and in the other the Jews are the lion and the Romans the
lamb. Any way to push forward Universalism. Of this reve
lation of Christ we read as follows : " Now we beseech you,
brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our
gathering together unto him." Chap. 2, ver. 1.
Those to whom this was addressed were one thousand miles
from Jerusalem, and there is no evidense whatever that these or
any other Christians were gathered at that city at that time ;
but instead of gathering, it is a matter of history that Christians
fled from Jerusalem " at the signs of approaching danger."
Paul and others instead of being gathered at Jerusalem's
destruction, were resting in the bosom of their God, having
been put to death by that Roman power of which we hear so
many fine things. Before Christ's coming, there was to be a
great apostacy in religion. Paul cautions his brethren not to
think that the day of recompense, of which he had been speaking,
was near at hand ; for, says he, " that day (the day when the
Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven in flaming fire, taking
vengeance on them who know not God), shall not come except
there be a falling away first, and that man of sin he revealed,
the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself against
all that is called God." Chap. 2 : 4, 5. Observe, thc coming
of Christ spoken of in this epistle was to be subsequent to the
fulfillment of this prediction. Ver. 1 and 8. Now we have
no account whatever of an apostacy in the Christian church,
prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, whieh in the least answers
to this description. Furthermore, it would seem, that if the
assumptions and abominations of popery are predicted anywhere
in the Bible, they are here, which is an additional evidence

See. 26.] universalism not of the bible. 65
against Universalist views, showing that the coming of Christ is
yet future. Having exploded the absurdity of applying this
passage to the destruction of the city of David, we now proceed
to show that it does teach the final and personal coming of our
Lord Jesus Christ to raise the dead and to judge the world.
This will be seen,
1. Because the circumstances mentioned in the text meet
not in any other coming of Christ. The reader has already
seen the disposition once made of it by Mr. Ballou, and also the
interpretation of more modern times, and that the latter is as
truthful as the former, and no more so.
2. Because it is evident that the same advent of Christ is
spoken of here that is spoken of 1 Thess. 4 : 15-17. " For
this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which
are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not pre
vent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend
from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and
with the trumpet of God ; and the dead in Christ shall rise first.
Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together
in the clouds, to meet tho Lord in the air, and so shall we be
ever with the Lord." It would be an easy matter to show that
if the coming of Christ here named refers to the destruction of
Jerusalem, then his coming named in 1 Cor. 15, refers to the
same event; and then truly the resurrection would be "past
already," which would overthrow the faith of Universalists.
We could easily prove that they both refer to the same event,
but are saved the trouble by an admission of Mr. Whittemore.
" Now when shall he (Christ) visit the earth bodily ? Answer :
At the resurrection of the dead. See Acts 1 : 10, 11, and 1
Thess 4 : 16." Guide, p. 36. The author of the Guide is
right for once. He adduces the 16th verse of 1 Thess., 4th
chapter, to prove that Christ will visit the earth bodily at the
resurrection of the dead, which of course is taught in 1 Cor. 15,
as no Universalist will deny. These events have never taken
plaee. It would be fatal to the Universalist theory to admit
5*

66 universalism not of the bible. [Part I.
that they have. The bodily and personal coming, then, of our
Lord Jesus is yet future. The question now comes up, is the
Apostle treating upon the same advent of Christ in 2 Thess.
1 : 7-10 that ho is in 1 Thess. 4 : 15-17? We answer, he
most certainly is, for
1. The Epistles were both written by the same Apostle to tho
same church, ancl as in the first letter he speaks of Christ's
coming to raise the dead, we safely conclude that the passage in
thc second letter relates to the same event, unless there is some
thing in it to teach us a different application.
2. Instead of a different application being suggested, there
are striking points of resemblance, too striking to admit of a
doubt but they both relate to the same advent of Christ.
1. One says; " the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from
heaven ; " the other declares, " the Lord himself shall descend
from heaven."
2. One says, he "shall be revealed from heaven with its
mighty angels ; " the other, that he shall descend "with the
voice of the archangel."
3. One declares that he shall recompense rest to them that
are troubled " when he shall come to be glorified in his saints ; "
the other says that the saints shall be caught up " to meet the
Lord in the air ; and so shall we ever be with thc Lord."
Nothing can be plainer than that these both relate to the
same great event. In tho first Epistle the Apostle speaks more
particularly of the righteous. In the second, both of the wicked
and the righteous. In the first he asserts tho resurrection of
the dead; in the second, tho punishment of the wicked. These
facts teach us most conclusively that some men will be punished
with everlasting destruction from tho presence of the Lord and
the glory of his power after they arc raised from the dead. Seo
Sec. XLI, where these passages are collated with Matt. 25 : 31.
and 1 Cor. 15.

Sec. 27.] universalism not of the bible. 67
XXVII. " For we must all appear before the judgment
seat of Christ ; that every om may receive the things bone in
his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good
or bad. Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we per
suade men." 2 Cor. 5 : 10, 11.
This, too, refers to the judgment that came upon the Jewish
nation when Jerusalem was destroyed ! Balfour's Essays, p.
300 ; Guide, p. 187. The words in small capitals are supplied
by the translators with which Mr. Whittemore is somewhat dis
pleased, and will have it that the translators were under the
influence of " long-nurtured prejudices." Were we to look no
farther than Mr. W.'s Guide, we should conclude that this text
stood perfectly independent of what preceded it, for he has very
wisely, for his own cause, said nothing about the preceding
verses. By turning to the chapter, it will be seen that the trans
lators had the strongest of reasons from the context for adding
the supplied words. The Apostle's theme is the separation of
the soul from the body by death, and he very naturally cites
his brethren to the event whieh should take place subsequent to
this separation when the bodies of men should be raised and all
should be judged. Without the supplied words it reads thus :
" For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Cbrist ;
that every one may receive the things in body, according to that
he hath done, whether good or bad." Now what is gained to
Universalism by discarding the supplied words ? Does it now
say that we must all appear before the judgment scat of Christ
at the destruction of Jerusalem ? Does it now teach that all
are rewarded and punished in this world ? Will there not be a
body of some kind after the resurrection of the body ? and if so,
may not men receive for their works " in body " in a future life ?
To say that the Apostle is calling the attention of his Corinthian
brethren to the judgment to come upon the Jewish nation, is
most false and absurd.
1. This Epistle was addressed to Christians, chiefly Gentiles.
Home.

68 universalism not of the bible. [Part I.
2. Corinth was nine hundred miles from Jerusalem.
3. This Epistle was written at least twelve years before Jeru
salem was destroyed.
4. Universalists have repeatedly told us that the destruction
of Jerusalem was a judgment upon the Jewish nation for reject
ing the Messiah, and of course was not a judgment on the
Gentiles. It comes to this then : the Apostle sits down, twelve
years before the destruction of Jerusalem, and writes to a Church
composed chiefly of Gentiles, nine hundred -miles from Jerusa
lem, as follows : For we (Paul, the Christians at Corinth, and
others) , must all appear before the destruction of Jerusalem by
the Romans, that every one may receive the things in body
according to that he hath done, whether good or bad ! Did
" every one " of the church at Corinth, mostly Gentiles, and
nine hundred miles distant, appear at Jerusalem and there receive
in body according to that they had done ? Many of their bodies
were mouldering in the dust long before that event. Was Paul
there (he says, " we must all," &c), to receive in his body?
He died under Nero four years before. Again, if we may
credit the authors Universalists quote, no Christian appeared
before Jerusalem's destruction, but fled from the place at the
"signs of the approaching danger." Notes on Par. p. 352.
Mr. Whittemore usually manifests a remarkable confidence in
the gullibility of his readers, but here he falters somewhat ; as if
he feared confining this to Jerusalem's destruction would be
too large a dose even for his patrons, he adds, " at the destruc
tion of the Jewish nation, there was a general judgment among
the nations of the earth." Guide, p. 187. This is thrown in
so that the judgment may extend off nine hundred miles to
Corinth ; but this helps not the matter at all, for how could
those long since dead, like Paul, stand before that judgment
seat ? But where does Mr. W. find his authority for this bold
assertion ? He gives none, for the reason that he has none.
This was doubtless manufactured by some one in the Trumpet
office, Boston. History says nothing about such a general

See. 29.] universalism not of the bible. 69
judgment among the nations. That the Apostle teaches a judg
ment in a future state is evident from the language, the context,
and the absurdity of any other construction.
XXVIII. " All the ends of the earth shall remember and
turn unto the Lord, and all ihe kindred of the nations shall
worship before thee." Ps. 22 : 27.
" That all mankind will at last believe the gospel, the Bible
does explicitly declare," Guide, p. 269 ; and then this text is
quoted as proof. Now this has no more reference to the salva
tion of all men in the future world, than it has to the brimstone
which fell upon the Sodomites. This remembering and turning
unto tbe Lord must take place either in this world or the next.
None will assert that universal salvation takes place in this world.
It follows, then, that forgetfulness of God, and alienation from
him , together with unbelief of the gospel, will exist in the future
state ; and as these can be regarded in no other light than sins
against God, it also follows that sin will exist in the future
state, and consequently misery. How does this comport with
the notion that death puts an end to sin and its consequences ?
How does it comport with the idea that all are to be ushered
into bliss in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, as some con
tend? This text indicates the progress and triumphs of
Christianity in this world, and is perverted just because some
men are willing to be deceived by a jingle of sounds. The word
all is in the passage, hence it must mean universal salvation ! .
XXIX. " Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the
world, and death by sin," &c. Rom. 5 : 12, 17-21. The
reader will please turn to the passage.
As a portion of this passage is sometimes pressed into the ser
vice of Universalism, we shall examine it in reference to some of
the prominent doctrines of the order, and see if they gain any
support from it. The apostle says, v. 12, that sin and death
entered the world by one man, and so death passed upon all

70 universalism not of the bible. [Part I.
men, &c; and in v. 15, " For if through the offence of one many
be dead," &c. Again, v. 17, " For by one man's offence
death reigned by one." By tho " one man," Adam is meant,
v. 14. Well, what death do Universalists admit that Adam
died, of whieh mention is here made ? Do they admit that it
was the death of the body ? No : for they tell us that man was
created mortal at first. Do they admit that it was eternal death
or a death involving future ancl endless punishment? No : for
they deny that Adam or any of his posterity were ever exposed
to such a death ; for if it were once admitted that'all or any
men were thus exposed, then all their arguments against such
punishment from the attributes of God are destroyed at a blow ;
for if endless punishment was ever consistent with the attribute
of God, it may be so to all eternity, as Universalists well know.
But what death is meant? It is a moral death. Adam died to
innocence the day he partook of the forbidden fruit. U. III. fy
Def, p. 76.
Did this moral death extend beyond this present life ? Wo
hear Mr. Whittemore nioro than twenty years ago asserting that
" Universalists now know of no condition for man, beyond the
grave, but that in which he is as tho angels of God in heaven."
Trumpet, April 2, 1831. And who has not heard their per
version of Rom. 6:7: "He that is dead is freed from sin," to
prove that the most God-dishonoring, polluted rake in creation is
freed from sin and all its consequences as soon as death does its
work. At this point let us inquire, do Universalists admit that Christ
came into tbis world to save us in another ? To answer this
question, we will introduce Mr. Ballou, the father of modern
Universalism, and Mr. Whittemore, his right hand supporter.
These men have dene more byway of originating and propagat
ing Universalist doctrines than any other two men in thc nation.
Mr. Ballou says, " that Christ came into this world to save us
in another, is contrary to all the representations found in the
scriptures." Lee. p. 14. Mr. Whittemore says, " The truth

Seo. 29.] universalism not of the bible. 71
is. we do not read one word in the Bible about saving men from
punishment in the future state." The evils from which Jesus
came to save men are in this world, and for this reason ho came
into this world to save them." Guide, p. 254. Now accord
ing to these teachers, all the blessings named in the passage
under consideration, as a result of Christ's death and obedience,
are confined to this world ; so we are at liberty to paraphrase
v. 18, as follows : " Therefore by the offence of Adam, judg
ment came upon all men to moral death in this world, even so by
the righteousness of Christ, the free gift came upon all men unto
moral life in this world ! " This, as all must see, is a legitimate
conclusion from, the premises, and all that Universalism can
derive from the text and its connection is, that all men shall be
made morally alive in this world, which is just nothing ; for
neither moral life or death can fix the future condition of man,
according to this dogma ; and, furthermore, such a conclusion is
contrary to matter of fact. Is it said that the blessings gained
by Christ are more extensive than those lost by Adam ? No
matter how extensive the blessings, they are all confined to this
world, inasmuch as they are by Christ, (v. 15, 17, 21 ;) and he
came, as Universalist guides assert, not to save men in the future
world, hut in this. As it respects the reign of graee "through
righteousness unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ our Lord," v. 21,
that, aceording to Mr. Whittemore and others, cannot refer to
the future state, for " This phrase (eternal life) is not used by
the sacred writers to signify endless blessedness beyond the
grave, but that state of spiritual life and peace which was the
immediate effect of faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ." Guide,
p. 140. Now if this phrase is not used by the sacred writers to
signify bliss beyond the grave, of course it is not so used here,
and accordingly the use of the phrase in v. 21, confines the
blessings named to this life. Universal salvation is the holiness
and happiness of all our race, not in this life, but in the future ;
so it will be seen at once that these men, by their own interpre
tations, deprive themselves of the right to bring any of the last

72 universalism not of the bible. [Part I,
eleven verses of this chapter to prove their doctrine. But as
inconsistent as it is, as there is universal language employed, we
find them weaving in a text now and then from this passage, to
give plausibility to their arguments.
The design of the apostle is, to compare Adam's sin and
Christ's obedience, in respect to their virtue and efficacy, and to
show that the efficacy of Christ's obedience must needs be much
more abundant than that of Adam's sin. He says, v. 18 and
19, " Therefore, as by the offence of one, judgment came upon
all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one,
the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as
by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the
obedience of one shall many be made righteous." By this we
learn that all men were passively condemned, in some sense,
(not to endless misery,) by Adam's offence ; EVEN SO, mark
that, the free gift came positively upon all men to justification of
life, or freedom from condemnation here, (not in heaven.) Thus
as far as man was made a sinner in Adam, he is made righteous
in Christ, and no farther. And as nothing which Adam did
condemned the sinner to misery in the future state, independent
of his own acts, so nothing that Christ has done can make him
holy and happy without obedience to God ; for he has become
" the author of eternal salvation," not to all our race, but
"UNTO ALL THEM THAT OBEY HIM" Heb. 5:9.
Thus we see that through the benevolence of God, in the gift of
his Son, all men are now saved from the condemnation of Adam's
offence ; and all moral agents may, by obedience to Christ, be
saved eternally. But it is inquired, if any are doomed to end
less punishment for their sins, how can it be reconciled with v.
20, where it is declared that " where sin abounded grace did
much more abound ? " Mr. Isaac, p. 68, answered this in his
day ; and it is as forcible now as then. He says, " Mr. Wright
is mistaken as to the meaning of the word sin in this passage.
He supposes it means all the sins of all men, in all ages. But
if this were its meaning, the apostle's assertion in the next verses

Sec. 29.] universalism not of the bible. 73
(chap. 6:1,2) would not be true ; for if we continued in sin,
grace would abound, and the more sin we committed there would
be the more grace : but the apostle enters a caveat against put
ting any such sense upon his words, and says, ' God forbid. '
If sin in this place is to be understood in Mr. Wright's compre
hensive sense, even then grace could only abound as much as
sin ; for how it could abound more than all sin, I confess I have
not penetration enough to discern ; but the apostle says ' much
more.' By sin, in this text, I understand the sin of Adam,
which hath reigned unto death, v. 12. Grace abounds as much
as this sin, by justifying us from it as soon as we are brought
into existence, v. 18. And it abounds much more ' by taking
away all the personal sins of believers, making them righteous,
and conducting* them to a glorious immortality. This interpre
tation is confirmed by v. 15, 16. Here the sin is called the
' offence ofone,' and the abounding of grace consists not only in
the justification of many (all) persons from the sin of Adam,
but also in the justification of all behevers from their many per
sonal offences. In this view, the words ' much more ' may be
understood with strict propriety, if the pardon of all the offences
committed by millions of believers may be considered as a mat
ter of great importance."
It would be easy to show that the passage we are examining
stands directly opposed to several points strongly insisted upon by
Universalists. We have here clearly taught the vicarious char
acter of Christ's death, and this based upon the fallen condition
of our race as a consequence of Adam's sin, — doctrines which
Universalists have no behef in generally. In the last verse we
have the great design of the plan of redemption in these words,
" That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might graee reign
through righteousness unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ our
Lord." Let the Son of God himself decide the question whether
or not he died to give this eternal life to all moral agents uncon
ditionally, Hear him : "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the
wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up ; that

74 universalism not of the bible. [Part I.
WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH in him might not perish,
but have eternal life." John 3 : 1-1, 15. Again, v. 36 : " He
that believeth not the Son, SHALL NOT SEE LIFE; but
tbe wrath of God abideth on him." Does Paul teach that eter
nal life is secured to all unconditionally ? No ; but only those
" who by patient continuance in well doing, seek for glory, and
honor, and immortality," shall have " eternal life." Bom.
2 : 7. Again, " I endure all things for tho elect's sake, THAT
THEY MAY OBTAIN the salvation which is in Christ Jesus,
with eternal glory." 2 Tim. 2 : 10. What folly in the apostle,
if eternal glory is secured to all ! What should wo think in our
day to hear a Universalist minister expressing himself thus ? It
will ¦ be seen by tho construction given by Universalists to the
death by Adam, their denial of the future-state efficacy of
Christ's death, and their rendering of the phrase " eternal life,"
that thoy utterly deprive themselves of any support to their the
ory from this passage. But should they change their ground,
as somo of them can with great ease, ancl admit that Christ came
into this world to save men in the next, ancl that the expression
" eternal life," means a life of bliss in the future, then they gain
nothing for their cause hero ; for, as wo have seen, the Son of
God fiom heaven has declared against thc unconditionality of his
salvation, and says of some that they " shall not see life; " and
the apostles reiterate the same in various ways.
XXX. " And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was
preached unto you : whom the heaven must receive until ihe
times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the
mouth of all his holy prophets, since the world began." Acts
3 :20, 21.
Mr. Whittemore, {Guide, p. 3G,) gives his testimony in full
in favor of Christ's visit'again to the earth bodily, at the resurrec
tion of the dead (Sec. XXVI) ; a doctrine, by the way, which
is scouted by Universalists generally ; and even the same writer,
on page 186 of the same book says, " The coming of the Lord

Sec. 30.] universalism not of the bible. 75
took place, as we have said, during the apostolic age." And
when Paul (2 Thess. 7) declares that " the Lord Jesus shall be
revealed from heaven," the very sentiment Mr. W. favors, as
above stated, we are told by the same writer that it took plaee
when Jerusalem was destroyed ! Guide, p. 189. The restitu
tion of all things, is to be consummated before the coming of
Christ. Now if the coming of Christ, so often named in the
Bible, occurred at the destruction of Jerusalem, then the resti
tution spoken of must have been closed up at that all-important
event ; and if the restitution indicates tho holiness and happi
ness of all men, then all the human race were saved nearly
eighteen hundred years ago ! Seeing tho consequences of such
a reference, the author of the Guide was forced to the admission
made concerning the bodily coming of Christ, in order, if possi
ble, to press the text into tbe service of his cause. But in this
he utterly fails. The very point in debate is assumed, viz : that
this restitution of all things, is the salvation of all our race in
eternity. By tbe restitution of all things, may be understood
the restoration of all things which will ever be restored in this
world, which is to be effected by the gospel. It is written,
Matt. 17: 11, "Elias truly shall first come and restore all
things." Did the Saviour mean to teach that before ho could
begin his work, John the Baptist must first save all men ? No :
but he was to restore all to be restored by his office and mission
as the haibinger of the Messiah. (Sec. LXXIV.) In the case
before us, the restoration or restitution of all things refers to the
work of the gospel in this world ; and when tbis shall be fully
accomplished, accordiug to all which God hath spoken by the
mouth of all his holy prophets, then shall Christ come bodily
from heaven to raise the dead. For observe, " the heaven must
receive," or contain him, until this restitution ; and so far is the
apostle from teaching the salvation of all men by it, that he de
clares, respecting its progress, that "it shall come to pass that
every soul which will not hear that Prophet, (Christ,) SHALL
BE DESTROYED from among the people." See Sec. I.,

76 universalism not of the bible. [Part I.
where this subject is further explained in connection with the
Abrahamic Promise.
XXXI. " And in this mountain shall the Lord of hosts
make unto all people a feast," &c. Isa. 25 : 7-10.
" He will wipe away tears from off all faces." Does this
include the whole human race ? We answer, No. In reading
the Bible, we should bear in mind that language expressive of a
mathematical whole, is sometimes employed when a universal
whole is not intended. In Matt. 3 : 5, 6, we learn that " all
Judea and all the region round about Jordan " wore baptised of
John confessing their sins. But did every man, woman and
child confess their sins and receive John's baptism ? No sane
mind will assert this. " All nations compassed me about, but
in the name of the Lord will I destroy them." Ps. 118 : 10,
The Psalmist's enemies were numerous, and he expected to over
come them, is the sense. And it is well understood that Uni
versalists, when their case requires it, can readily make all mean
a part of the race. (Sec. XLI.) As it respects the expression
" all faces" it is said, (Joel 2 : 6,) " all faces shall gather
blackness," and in Ez. 7 : 18, " Shame shall be upon all faces."
But are these expressions predicated of all the race of man?
By no means. We must learn the application of such language
either by the connection in which it is found, or by other
scriptures treating upon the same subject. If we go to the
connection in which it is declared, " He will wipe away tears
from off all faces," we shall find it is used in a restricted sense.
By the mountain, where the feast is provided, we understand
the church of God in this world, and not the heavenly state ; for
the Prophet adds, (v. 10,) " For in this mountain shall the
hand of the Lord rest, and Moab shall be trodden down under
him, even as straw is trodden down for the dun°-hill." If we
take this passage literally as it reads, it refers to the deliverance
and prosperity of the Jews, and the destruction of the Moabites.
But if we take a figurative view of it, then we shall see usher-

Sec. 31. J UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 77
ing in upon our benighted world, the light of the glorious gospel"
dispensation, providing a spiritual feast for all people, and remov
ing the covering or the veil of idolatry and superstition from all
nations. It teaches, too, the ultimate deliverance and salvation
of God's people, and the destruction of his enemies. Any one
who will pay attention to the whole passage, must see that what
is said here is not spoken of all men in the future world ; for
always bear in mind that it is not in this world that universal
• salvation is alleged to take place, but in the future. Now we
ask, are the Moabites to be destroyed, to be trodden down under
the Lord, even as straw is trodden down for the dunghill, in the
future state ? This thought alone destroys the text for Univer
salism ; for if men are trodden down or destroyed in the
future world, then are they not saved. This conclusion is inev
itable, if the prophet is speaking of the condition of men in the
future state. This, however, is not tbe fact; and Universalists
must admit that it is not, or give up their theory. The joy, sor
row and triumph of the church in this world, are taught here.
We are then referred to the resurrection. " He will swallow up
death in victory," v. 8, when the work of the church militant
shall be closed up. But does this teach that God will put an
end to all spiritual or moral death at that time. No: for we
learn from the apostle that this refers to the resurrection of the
body (1 Cor. 15 : 54) ; and as the scriptures nowhere teach
that the soul is to be cleansed by the resurrection of the body,
and thus produce hohness and happiness, this of course proves
nothing in favor of Universalism, even though it were admitted
that the resurrection of all men is intended. All men, doubt
less, will be raised at the end of time, with the exception of
those who shall experience a change equivalent to being raised.
But the resurrection of the people of God is indicated here.
This view harmonizes with the connection, and also with the
apostle. 1 Cor. 15. See Sec. XC. It is worthy of remark,
that the Saviour uses the same figure of a feast or supper (Luke
14 : 16-24) to represent the gospel provisions ; and speaking of

78 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
the treatment those provisions received when offered to some, tho
Son of God himself, who is represented by the lord of the feast,
declares of such rejecters, that " THEY SHALL NOT TASTE
OF MY SUPPER." This we conceive to be far from favora
ble to tho idea that all men shall enjoy this feast forever.
XXXII. " Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be
joyous, but grievous ; nevertheless, aftenvard it yieldeth the
peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised-
thereby." Heb. 12 : 11.
As may be seen by the context, this is addressed to Chris
tians ; and tho subject upon which Paul is treating, is God's
chastisments inflicted upon his children in this world, for their
good ; and to such they yield the peaceable fruits of righteous
ness. No one ever thought that endless punishment was taught
in this text, yet the author of the Guide very gravely remarks,
(p. 128,) "If this chastisement were strictly endless, how
could it afterwards yield tho peaceable fruits of righteousness?
Is there any afterwards to eternity ? " Thus a man of straw is
made and torn in pieces, all for tho good of Universalism !
XXXIII. " Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen for
thine inheritance, and ihe uttermost parts of the earth for thy
possessions." Ps. 2 : 8. Also the following texts are examined
in this Section : John 3 : 35 ; 6 : 37 ; 17 : 2.
" God hath given all things to Christ, as the moral Buler of
the world. ' Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen for
thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy
possession. ' Ps. 2:8. ' Thc Father loveth the Son, and hath
given all things into his hand.' John 3 : 35. ' All things,'
here, means all intelligent beings. So say the best commenta
tors." Guide, p. 25. As this argument is made to provo
Universalism, we must understand Ps. 2 : 8 as teaching the
unconditional salvation of all Adam's race in the future state.
To this we object, and appeal to the context. The king of Zion,

Sec. 33.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 79
(v. 6, 7,) to whom the promise is given, is Christ, doubtless.
But what is ho promised ? Is it that all shall be holy and
happy in eternity ? No, this is not it ; but the heathen shall be
his inheritance, and the uttermost parts ofthe earth for his
possessions; and he is to break them with a rod of iron, and
dash thorn in pieces like a potter's vessel (v. 9) . Then an ex
hortation is given to kings and judges of the earth to " serve the
Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling," (v. 10, 11,) and
that they " kiss thc Son, lest he be angry, and they perish from
the way when his wrath is kindled but a little (v. 12). Says
Mr. Skinner, " None can be saved from all moral evil here."
U. III. 4r Def, p. 261. It is beyond death, then, that all are
to be saved. But are the heathen to be given to Christ beyond
death ? Are the uttermost parts of the earth to be given to
Christ beyond the grave ; and is Christ to break the heathen in
pieces with a rod of iron, &c, in eternity! How will such
views comport with the idea that there is no condition for man
beyond the grave, but that in which he is as tbe angels of God
in heaven ?
No more need be said to show the perversion of the text.
Its evident teaching is the extension of Christ's kingdom in the
earth, among the heathen nations. Let us now attend to'the
other text connected with this to make out the argument. " The
Father loveth tbe Son, and hath given all things into his hand."
Mr. French, who attempted to correct his brethren somewhat
in a sermon before the Maine Convention of Universalists, says,
" This is a favorite text with some, to prove our doctrine. But
does it have the least, the faintest reference to it ? Do not ' all
things ' here, denote the power which is given to Christ, or
everything necessary for tbe accomplishment of his work ? Does
not the context require this explanation ? And yet a certain
book ( Guide, p. 25) has it that ' all things ' here, means intel
ligent beings. So say the best commentators.' These best
commentators are beyond our knowledge ; yet enough are at hand
to bear a contrary testimony." Banner, Aug. 5, 1844. Thus

80 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
discourseth Mr. French, concerning his brother Whittemore.
He then names the commentators who are opposed to Mr. W.'s
assertion, as follows : "Scott, Clarke, Campbell, Bloomfield,
Livermore, and Tholuck." To these may be added at least
three more : Henry, Benson, and Wesley. Among these are
some of the best commentators, and they are opposed to Mr.
W.'s view; yet Mr. W. says, "So say the best commenta
tors 1 " We see that this argument is built upon perverted texts.
Another argument is produced from the foregoing as follows :
" God gave all beings to Christ that he might save them.
1 Thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give
eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.' John 17: 2.
This plainly evinces that it was God's design, in giving Christ
dominion over all flesh, that they should all enjoy eternal life."
The phrase eternal life is, by this same author, confined to the
spiritual life of the believer in this world. This being the case,
what has Mr. W. proved by the argument? He has proved
that as many as are given to Christ in tbe sense of the text, have
spiritual life in this world. Yet this is presented as proof of
the salvation of our race in the future state 1 Which shall we
credit; Mr. W. on page 140 of his Guide, or Mr. W. on page
25 of the same book ? The assumption is that all mankind are
given to Christ, and that eternal life is bestowed upon all thus
given. We are then told that the phrase eternal life " is not
used by the sacred writers to signify endless blessedness beyond
the grave ; but that state of spiritual life and peace which was
the immediate effect of faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ."
Guide, p. 140. The inevitable conclusion is, as above stated,
that all men have spiritual life and peace in this world. Hence,
the jolliest Universalist, the ripest infidel, the most debased
drunkard, the most polluted libertine, and the most humble and
pious Christian, may all strike hands in joyful possession of that
spiritual life and peace which faith in the Gospel of Cbrist im
parts !! To such results do the crooked works of these expound
ers lead. But admitting that eternal life does mean a life of

Sec. 33.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 81
bliss in the future state, does not the text then teach the salva
tion of all men ? No : for it has been shown most conclusively,
that all are not given to Christ in the sense involved ; and it
can be shown by an abundance of scriptures, that eternal life is
not bestowed unconditionally upon adult sinners. (Sec. XXIX. )
We now come to another argument, built mainly upon the two
we have considered. "It is certain that Christ will save all
that the Father hath given him. ' All that the Father giveth
me shall come to me, and him that cometh to me I will in nowise
cast out.' John 6 : 37. These three propositions are irrefraga
ble evidence of the final happiness of all men." Now the whole
.of this work is built upon perverted texts and assumptions.
1. Christ is to have the heathen for his inheritance, &c Ps.
2:8. This is perverted to teach that all shall be holy and hap
py in the future state.
2. The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things, &c.
John 3 : 35. This is perverted to mean all intelligent beings.
3. We are told that God gave all intelligent beings to Christ,
that he might save them ; i. e. save them in the future world :
and then Mr. W. brings for proof an expression, the future-state
reference of which he himself denies ! He perverts this text,
(John 17 : 2,) however, not by referring it to the future,
hut by pressing it in to teach that all shall enjoy eternal life in
the future state.
4. Then comes the text which is designed to top out the fab
ric so skilfully reared upon a rotten foundation. " All that the
Father giveth me shall come to me ; and him that cometh to me
I will in nowise cast out." John 6 : 37. " It is certain that
Christ will save all that the Father hath given him. So says
Mr. Whittemore. We have already seen the baseless character
of his reasonings, built as they are upon perverted texts ; and
this is sufficient to show that nothing is proved for Universalism.
But we have one more witness to introduce to show the falsity of
this whole argument. We ask, then, has the Father given all
men to Christ, to be saved in the sense of the text last quoted ?
6

82 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
Let tho faithful and true witness answer. " I pray not for the
world, but for them which thou hast given me." " They are
not of the world, even as I am not of the world." John 17:
9, 16. Does the Saviour say that all men are given to him, and
that he will save all men unconditionally in the future ? Noth
ing like it; but those who are given to him, are distinguished
from others who are called " of the world," and are not given
to him. It is worthy of remark, too, that even those who are
his, are not so given to him as to secure their unconditional sal
vation ; for it appears that Judas was among those given, and
yet he was lost (v. 12) . See also Ps. 41 : 9, and John 13:18;
also Matt. 26 : 24. That such as are given to Christ, or the
elect, may be lost, is evident from the apostle, where he says,
(2 Tim. 2 : 10,) " I endure all things for the elect's sake, that
they may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus, with eter
nal glory." All will see that the sufferings of Paul for these
elect persons was wholly unnecessary if they were unconditionally
safe and sure of heaven. In view of these facts, what becomes
of Mr. Whittemore's boasted " irrefragable evidence of the final
happiness of all men ? "
XXXIV. " For we which have believed do enter into rest."
Heb. 4 : 3.
" Paul says, ' we which have believed do enter into rest;'
which could never be true if they believed in the doctrine of
endless misery." Guide, p. 51. To meet this foolish argu
ment, it is only necessary to state that Paul says, " we which
have believed do enter into rest; " which could never be true,
if they believed in the doctrine of Jerusalem's destruction, where
such awful calamities were to come upon their Jewish brethren.
Can a system of truth from heaven require such an argument to
sustain it ?

Sec. 35.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 83
XXXV. " And ihe Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel
thy brother?" &c. Gen. 4 : 9-15; also chap. 7 : 23, and
19 : 24, 25.
All we have to do with this passage is to expose the sophistry
employed upon it, as Christians never supposed that either
heaven or hell were taught here. Says one writer, " neither in
the threatenings nor the fears of Cain, do we find anything of
endless woe. He was to be a fugitive and vagabond in the
earth." U. III. $ Def, p. 199.
The conclusion from this kind of argument is, that there is no
future punishment. To show the unsoundness of this, it is only
necessary for us to ask a few questions. Why did not God tell
Cain something about the resurrection and heavenly bliss ? When
he complained that his punishment was greater than he could
bear, why did not God inform Cain that he could not sin enough
to bring upon himself any more punishment than should prove a
blessing to him ? Why was he not told that all punishment is
disciplinary, and that " a remission of punishment would be a
curse instead of a mercy ; because a just punishment is as essen
tial to our welfare as anything that love can do " ? ( U. III. Sf
Def, p. 250) ; or, in other words, why did not God tell Cain
that he was about to bless him for murdering his brother?
Again, when he expressed his fears, " every one that findeth me
shall kill me," why did not the Lord comfort him by assuring
him heavenly bliss in such a case ? But all the comfort God
administered to Cain in this trying hour, pertained to this life.
Why was he not informed that all he could possibly have lost by
dying in the very act of murdering his brother, would have been
the blessing of punishment for that last sin ? The reader will
see that questions might be proposed and negatives asserted to
almost any extent, which would amount to but little in argu
ment. If the absence of the record that God told Cain about a
future hell is proof that there is none, then for the same reason
there is no resurrection, no world of bliss, and punishment is not

84 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
disciplinary ; for God told Cain nothing about these. This being
the case, what becomes of Universalism ? In a word, there is
no future life whatever, and this is the result of such teachings.
The destruction of the old world, (Gen. 7 : 23,) and of
Gomorrah, (chap. 19 : 24, 25,) they labor to turn to their account
in the same way. It is asked : " If an infinite curse was to come
on the antediluvians, why was God silent respecting it ? Or if !
he preached it to the people, why have we no record of tbe
fact ? " Of Gomorrah it is said, "God said he would not hide
from Abraham what he was about to do ; but he gave no inti
mation of endless punishment." U. III. fy Def, p. 199. To
meet this it is only necessary to ask, if Noah, a preacher of
righteousness for a hundred and twenty years, was a Univer
salist, and conveyed tho glad tidings to the wicked antediluvi
ans that they all would go immediately to bliss when the flood
should come, "why have we no record of the fact?" God
would not hide from Abraham what he was about to do. Gen.
18 : 17. Now if Abraham understood the promise made to him
(Gen. 18 : 12) to signify the salvation of all men in eternity, if
he taught the filthy Sodomites that nought but bliss awaited
them in the future world, or if he taught them anything relative
to a future life, why are the scriptures silent about it? Why
have iwe no record of the fact 1 It will be seen that the method
adopted to render the case of Cain, the antediluvians, and the
Sodomites, subservient to Universalism, can with equal propri
ety be turned against that system ; and yet that dogma is depen
dent for its support upon just such work with the scriptures.
Can it be tho truth of God ? Universalists have much to say
concerning the absence of an explicit declaration in favor of
future punishment among the Patriarchs or the Jews in the time
of Moses, and consider this a strong argument in favor of their
doctrine. But was it explicitly declared to them by God or any
of his servants that there is no punishment beyond the grave,
or that all shall be saved in the future world ? Let the passage

Sec 37.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 85
be produced, if it can be found. If it cannot be found, let Uni
versalists be consistent, and deny a future life altogether.
XXXVI. " And all bare him witness, and wondered at the
gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth." Luke
4:22. Upon this the author of the Guide makes an argument as fol
lows : " Jesus wben on earth preached in such a manner, that
the people ' wondered at the gracious words which proceeded
out of his mouth.' This could not have happened had he threat
ened the people with endless punishment." Guide, p. 43.
Universalist authors not only admit that Christ foretold Jerusa
lem's destruction, but contend that no small portion of the New
Testament is occupied with it. In view of their professions, one
writer has advised them to label it, " THE DESTRUCTION
OF JERUSALEM FORETOLD." Let us apply the argu
ment. Jesus, when upon earth, preached in such a manner that
the people (Jews) wondered at the gracious words which pro
ceeded out of his mouth. This could not have happened had he
threatened them with the horrid cruelties they suffered when the
Romans came against them, together with the destruction of their
city and temple, which they loved so well ! Take the threatened
destruction of Jerusalem out of the Bible, and one of the main
pillars of Universalism is gone. All must see that the latter
argument is as sound as the former, and that neither amount to
anything. Was all Christ's language accounted " gracious
words" by his hearers ! He addressed some thus : "Ye ser
pents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation
of hell ? " See the whole of Matt. chap. 23.
XXXVII. " God is love."—l John 4 : 16.
By the manner this saying has been treated by Universalists,
we should conclude that love was not an attribute of God, but
constituted the ' divine substance, or essence, or in other words
that love is God. But if we are to adopt this view because it

86 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
is asserted that God is love, then we may with equal propriety
affirm that light is God, and that spirit is God ; for it is written,
" God is a spirit," " God is light." By this method we might
soon manufacture as many gods as the heathen have, with na
tures as opposite to each other. We are not to conclude because
God is love, that therefore he is nothing else. The love of God
is always displayed in harmony with his other perfections. We
admit, as is contended, that God's love always did exist, now
exists, and always will exist ; but it by no means follows that all
will be saved. For God to be love is one thing, and for men to
love God is quite another. God's love exists independently of
his creatures, but man's happiness depends upon his moral state.
The unchaugeableness of God's love has been urged as a reason
why all are to be saved. But this very argument is fatal to the
Universalist conclusion drawn from the love of God ; for accord
ing this, God's love will be the same in all future ages that it is
now, and was when sin and misery entered the world ; and if his
love did not prevent sin, and does not now save all men uncon
ditionally, what evidence have we, merely from the fact that God
is love, that it shall be done hereafter ? Just none at all. It
will amount to nothing in argument to say that the present
untold misery of our race is only the result of a system of means
adopted by love to secure to man a great good in the end ; for
such means are cruel and unnecessary if all men are to be saved
unconditionally as the effect of love ; for God's love can call to
its aid almighty power and infinite wisdom to destroy sin and
misery now, just as effectually as it can ages hence. Men may
be under the necessity of adopting a severe and painful course
to secure good to others, as the chastisement of a child, or the
amputation of a limb to save life ; but what man who loved his
child or friend would do this if he could secure the same good
without it ? Now if it be a mere question of God's love, power,
or any or all his attributes, irrespective of man's agency, he
certainly can be under no such necessity us to introduce or per
mit sin and suffering for six thousand years in our world, for

Sec. 38.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 87
he can destroy these at once and spread peace and happiness
throughout the universe. But sin and misery continue, which
shows us the folly of reasoning from the love of God to prove
the salvation of all men ; for if present love does not save from
present suffering, what presumption to suppose that future love
will save from future suffering. The fact that God's love is
unchangeable, lies with mighty weight against Universalism. If
it could be proved that the love of God will change at a future
time, so as to operate differently in his moral system from what
it ever has before, then perhaps an argument might be raised
from it to prove the salvation of all men as the result of such a
change. But as God's love never changes, and as the wide
spread sufferings of our earth for thousands of years is not in
compatible with it, so for aught that can be shown it may not be
incompatible with it for impenitent men to suffer endlessly. For
God to possess the attribute of love is one thing, but for him to
so love all men as to save them unconditionally in the future
world, is quite another thing, especially since he has said of cer
tain characters, " I will love them no more." Hosea 9 : 15.
On love as a passion in God, see Sec. CXX. On love consistent
with eternal punishment, see Sec. CXXXIX. On the attributes
of God, see Sections CIV. and CXIV.
XXXVIII. " In ihe beginning God created the heaven
and the earth." — Gen. 1 : 1.
Speaking of the Bible, Mr. Rogers says, " it informs me that
' in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,' but
no mention is made of his having created a HELL ! " Pro and
Con, p. 280. This argument is put forth by one who has been
counted a Rabbi in the order. Such questions as where is hell ?
when was it created ? are quite common with some ; and not
obtaining a satisfactory answer, it is quite evident to such that
there is no future and endless punishment. It would be a
severe reflection upon the understanding of their leaders to say
that they know no better than to present such an argument for

88 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
the reception of the ignorant. The truth is, we have no more
history touching the creation of heaven, as a plaee of bliss, than
we have of hell as a place of torments. The heaven named in
the history is the firmament, as all may see by reading it. The
argument stands thus : If there were any hell where men will
suffer in the future world, there would be an account of its
creation in the Bible. There is no such account in the Bible;
therefore, there is no hell for men to suffer in the future world.
Let us apply this in another direction. If there were any heaven
where men will be happy in the future world, there would be an
account of its creation in the Bible. There is no such account;
therefore, there is no heaven for men to enjoy in the future
world. There is then no endless suffering to be feared, and no
endless bliss to be hoped for ! To such results are we led in
this warfare against the truth of God. If this is so, what be
comes of Universalism ?
XXXIX. " Every valley shall be exalted, and every moun
tain and hill shall be made low : and the crooked shall be made
straight, and the rough places plain. And the glory of the
Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together : for
the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it." Isa. 40 : 4, 5.
As all men are not saved in this world, in the Universalist
sense, the assumption upon this passage is, that all the progeny
of Adam shall be made holy and happy in the future state. Any
believer in a future retribution can admit that God's glory will
be revealed in the future judgment, and that all men will see it
together ; and that too, without admitting that all will be saved.
But we deny the future state reference of the passage. It is a
highly poetical description of the achievements of the gospel in
this world ; and the leveling process preparatory to it had its ful
fillment in the labors of John the Baptist. See Luke 3 : 35.
But it is said, the expression " all flesh," must mean the whole
race of man. Not so, for Joel prophesied that God would pour
out his " spirit upon all flesh," ( Joel 2 : 28,) and this, as the

Sec. 40.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 89
inspired Peter declared, had its fulfillment on the day of Pente
cost. Acts 2 : 16, 17. All flesh here cannot mean the whole
race of man, for millions had lived and died before that day.
By the declaration that all flesh shall see the salvation of God,
we may understand that there will be such a display of God's
glory in the world through the gospel, that all men then living
shall see it, or it may be eiijoy it.
XL. " The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseih us from all
sin." 1 John 1 : 7.
" There is no sin that the blood of Christ will not wash away.
Though our sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow ;
and, though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
Jesus can save the chief of sinners. 1 Tim. 1 : 15. He has
the will, no less than the power ; therefore, all men will be saved
by his grace." Guide, p. 52. Here the entire argument of
Mr. Whittemore is given to prove Universalism from this text,
and we have seldom seen more perversion in so small a com
pass. As this argument is made to prove Universalism, it is of
course assumed that the blood of Christ will cleanse uncondi
tionally all the race of man from all sin. But the connection in
which the text is found, clearly refutes this. The whole verse
reads thus : " But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light,
we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus
Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." Cleanseth US.
Who ? All men ? No ; but such as " walk in the light," &c.
Reference is made to Isa. 1 : 18. By turning to it, it will be
seen that God is addressing the rebellious Jews and declaring to
them, not his ability to save them independent of their moral
agency, but that in case they gave up their rebellion and turned
to him he would cleanse them. The whole of this silly argu
ment is based upon the unwarranted assumption that Christ is
willing and able to save all men irrespective of their agency,
and having this ability and will, all men will be saved. But
we are authorized from the Bible to say that there are some

90 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
things that God himself cannot do. He cannot lie. He cannot
deny himself; and as a moral governor he cannot save sinners
without penitence. The almighty Saviour could not do many
mighty works in one place because of their unbelief, (Matt. 13 :
5-8,) and although he is able to save to the uttermost, yet he
only will save such as come unto him. Heb. 7 : 25. We deny
the ability of Christ to save those who reject him. " Ye will
not come unto me that ye might have life," said he to those
who spurned his invitations.
XLI. " When the Son of man shall come in his glory,"
&c. Matt. 25 : 31-46.
Universalists now seem to be quite astonished because we
cannot see Jerusalem's destruction in this passage. But why
should they be surprised at our dullness, since Mr. Ballou, with
all his sagacity, preached for years before he thought of denying
its future state reference, and even when he did deny it he
never once thought of consigning the passage over to Jerusalem,
but saw most clearly that it had its fulfillment on the day of
Pentecost. In his "Treatise on the Atonement," p. 179,
printed in 1828, ten years after he made the discovery that after
death there is no judgment, the following exposition occurs :
" The time of Christ's coming in his glory was the day of
Pentecost. His holy angels with whom he came, were his
chosen apostles. His glory is the gospel of eternal life. Sheep
and goats signify believers and unbelievers. Right hand and
left means gospel and law. The believer stands in the gospel
of life. The unbeliever is condemned already, and the wrath
of God, in the letter of the law, abideth upon him." This was
given at the time with much positiveness, and doubtless many a
sin-loving disciple was made joyful by such a handy method
invented to get rid of a text so troublesome to wicked men. It
was received as the pure bread of life, the truth, in opposition to
the monstrosities of the purblind Partialists. Mr. Murray was
quite sure that this passage referred to the future judgment, and

Seo. 41.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 91
that the sheep were all mankind, and the goats the fallen an
gels, or devils, (Universalist Comp. 1856, p. 20,) involving
the absurd idea that the devils were condemned for not attend
ing to their duty (v. 42-44,) in visiting Christ's followers in
sickness and other calamities ! It is but about thirty-eight
years since Universalists began to deny that this scripture re
ferred to the future world, and while some adopted the same
quibbling that their modern brethren do, to show that the word
everlasting does not mean endless, there were others among
them who admitted that endless punishment is deserved and
threatened in the Bible, but that all will be saved from it by the
atonement, or that it will be remitted to all upon the same prin
ciple that the Ninevites were saved from their threatened pun
ishment. Dr. Huntington (Sec. CXXVI.) was a man of
learning, and wrote a book to prove Universalism. Mr. Whit
temore says of him, that he " found fault with Universalists in
general for trifling with the original word translated forever ;
and in reference to the question, " Does the Bible plainly say
that sinners of mankind shall be damned to interminable pun
ishment ? ' he answered, ' It certainly does, as plainly as lan
guage can express, or any man, or even God himself, can
speak.' ' Tbe endless duration of punishment,' said he, 'ap
pears obviously just, no more than we deserve, and not in the
least cruel for God to inflict.' " Mr. W. also says, " Hunting
ton's system differed very little, if any, from Belly's." Mod.
Hist., pp. 384-5.
But the children have outgrown their fathers, and now it is
denied that endless punishment was ever deserved or threatened,
and it is boldly asserted that Christ never came into this world
to save us in the next. Their once positive truth has become
untruth, and they now as positively assert that the passage
we are about to consider had its fulfillment in Jerusalem's
destruction by the Romans. To assist us in coming at the truth
in this examination, let us inquire into the current theology of
the Jews in our Saviour's time. Did they believe in a general

92 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
future judgment, and that a sentence consequent upon it of
everlasting bliss and punishment should be passed by the judge
upon men according to their works ? Josephus, the Jewish
historian of those times, treating upon Jewish belief, writes
thus : "For all men, the just as well as the unjust, shall he
brought before God the word ; for to him hath the Father com
mitted all judgment ; and he, in order to fulfill the will of his
Father, shall come as judge, whom we call Christ." "This
person, exercising the righteous judgment of the Father towards
all men, hath prepared a just sentence for every one, according
to his works ; at whose judgment seat, when all men, and
angels, and demons shall stand, they will send forth one voice,
and say, just is the judgment : the rejoinder to which will bring
a just sentence upon both parties, by giving justly to those that
have done well an everlasting fruition ; but allotting to the
lovers of wicked works eternal punishment." Dis. to the Greeks
concerning Hades.
That the Saviour, Matt. 25 : 31-46, had this scene in view
cannot be doubted for a moment by those who will compare the
passage with the theology of the Jews. The question now is,
did the Saviour take this tremendous scene, which the Jews
firmly believe would take place in a future state, and use it as a
figure to illustrate a temporal calamity about to come upon
Jerusalem, and that, too, without the least intimation that be
so used it ? Are Universalist ministers of the present day in
the habit of using the doctrine of future and eternal retribu
tions to illustrate temporal evils, and that, too, without express
ing the least dissent from it, or ever once informing their hearers
that the figure they employ is a false notion and not a fact ?
All know that the great burden of their preaching in our day is
to berate and disprove a future judgment and endless punishment ;
but for this work they have not a single precedent in all the
labors of Christ and his apostles, as recorded in the Bible.
(Sec. CXXXn.) How shall we reconcile the discrepancy be
tween those claimed as ancient Universalists and modern

Sec. 41.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 93
receivers of the doctrine ? On no principle other than that
Universalism is FALSE.
While we admit that Christ speaks of the destruction of
Jerusalem in Matt., 24th chapter, we do not admit that this is
the only subject upon which he treats. The following thoughts
may assist the reader in scattering the mist thrown upon the
24th and 25th chapters by Universalists. Christ said of the
temple, chap. 24th, ver. 2, " There shall not be left here one
stone upon another that shall not be thrown down." This led
his disciples to inquire, ver. 3, " When shall these things be?
and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and the end of the
world ? " In this we have a three-fold question relating to the
destruction of Jerusalem, the coming of Christ, and the end of
the world. Now in a reply from the Saviour we may expect an
answer to each question, and in doing this he gives from verse
4th to 14th the general signs which have been taking place from
the time of the Saviour to the present, the last of which is given
as follows : " And this gospel shall be preached in all the world,
for a witness unto all nations, then shall the end come." Now
the end here cannot mean the end of the Jewish age or dispen
sation for that closed with the death of Christ. (Sec. LXXVII.)
There is no authority from the scriptures for extending the
Jewish dispensation to the destruction of Jerusalem, as Univer
salists are wont to do, for the Apostle clearly shows us, Heb.
9 : 16, 17, that the New Testament, or gospel dispensation, was
introduced by the death of the Saviour. Now if the end here
means the end of the Jewish age, then the gospel was preached
in all the world, as a witness to all nations before the death of
Christ ! The truth is, the end here named means the end of
the Christian dispensation, or the end of time, and this last
general sign is being fulfilled now by the spread of the gospel
among the nations. The reader can turn to the scriptures
referred to, as we omit to copy the most of them on account of
their length. We come now to his answer to their question,
" When shaU these things be?" This may be called the second
division of Matt. 24, beginning with verse 15, and closing with

94 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
verse 22. Here the Saviour imparts instruction concerning Jeru
salem's destruction. Included here is the passage that has been
used to disprove endless punishment. " For then shall there he
great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the
world to this time, no, nor ever shall be." Ver. 21. It has
been affirmed, that as the Saviour asserts the destruction of
Jerusalem to be the greatest tribulation, endless punishment
must be false. Paul, years before the Romans came against
that city, said of the Jews, 1 Thess, 2 : 16, "Wrath IS come
upon them to the UTTERMOST." But are we to infer from
this that our Saviour's prediction never had its fulfillment on the
Jews ? Such an idea would be considered the most paltry
quibbling ; but it is no more so than to attempt an argument
from our Saviour's words against endless punishment. The
text is a strong hyperbolic expression to show the dreadful
calamity which should befall the Jewish nation in this world,
irrespective of man's condition in the future, and to say that
the Jews at that time were to suffer more than all, or any, men
ever would after that event, well becomes the cause it is designed
to support ; but truth requires no such work. To confine, if
possible, all our Lord's predictions in this (24th) chapter to
Jerusalem's overthrow, his words in verse 34 are often quoted
to show that all the things named were to take place during the
natural lives of the then existing inhabitance, thus defining the
term "generation" to mean the time from the birth of a man until
he becomes a parent, or about thirty years. But in tbe Bible
it is sometimes used to designate a race of men, or a kind, sort,
or species. When the Saviour says, " This generation shall not
pass away till all these things be fulfilled," he means, as we
conceive, that the Jewish race should not become extinct until
that which he had predicted should be fulfilled. In speaking
upon the same subject, Luke 21 : 24, he says, " Jerusalem shall
be trodden down of the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles
be fulfilled." This implies that Jerusalem should cease to be
trodden down, and that too before that generation should pass
away. Jerusalem is still trodden down of the Gentiles ; but

Sec. 41.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE.] 95
the Jewish race, though scattered and peeled in all parts of the
world, as by miracle, still retain their national prejudices and
forms of worship. Understanding, then, by this generation, tho
Jews as a distinct race, the prediction appears to be literally
true, and in keeping with other prophecies relating to the same
event. Paul says, (Rom. 11 : 51,) " For I would not, breth
ren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, that blindness
in part is happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles be
come in." Thus will the Jews be preserved as a distinct people
or generation. That the term in question is sometimes used in
the Bible in the sense of species, breed, kind and race may be
seen. Ps. 26 : 6 ; 22 : 30 ; 16 : 5 ; Prov. 33 : 12 ; 1 Peter
2:9. But admitting that the 24th chapter relates exclusively
to the overthrow of the Jews, and by the phrase, this genera
tion, we are to understand the people then living and them only,
it does not follow that Matt. 25 : 31—46 relates to the same
event. This forms at least a part of the answer to the question,
"What shall be the sign of thy coming and the end of the
world ? " As Universalists are now just as positive that this
had its fulfillment when Titus went against Jerusalem, as Mr.
Ballou and others were once that it referred to the day of Pente
cost, we will here notice some of the absurdities involved in such
a reference. 1. " When the Son of man shall come in his glory. ' ' Ver. 31 .
This, we are told, took place when Jerusalem was destroyed;
that Christ came then not in person, but in power, to overthrow
the Jews. See Notes on Par., by T. Whittemore, p. 347.
This power says to them on his right hand, " Come ye blessed,"
&c. For "I (the power) was an hungered and ye gave me no
meat," &c. "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the
least of these my brethren," i. e., brethren to the power 1 All
must see the absurdity of this.
2. " And all the holy angels with him." Ver. 31. These,
we are informed, were the Roman armies. Guide, p. 104.
The Saviour calls the Roman armies " the abomination of deso
lation." Chap. 24, ver. 15. But Universalism requires that

96 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
the polluted idolatrous Romans be considered holy angels ! !
This is certainly worse than Mr. Ballou's invention, now obso
lete, for there is more plausibility in asserting that the apostles
were the holy angels than that heathen warriors were.
3. " Before him shall be gathered all nations." Ver. 32.
Says Mr. W., (Notes on Par., p. 334,) " Such expressions as
in all tke world, and among all nations, are not to he under
stood strictly." But this same writer, and others like him, in
considering the Abrahamic promise, assert that " all nations''
means the whole of Adam's posterity ! Since it is asserted that
all nations, in the sense of the text, were gathered at Jerusa
lem, let us inquire who composed this gathering ? To answer
this we have only to learn who were separated, rewarded and
punished at that time. Of this separation we are told that it
was "between the faithful disciples and the persecutors of the
church." Notes on Par., p. 346. Speaking of the words in
verse 46, this author asserts that they are not to be understood
to teach endless punishment, assigning as a reason " the parable
in which they occur was spoken of Jews," (p. 352,) and be
lievers were those rewarded with eternal life. Ver. 46, p. 353.
Jews and Christians, then, constitute the " all nations." Ob
serve, those who were separated were gathered before the Son of
man. Ver. 32. But was there any such gathering at Jerusa
lem's destruction ? But few Christians, comparatively, were at
Jerusalem when Titus marched against it, for they were scattered
all over the Roman empire at great distances from that point.
To some of the many places where Christian churches were
located, the distances from Jerusalem were about as follows :
To Rome 1,550 miles; Corinth, 900; Galatia, 600; Ephesus,
650 ; Philippi, 950 ; Colosse, 550 ; Thessalonica, 1,000.
Now is there anything in history, have Universalists been able
to produce anything, that bears the faintest resemblance to
Christians being gathered, rewarded and punished at that time ?
Nothing of the kind can be found. Such a thought contradicts '
the Saviour, who instead of predicting that Christians would be
gathered then, represents it as a time of flight from Judea

Sec. 41.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 97
Matt. 24 : 16-20. And Universalists themselves, to serve
another purpose, quote Eusebius to show that Christians fled
from Jerusalem at the signs of approaching danger, and thus
escaped " to Pella and other places beyond the river Jordan."
Notes on Par., p. 336. A strange gathering at Jerusalem
that! 4. " Then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory." Ver.
31. How the power sat upon the throne of his glory in Jeru
salem's overthrow we are not informed ; but it is evident that
Christ was not enthroned there, either spiritually or literally.
5. " And he shall separate them one from another, as a
shepherd," &c. Ver. 32. Says Mr Rogers, who has been
counted a tall man in the order, " Every grammarian knows that
nations is the antecedent to the pronoun them in this place ;
nations, then, are what are to be judged and separated."
" Are our opponents willing to abide a literal application of this
text to a judgment in eternity ? If so, we shall have the differ
ent nations of mankind severed from each other ; and whilst
some, en masse, are taken to heaven, others will be driven to
hell." Pro and Con, p. 158. Now%hat of force there is
here, lies with all its weight against a judgment at Jerusalem's
destruction. Were nations judged there and severed and sent
off en masse ? Mr. Page, another great man in the order, pre
sents an entire different view. He says, " Shall separate
them." Namely, the people of those nations. The pronoun in
the original does not refer immediately to the word nations, it
being of adifferent gender." Page in loco. Who shall decide
when the doctors disagree ?
6. " Tke devil andhis angels." Ver. 41. These, we are
told, " were the leading Jews and their emissaries." Notes on
Par., p. 350. But Mr. Page passes it with this remark : " An
allusion to the contemporary Jewish opinions, as in the parable
of the wheat and tares." Page in hco. Comment is unneces
sary. 7. " These shall go away into everlasting punishment."
Ver. 46. We are informed that everlasting in this passage

98 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
means limited duration, and that the Jews suffered everlasting
punishment in the sense here intended in their destruction by
the Romans. We are told, too, that all punishment is for the
good of the punished. All punishment being corrective, "a
remission of such punishment would be a curse instead of a
mercy ; but a just punishment is as essential to our welfare as
anything that love can do." Again, "All the judgments of
which the scriptures speak, are to destroy sin and reform the
sinner." U. 111. and Def, pp. 248, 250. So it seems the
Saviour (Luke 19 : 41) wept over the Jews in view of the pun
ishment they were about to experience by which their sins would
be destroyed and they reformed, a punishment which was as
essential to their welfare as anything that love could do ! 1 How
unkind. Says Dr. A. Clarke, " But some are of the opinion
that this punishment shall have an end ; this is as likely as that
the glory of the righteous shall have an end ; for the same word
is used to express the duration of the punishment, as is used to
express the duration of the state of glory. I have seen the best
things that have been written in favor of the final redemption of
damned spirits ; but I never saw an answer to an argument
against that doctrine, drawn from this verse, but what sound
learning and criticism should be ashamed to acknowledge."
Clarke in loco. So much from Dr. Clarke, who, it is believed,
had some knowledge of language. It is worthy of remark here,
that those who have revived the long since exploded doctrine of
annihilation, in order to sustain it, are driven to the same quib
bles and sophistries to limit the word " everlasting" that Univer
salists employ : and, as might be expected, the effects upon
religion and morality are the same.
8. " But the righteous into life eternal." Ver. 46. " We
consider that the life spoken of Matt. 25 : 46, is not confined to
the immortal existence into which the human race are to be
raised after natural death, but is that spiritual life which the
believer enjoys in this state." So says Mr. Whittemore. N-
on Par., p. 353. Observe, it is of the righteous that the
Saviour is speaking, and all must admit that such have spiritual

Sec. 41.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF, THE BIBLE.

99

life. The interpretation, then, amounts to this: "The spirit
ually alive shall be made spiritually alive when Jeinisalem shall
be destroyed by the Romans ! " Receive it who can.
Mr. Whittemore admits that Christ's bodily visit again to the
earth is taught, 1 Thess. 4 : 16. Guide,Tp. 36. (See. XXVI.)
That Mr. W. is right for once, is evident ; for nothing can be
more obvious than that the apostle is speaking of the same
advent he treats so largely upon in 1 Cor., chap. 15. As Paul
gives a description of Christ's coming in his Second Epistle to
the Thess. 1 : 7-10, it cannot well be doubted but he refers to
the same event spoken of in the First, as the epistles were both
written by the same apostle, addressed to the same people, and
both treat on the advent of Christ. All unite in referring
1 Cor. chap 15 to the resurrection, and Mr. Whittemore admits
that 1 Thess. 4:16 teaches that Christ will visit the earth bodily
at that time. Let us now collate some of the prominent features
as given by Christ, Matt. 25 : 31-46, and by Paul, 1 Thess.
4; 2 Thess. 1 ; 1 Cor. 15 ; and see if it is not strikingly clear
that they all describe the same event.

Matt. 25 :

ICoe. 15:

1 Thess. i:

2 Thess. 1 :

1. "The son of

1. "At his com

1. "The Lord

1. "The Lord

man shall come."

ing."

himself shall de

Jesus shall be re

scend from heav

vealed from heav

en."
en."
2. "All the holy
2. "With the
2. "With his
angels with him."
voice of the arch
angel."
mighty angels."
3. " Before him
3. " The dead
3. " The dead in
shall be gathered
shall be raised."
Christ shall rise
all nations."
first."
i. "The last
i. " With the
trump ; — for the
trump of God."
trumpet shall
sound."
5. (( In his glo
5. "To be glori
fied in his saints."
ry."
6. "These shall
6. "Punished
go away into ev
erlasting punish
with everlasting
destruction from
ment."
the presence ofthe
Lord."
1. " Come ye
7. "And so shall
blessed of ¦ my
we ever be with
Father inherit,"
the Lord."
&c. "The right
eous into life eter
nal."
100 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
The reader must see that these texts are co-relative, all
teaching the same coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. The
Saviour, in Matt. 25, refers to the same event Paul does in
1 Thess. 4, with this difference only. Christ speaks of the
righteous and the wicked, while the apostle speaks of the right
eous only. But the apostle in his second letter treats of both
classes, as is seen by the comparison above. We learn from the
words of Christ and the apostle,
1. That there will be a personal advent of Christ.
2. That holy angels shall accompany him.
3. That the trump of God, the last trump, shall sound.
4. That the dead shall be raised incorruptible, so that what
ever be their doom, misery or bliss, their resurrection bodies
will not be subject to decay, but will endure forever.
5. That all men, the wicked and the righteous, shall be
brought before Christ the judge.
6. That the wicked shall be sentenced to everlasting punish
ment, but tbe righteous rewarded with life eternal.
Take into account the belief of those addressed by our Lord,
the points of resemblance between his words and those in Paul's
epistles, admitted by Universalists to refer to Christ's coming at
the resurrection, together with the glaring absurdity of asserting
the passage to be fulfilled at Jerusalem's destruction ; take these
into the account, we say, and who but those who are determined
to support an opinion at all hazards, but will admit that our
Lord here teaches a future judgment connected with, or subse
quent to, the resurrection.
XLII. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will drain
all men unto me." John 12 : 32.
The importance attached to this text to prove Universalism,
may be seen by the following : " Now were there no other argu
ment in favor of universal salvation, this would be entirely suffi
cient to establish the doctrine." U. 111. and Def, p. 267.
" This certainly assures us of the salvation of all men." Guide,

Sec. 43.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 101
p. 266. Yes, reader, upon the strength of this somewhat
equivocal text alone, these men assure us of the salvation of all
men in eternity, while they can see no possible evidence of any
future punishment whatever taught in the Bible ! All are not
drawn in the Universalist sense in this world, for wickedness
and misery abound to an alarming extent, and Christ might say
of many now, as anciently, " Ye will not come unto me, that ye
might have life." John 5 : 40. Remark, the Saviour does not
say, I will make all men holy and happy in the resurrection
state; but simply, " I will draw all men unto me." Nothing
is said in the text concerning the character or condition of those
who shall be drawn. That all men will be drawn to Christ in
a future state is admitted, yea, contended for by Christians, for
they believe the apostle when he says, ' ' For we shall all stand
before the judgment seat of Christ." Rom. 14 : 10, 11, also
2 Cor. 5 : 10. But should it still be contended that this draw
ing indicates the salvation of all men, then we reply the Saviour
presents a very different view when speaking of the same event,
namely, his being " lifted up." Hear him. " And as Moses
hfted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of
man be lifted up. That WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH IN
HIM SHOULD NOT PERISH, BUT HAVE EVERLAST
ING LIFE." John 3 : 14, 15. As we consider the Saviour
competent to give the true design of his being " lifted up," we
conclude the Universalist construction to be false. It remains
a fact, however, that all, whether holy or unholy, will be drawn
to Christ in the judgment to receive their final sentence."
XLIII. " For the Son of man shall come in tke glory of
his Father, with his angels ; and then he shall reward every
man according to his works. Verily I say iinto you, there be
! some standing here, which shall not taste death, till they see
'¦ the Son of man coming in his kingdom." Matt. 16 : 27, 28.
This passage, and especially the 28th verse, has been consid
ered a kind of lever by which to overturn every argument

102 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
brought in favor of the personal advent and of future judgment,
and to tumble those scriptures urged in support of these doctrines
into Jerusalem's destruction. Since some commentators have
admitted it, and Universalists stoutly contend that that event is
to be considered a coming of Christ, we have been somewhat
careful in examining the scriptures to see if that is the fact, and
have come to the conclusion that the coming of the Roman
army against that city is never called the coming of Christ.
Take the 27th verse, now under consideration, and is there any
thing in the overthrow of the Jews by the Romans, bearing the
least resemblance to this description ? Whoever saw, or imag
ined he saw, the Son of man or his angels at that time ? Jose
phus was present, and has transmitted to us a number of prodigies
which happened ; but he says nothing about the coming of
Christ. Then what in that event answers to the angels called
(Matt. 25 : 31) holy angels? Were the fierce, polluted and
idolatrous Roman soldiers these holy angels ? Preposterous !
It is false, too, that every man was rewarded according to his
works, as the text asserts, when the Romans sacked Jeinisalem
and butchered and enslaved the Jews — for but a fraction of the
human race were there — and those who were involved in the
siege did not receive according to their works, for many of the
women and infants were the greatest sufferers. So far from the
truth is it that Christ came at that time, that in predicting that
event (Matt. 24 : 23) he faithfully warned his disciples against
heeding such a doctrine. Hear him. " Then (at the destruc
tion of Jerusalem), if any man shall say unto you, Lo ! here is
Christ, or there, BELIEVE IT MOT." What folly to talk of
Christ's coming to destroy Jerusalem ! The truth is, the 27th
verse teaches the second personal advent of Christ, when he
shall judge thc world in righteousness; and- the 28th refers to
the model of that personal advent witnessed by Peter, James
and John upon the mount, recorded in the following verses in
the next chapter. The end of a chapiter does not always end a
subject ; for it should be borne in mind, that dividing the Bible

SeC. 43.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF TnE BIBLE. 103
into chapters and verses was not the work of the inspired
writers, but is comparatively a modern thing, for convenience
sake. The last two verses of chap. 16, and the first five of
chap. 17, when connected as they should be, read as follows :
" For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father,
with his angels ; and then shall he reward every man according
to his works. Verily I say unto you, there be some standing
here which shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man
coming in his kingdom. And after six days, Jesus taketh Peter
James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an
high mountain apart, and was transfigured before them : and his
face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was as white as light.
And behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking
with him. Then answered Peter and said unto Jesus, Lord, it
is good for us to be hero : if thou wilt, let us make here three
tabernacles ; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.
While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them :
and behold, a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my
beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased : hear ye him."
Just examine in connection with this what Peter, who was an
eye witness of this scene, says in the following : " For we have
not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known
unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but
were eye witnesses of his majesty. For he received from God
the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to
him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom
I am well pleased. And this-voice which came from heaven we
heard, when we were with him in the holy mount." (Sec.
XLIV.) Thus we have the prediction, its accomplishment, and remarks
by one who witnessed the whole, and he calls the transfigura
tion, "The power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."
This, then, and not the destruction of Jerusalem, is what the
Saviour is speaking of when he says, " There be some standing
here, which shall not taste death till they see the Son of man

104 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Parti.
coming in his kingdom." Peter, James and John were present
at that time, and after six days they were upon the mount and
witnessed this presentation of Christ's final coming. There are
five different comings of Christ named in the New Testament;
1. His personal advent in the flesh. John 1 : 11-14.
2. His spiritual coming to comfort and sustain his followers.
John 14 : 18-23.
3. His transfiguration upon the mount, which, as we have
seen, was a model of his second personal advent.
4. His providential coming, named Rev. 2:5, to punish
apostate churches.
5. His final and personal advent to raise the dead and judge
the world. This is usually called his second advent, because it
is his second personal coming. Mr. Whittemore in his Guide,
p. 36, bears testimony to this advent. (See. XXVI.)
We refer the reader to a few out of the many passages where
this is taught : 1 Thess. 4:16; 2 Thess. 1 : 7-10 ; 1 Cor.
15 : 23 ; Phil. 3 : 20, 21 ; Matt. 25 : 31-46 ; Acts 17 : 31 ;
2 Cor. 5:10; Rom. 2:16. Collate John 14 : 3 with Acts 1 : 11.
In this last named text it is declared that, "This same Jesus which
is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner
as ye have seen him go into heaven." With this text before
him, to say nothing of many others, what man with honest
purpose can deny that a second personal advent of Christ is
taught in the Bible ?
XLIV. " For verily I say unto you, ye shall not havegone
over the cities of Israel till the Son of man be come." Matt.
10:23. " That this passage has no reference to the destruction of Jeru
salem, is evident from the following considerations :
"1. This language was addressed to the apostles, according to
Dr. Carpenter's Gospel Harmony, not more than six months
before the crucifixion.
" 2. The apostles finished their circuit among the cities of
Israel, and returned to their Lord before the crucifixion.

Sec. 45.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 105
" 3. Before the ascension of Christ, they received an enlarged
commission, and went out to preach the gospel to all nations ;
to every creature. As a matter of fact, then, in less than one
year from the time when their Lord said, " Te shall not have
gone over the cities of Israel till tke Son of man be come,"
they had gone over the cities of Israel, and received a new com
mission — authority to preach to the Gentiles. The coming,
then, here referred to, either took place within one year, or
Christ must have uttered a false prediction. Take which horn
of dilemma you please.
"4. Besides, Jerusalem was not destroyed till at least thirty-
seven years after the apostles received their commission to preach
in the cities of Israel. But long before this period had elapsed,
the apostles had gone over the field which their first commis
sion contemplated, returned and received authority to preach to
the Gentiles ; they had spread the gospel all over the eastern
world, and with the exception of John, had all gone to the
rewards of the faithful." Russell.
The coming of Christ, named 2 Peter 1 : 16-18, took place
within a few weeks after the apostles were sent out, and before
they had gone over the cities of Israel, and to that event he
doubtless refers in the text. See Sec. XLIII.
XLV. " I keep under my body, and bring it into subjec
tion: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others,
I myself should be a castaway." 1 Cor. 9 : 27.
Speaking of the competitors in the Grecian games, the apostle
says : "Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we
an incorruptible." That Paul has his eye on the immortal
prize, and expresses a sense of danger, must he obvious to all
candid minds. In the Olympic games, to which reference is
made, the prize was at the end of the race, and in order to
secure it, the race must be performed according to law, or tho
judge did not award the crown. So in the Christian race, the
meorrnptible crown of glory is at the end, and the race must be
7

106 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
according to law ; hence says the apostle, (ver. 24,) " So run,
that ye may obtain." But if the Universalist theory be correct,
all are sure of the immortal prize whether they run or not, and
the man who blasphemes God with his latest breath, is as surely
crowned as the apostle. Examine well the text and context and
it will be seen that the apostle's course is strikingly at variance
with Universalist teachings.
XLVI. " Because sentence against an evil work is not
executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is
fully set in them to do evil." Eccl. 8 : 11.
Universalism declares that sentence against an evil work is
executed speedily, that it is not delayed ; while the Bible asserts
that it "is not speedily executed." Which shall we beheve,
Universalism or the Bible ? Notwithstanding this text stands
directly opposed to a prominent feature of their theory, yet these
men of many inventions attempt to turn it against evangelical
truth, because of the abuse of the long-suffering named in the
passage, and assert that our views are conducive to sin because
we teach that its punishment is far off in the future. They are
wont to discourse in this wise : " The sentiment which defers all
punishment to another world is defective, because it provides a
way of escape. It says : ' Go on in sin ; live in it till the age
of seventy, eighty or ninety ; curse and blaspheme God ; op
press and wrong the widow ; ruin unprotected innocence ; stain
your hands in human blood ; but repent before you die, and you
escape all punishment ; you go immediately to glory. Not only
so — it makes man a gainer by sin ; for the same sentiment
says — the wicked are happier in this world than the good.'
Again : Suppose our laws were established on this principle,
and that transgressors were not caHed to an account, till they
arrive at the age of fifty or sixty; that all this time they are
permitted to go on committing all manner of crimes ; should we
not call this ruinous policy ? '" TI. III. and Def, p. 217.
Upon this we venture to say, that more misrepresentation

Sec. 46.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE.- 107
could not be crowded into so small a space. We are kindly
informed what other sentiments say ; now let us hear what Uni
versalism says. It says, "Go on in sin ; live in it till the age
of seventy, eighty or ninety ; curse and blaspheme God ; op
press and wrong the widow ; ruin unprotected innocence ; stain
your hands in human blood ; never repent before you die ; blas
pheme God with your latest breath ; fall either by your own
hand, or in the act of destroying a fellow man, and at the next
conscious existence you shall be equal unto the angels."
Surely this must be a powerful dyke raised against the floods
of corruption flowing from depraved hearts ! But we are com
plained of because we put punishment for sin far off into the
future, and thus men are led to think they can commit sin with
impunity. We answer, Christian ministers teach punishment
beyond the grave for sin, because the Bible and reason so teach ;
but are they in the habit, as is represented, of assuring their
hearers that this punishment is far off? Speak, ye hundreds of
thousands who sit under their ministry. Do they not constantly
proclaim tbe uncertainty of life, and the possibility of their
hearers being cut down by death at any moment ; that they may
not boast themselves of the morrow, for they know not what a day
may bring forth ? Do they not announce to the wicked that an
awful eternity awaits them every moment, and that in view of it
they should now repent and lead a holy life ? Do they not apprise
them of the fact that probation may close with individuals even
before death, by the dethronement of reason or the departure of
the Holy Spirit ? Most assuredly they, do as all know. And is
this saying to men, go on in sin till the age of seventy, eighty
or ninety years, and then repent and escape punishment ? Never
was there a charge more false than this. Another is, that it
makes a man a gainer by sin ; and that the wicked are happier
in this world than the good. (Sec. LXIII.) But do not Chris.
tian pulpits thunder as loudly in proclaiming the evil conse-

108 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
quences of sin in this life, as do the pulpits of Universalists?
From them is heard constantly the declaration to sinners, that
" In pain yon travel all your days,
To reap eternal woe."
Christian ministers, however, do not assure their hearers that
there are absolutely no pleasures in sin, for that would not only
be travelling beyond the scriptures, (Heb. 11 : 25 ; 2 Thess.
2 :12 ; Prov. 4 : 16) ; but the experience of every sinner would
contradict it. Hence a part of their labor is to point out their
short-lived, delusive and ruinous character, that they may be
avoided, and to show men that when compared with the pleas
ures of righteousnesss, they are as nothing, and that on the
whole it is an evil and bitter thing to sin against God. Univer
salists claim that their system is pre-eminently reformatory,
because it teaches that the penalty of sin visits the transgressor
immediately. This is boasted of as its great moral power.
That it is a perfect failure in this respect is known to all who
have witnessed its operations. (Sec. CXXXVII.) It strikes us
that the character of the penalty has something to do with de-
tering men from crime. Suppose a law enacted against theft,
fornication or drunkenness, the penalty of which is a soft loving
rap upon the ear, to be inflicted immediately on the commission
of the crime, and that, too, all for the good of the man who
incurs the penalty ; would such a penalty be likely to deter men
from the commission of these crimes merely because there is no
escaping it ? Now this is an illustration of the Universalist
doctrine of the penalty for sin. Says Mr. Skinner : " A just pun
ishment is as essential for our welfare, as anything that love can
do." U. 111. and Def, p. 250. So punishment is not a curse,
but a blessing ! Thus God is made to say to the wicked, " Ke-
frain from sin, for as sure as you commit it I will bless you."
Who can wonder that there is claimed for this system a great
reformatory power ! But it is said by the advocates of this
system, that the punishment for which they contend is no light

Sec. 46.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OE THE BIBLE. 109
affair, but is much to be dreaded by the sinner. At this point
it may be proper to inquire, in what does the punishment for a
violation of God's moral law consist ? While we are told with
much assurance that men are punished all their sins deserve in
this world, we are somewhat at a loss to learn from Universalist
authors how this punishment is inflicted. There seems to be a
strange confounding of things upon this subject. In the Trum
pet, No. 1089, is the following question proposed. "If, as
Universalists contend, a guilty conscience constitutes the only
punishment for sin, how can those with a seared conscience be
adequately punished in tho present life? " Mr. Whittemore
replies, " Our querist has based his question on a false view of
the sentiments of Universalists. How did he learn that they
believed that a guilty conscience constitutes the only punishment
for sin in this life ? Has he learned it from them or from their
enemies ? Suffer us to say, we do not believe that such an
opinion is entertained by any them. A guilty conscience is no
desirable companion on the journey of hfe, and it may be
regarded as a punishment of guilt ; but no one affirms that it is
the only punishment. Are there not many other punishments ?
Poverty, degradation, disease brought on by sin, the loss of con
fidence and respect of our fellow creatures, imprisonments, &c,
&c, &c, are not all these the punishments of sin in this life ?"
But Mr. Witherell, who, it seems, we must consider good
authority in the order, (Sec. IV.) informs us that the hell
Universalists believe in consists in mental sufferings, (p. 11,)
and who has not heard from Universalists of the hell of con
science ?
We purpose now to take a view of human suffering arising
from different sources, and see if we can possibly conceive of the
sinner as adequately punished in this life, for his actual sins
against God. Let us consider men first, as physical beings.
That men who violate the laws of their physical nature suffer, is
true ; but is this the method God takes to punish sin ? Is
physical suffering a sure indication of actual sin against God ?

110 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
Wicked men may, and often do violate the laws of their physical
and organic nature while sinning against God, and suffer as a
consequence. The pious, too, often violate these laws, in doing
good -while influenced by the purest of motives, and of course
incur no guilt. Other circumstances being equal, the man who
breaks a limb in the act of taking hfe, experiences no more pain
than the man who does the same thing in the act of saving Ufe.
A vast amount of physical disease comes upon the human family
independent of their own agency. The wickedness and ignor
ance of parents often entails disease upon their innocent and
virtuous offspring ; and little children, incapable of moral action,
are often subjects of extreme suffering for months together.
Physical suffering is the result of a violation of physical laws,
and these may be violated either with or without our own agency.
Universalists very generally adopt a deceptive mode of reasoning
upon this subject, by confounding the mere natural effects of sin
with its punishment. (Sec. XLIX.) The Jews rejected Cbrist,
the true light, and greater darkness came upon them. This
was the natural effect, but not the punishment for this sin. Al
though they thus deceive the unthinking, by thus confounding
things, yet to serve their purpose at times they are obliged to
admit the distinction ; for they tell us that the Jews were pun
ished for rejecting Christ nearly forty years after, when Jeru
salem was destroyed. If, as has been asserted, sin is its own
punishment, then all other punishments, whether human or
divine, are unjust and cruel ; for if all have been punished, why
should they be re-punished ? Mankind, in practice, universally
reject the idea that sin punishes itself. Every parent who
applies the rod to a child for a fault, rejects it. Every civil
magistrate, in passing sentence upon a criminal, rejects it. God
himself, as often as he punishes transgressors, rejects it; and
thus makes the distinction for which we contend. We observe,
then, a wide difference between suffering for sin, and suffering
from the effects of sin. The innocent may suffer from the effects
of sin, or in consequence of it ; while none but the guilty, or the

Sec. 46.1. UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. Ill
one who takes the place of the guilty, as did the Saviour,
(1 Pet. 3 : 18,) can suffer for sin. What folly, then, to account
physical suffering the penalty of God's law against actual sin,
since the innocent experience it as well as the guilty. Man is a
social being. He possesses that nature and those feelings,
which render him capable of society. Shall we look in this
direction for God's penalties against sin ? In the social relations
are the righteous always exalted, and are the wicked always cast
down? A competency of worldly substance is desirable in
human society ; but is this secured only to the good ? Thou
sands of the purest spirits upon earth have been found in pov
erty's vale, suffering for the necessaries of hfe, while some of
the wicked have prospered in the world, and have had more than
a reasonable heart could wish. Ps. 73 : 7. Marriage forms an
important relation in society ; but do the good always derive
comfort from this relation, and does it always prove an evil to
the wicked ? We see the pious and affectionate wife, suffering
by the conduct of a perfidious, brutal, and drunken husband ;
while the faithful, indulgent, and pious husband, is tormented
all his days with a faithless, brawling, and discontented wife ;
while, on the other hand, some of the irreligious find much com
fort in the conjugal relation. Pious parents often suffer by the
wickedness of their children, and pious children are often afflicted
by the ungodliness of parents ; while some of the wicked derive
comfort from these relations.
We might name other things in the social state where the
same inequality exists ; but enough has been presented to show
that not only the wicked, but the righteous suffer in their social
relations, whieh establishes the point that these sufferings can
not be God's penalty against sin ; for no innocent person will
suffer that. As it regards the providences of God, — so dark
and mysterious are many of them, that it is not always safe to
judge of a man's moral condition by what we witness of God's
dealings with him in this life. Job's friends ran into this error,
and supposed he must have been a very wicked man, or he

112 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Parti.
would not have suffered as he did ; when, in fact, he was pre
eminently holy. The truth is, this is a state of probation, and
not of strict recompense ; hence the inequality apparent in the
Divine administration in this world. God causes his sun to
shine not merely upon the good, but upon the evil also, and his
rain descends upon the unjust as well as the just. Matt. 5 : 45.
It is not in man's social relations, then, that we are to look for
the infliction of God's penalties against sin ; for observation,
experience, and the word of God unite in pressing upon us the
fact that some wicked persons prosper in these relations, while
others who are pious suffer in them. Furthermore, such has
been the corrupt state of the world, as its history abundantly
shows, that true piety has often called down upon its possessor
all manner of cruel sufferings by imprisonment, rack, and other
wise, while many of the wicked have escaped such visitations.
Man possesses conscience, or, as it has been denominated,
" moral sense." Does he suffer from this source all the penalty
of the moral law in this life ? Some assert that he does. This
we deny, and submit the following, which might be greatly ex
tended, to show the folly of such an assumption. It is a funda
mental principle of modern Universalism, that no man escapes
any just punishment for sin ; and of course if the punishment
for sin is confined to the conscience in this life, and if there be
a just administration, every one must be punished in exact pro
portion to his crimes. To show that this is impossible, let us
suppose two cases. A man becomes acquainted with the fact
that a neighbor has a large sum of money, and resolves on mur
dering him to secure it. He follows him into a dark avenue,
and in fifteen minutes from tho time he formed the purpose, his
neighbor is a dying man, and the murderer himself senseless hy
his side, in consequence of a death shot given in self-defence by
his murdered victim. Now, according to the theory we oppose,
that murderer could have suffered but fifteen minutes in his
conscience, if we date his crime back to the time he formed the
intention ; and when we take into the account the excitement

Sec. 46.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 113
connected with such an act, we cannot conceive of very acute
suffering during that short period.
Another case. A man has the same opportunity, forms the
same purpose, and in the same space of time murders his neigh
bor, but secures the money, escapes himself, and survives his
murdered victim twenty years ; and not only suffers from con
science, but suspicion is fixed upon him as the murderer : he is
arrested, examined, thrown into jail for six months or more to
await the sitting of the court, has his trial, and undergoes all
the fearful apprehensions of a death upon the gallows. Proof,
however, fails, and he is cleared by the court, but is not cleared
from the just suspicions of the entire community. In these two
cases the crimes are equal, but are the punishments equal ?
Does the man who lives twenty years after the act of murder,
suffer no more in his conscience than thexone who dies in the
act? If we look tbis subject in the face, we shall see most clearly
that either God's ways are not equal, or else that there is future
punishment, and the Universalist notion is false. And then, as
if to cap the climax of absurdity, this dogma teaches that the
man who dies in the murderous act becomes as the angels of
God in heaven ; while the one who survives, yet no more guilty,
suffers a Universalist hell in this world for twenty years ! That
the moral sensibilities become blunted by a continual course of
sm, so that there is less suffering from conscience as the sinner
advances in crime, is confirmed by experience, common observa
tion, and the Bible. Indeed, all writers upon moral science have
taken this view. The following is from Wayland : " The man
who habitually violates his conscience, not only is more feebly
impelled to do right, but he becomes less sensible to the pain of
doing wrong. A child feels poignant remorse after the first act
of pilfering. Let the habit of dishonesty be formed, and he will
become so hackneyed in sin, that he will perpetrate robbery with
no other feeling than that of mere fear of detection. The first
oath almost palsies the tongue of the stripling. It requires but
7*

114 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
a few months, however, to transform him into the bold and
thoughtless blasphemer. The murderer, after the death of his
first victim, is agitated with all the horrors of guilt. He may,
however, pursue his trade of blood until he have no more feeling
for man, than the butcher for the animal which he slaughters.
Burk, who was in the habit of murdering men, for the purpose of
selling their bodies to the surgeons for dissection, confessed this
of himself." Moral Science, p. 77.
Speaking of this influence of sin, Paul declares of some that
their consciences were " seared with a hot iron." 1 Tim. 4 : 2.
Conscience is not, as some assert, the unerring voice of God, but
is right or wrong, according as the moral judgment and moral
sense are right or wrong. As to mental suffering, we hazard noth
ing in saying that the man of tender sympathy, who by mistake or
accident takes the life of a fellow being, suffers a hundred fold
more, mentally, than the hardened wretch like Burk, who deliber
ately murders a man for a few paltry dollars. Since, then, it is an
established fact that suffering from this source in this life is so
far from increasing with crime that it actually diminishes, it can
not be the way in which a righteous moral governor punishes sin.
The trouble experienced by the sinner from conscience, is caused
by her remonstrance, under the Spirit of God, discovering to
him his guilt, and pointing him to the law, with its fearful
penalty. This conscience continues to do most faithfully until
the Spirit is grieved, and she is hushed by repeated acts of sin
and rebellion against God, and the sinner becomes past feeling,
(Eph. 4 : 19,) and is left to believe a lie that he might be
damned, because he believed not the truth, but " had pleasure
in unrighteousness." 2 Thess. 2 : 12. The sufferings experi
enced here may be regarded as the consequences of sin, but not,
strictly as its penalty. Let us illustrate. The penalty
for highway robbery, we will say, is hard labor in the state
prison for thirty years. A man commits this crime, is arrested,
examined, and cast into the common jail to await his trial, which
is to take place in sis months. Satisfied that his guilt must

Sec. 46.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 115
appear, and that naught but the dread penalty awaits him, his
mental sufferings are great. He is deprived, too, of his liberty,
social enjoyments, and bodily health, by his incarceration. Now
we ask, are these sufferings of the prisoner to be regarded as the
penalty of the law against robbery ? By no means. The court
is not authorized to abate six months of the penalty, in consid
eration of his having been six months in the common jail. Suf
fering in the jail for six months is one of the consequences of the
crime, but not the penalty, as all will see. So the sinner against
God often suffers in this world physically, socially, and men
tally, in consequence of his sins ; but reason and scripture both
unite in proclaiming the fact that there is punishment after death
for the ungodly.
The doctrine of future punishment has been called, by way of
reproach, a heathenish doctrine. That not only those nations
who have been favored with the Scriptures, but those who have
been destitute of them have believed in future retributions, in
some form, is true ; and this, so far from forming an objection to
the doctrine, is but another evidence of its truthfulness. No
candid mind acquainted with human affairs, can believe for a mo
ment that the righteous and the wicked are adequately rewarded
and punished in this life ; and it is this common sense view which
carries the mind of man to the future world, where this will take
place. This furnishes a reason why this doctrine has obtained so
generally, even where the Bible is not known. It will be seen
by the candid reader, we think, from the few thoughts here pre
sented, that men do not receive the penalty of God's law against
sin in either their physical, social, or mental sufferings in this
world, or in all of them put together. It remains a. truth, then,
that sentence agamst an evil work is not executed speedily, and
that after death is the judgment. That God sends afflictions
upon his children in this world for their good, we readily learn
from the Scriptures ; and that God punishes nations as such,
here, is equally clear ; and it is well known that when God
showers his judgments down upon nations, the innocent often

116 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
suffer with the guilty. This, however, only furnishes another
argument in favor of a day in the future world when God shall
judge in righteousness.
XLVII. " Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee
a crown of life." Rev. 2 : 10.
What means the eonditionality of this promise, if Universalism
is sound ? It is perfect nonsense ; for if all are to be saved, as
Universalists assert, what matters it whether they are faithful or
unfaithful ? Are not the wrafaithful just as much heirs to the
crown of life as the faithful ? This short text is of itself suffi
cient to refute the infidel sentiment, that our conduct here has
nothing to do with securing our future bliss.
XLVIII. " Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for
that meat which endureth unto everlasting life." John 6 : 27.
Mr. Balfour, in his Reply to Stuart, (p. 74,) says : " You
assume that ' everlasting life ' refers to the future endless happi
ness of the righteous. Tbis I deny. Everlasting life designates
indeed the happiness of the righteous, but it is their happiness in
this world." By this Christ is made to say, " Labor not for
that meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto hap
piness in this world." And does not the happiness enjoyed in
this world perish ? This text, as all must see, lies directly
against that form of error which denies the necessity of anxiety
and labor in order to secure future bliss. " A company were fol
lowing the Saviour for the loaves and fishes, and like many at
the present time, were laboring exclusively for worldly good.
Christ rebukes them, and exhorts them to labor for 'blessings
which endure — abide, unto everlasting life.' How would such
an exhortation sound from the lips of a Universalist preacher?
Had Christ been a preacher of Universalism, the Jews might
have turned upon him, and said : You acknowledge that our
present business is to provide for our temporal wants, our eternal

Sec. 49.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 117
wants being above and beyond our reach. In seeking loaves
and fishes, then, we are in our appropriate sphere ! " Russell.
XLIX. " And the angels which kept not their first estate,
but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting
chains under darkness, unto the judgment of the great day."
Jude 6.
The author of the Guide asserts that there is nothing in this
passage which renders it necessary to apply it to any order of
beings above men. He makes a display of Greek criticism, to
show that angel signifies a messenger ; and asserts that the word
angel is not a name of nature, but of office, which no one to our
knowledge ever denied, and then states, respecting their not
having kept their first estate and leaving their own habitation,
that " all this has taken place among men on the earth." On
the word everlasting, an opportunity is afforded to show that it is
not always used to signify endless duration ; hence we are re
minded of the everlasting mountains, hills, priesthood, &c.
And as it respects the judgment, he inquires, " But is there no
judgment in this world ? We read, ' Verily there is a God that
judgeth [where ?] in the earth.' " (Sec. LI.) Concerning the
phrase "great day," he finds somewhere in the Old Testament
that " the day ofthe Lord is near," and somewhere in the New
Testament that " the great day of his wrath is come ; " and this
of course is sufficient, with Mr. Whittemore, to deprive the text
in Jude of its future-state reference. But while he does this, he
leaves us staring about for its true interpretation. The absurd
ity of a reference to Jerusalem is so great, that even Mr. W.
dares not hazard it. Observe, the author of the Guide denies
that these angels are superhuman, insists that they are men, and
that their retribution is in this world. Now how soon are men
punished for their sins, according to this same Guide ? Let Mr.
W. answer. ". One important truth embraced by Universalists
is, — that the punishment of sin is not delayed until the future
existence, but that it is swift, sure, and inevitable ; that sin goes

118 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
hand in hand with woe throughout its whole duration ; that it is
itself keil, into which the sinner cannot plunge, without feeling
its flames and torments. In regard to retribution, such is the
doctrine of Universalists." Guide, p. 262. Here it is given,
as a denominational sentiment, that sin is not only punished as
soon as committed, but that sinners are punished while commit-
ing it; that sin "is itself hell," i. e. sin and punishment for
sin are one and the same thing !! But in the text under con
sideration, the angels, or men as Mr. W. will have it, are said
to be " reserved in everlasting chains, under darkness, unto the
judgment of the great day ; " and we are also informed (2 Pet.
2 : 9) that " The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of
temptation, and to RESERVE the unjust unto the day of judg
ment to be punished." Now here is a particular, specified
period, called the day of judgment, for which ungodly men are
reserved, in which they are to be punished. Call this period
Jerusalem's destruction or what we please, it is equally at war
with the above quoted view of punishment. What folly to talk
of sinners being reserved unto any particular period for punish
ment if they are punished without any remission as soon as they
sin, or while sinning. According to this, every Jew had heen
punished all his individual sins deserved, up to the moment
when the Romans besieged the city of David. To whom shall
we attribute this folly ? Not to the inspired apostle, surely, hut
to Universalist teachers who have perverted the word of God.
No unsophisticated mind would ever see a mere temporal calam
ity in the words of Jude. He wrote for those who had heen
educated in the belief of future retributions, and they could hut
understand him as teaching the same doctrine. See Sec. L.
L. " The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of
temptation, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment,
to be punished." 2 Pet. 2 : 9.

The author of the Guide has a very summary way of dispos
ing of those knotty texts which teach most clearly a future

Sec. 51.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 119
judgment. It is to refer his readers to what he has said upon
texts partly parallel, or perhaps referring to another subject alto
gether. For, to come right out and plainly say that Peter
meant to say, " The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out
of temptation, and to reserve the unjust unto the destruction of
Jerusalem, to be punished," would present such an absurdity,
that even his admirers would start back. He deemed it, doubt
less, much more safe to withhold his explanation, and refer us to
what he has said on Jude 6, where an opportunity is afforded
for a display on the words angels, darkness, chains, everlasting,
&c. Mr. Balfour, however, who never stands for trifles
when writing upon the scriptures, hesitates not to throw this into
the Jerusalem catastrophe. Essays, p. 257. So the wicked of
the apostle's time were reserved four years, at least, to be pun
ished in the siege of the Romans ! But did none of the unjust
of the apostle's time die before the Romans came against the
holy city ? Again, how does the idea of their being reserved
unto that time, comport with the notion that " as quick as the
thunder follows the lightning's flash, just so quick does punish
ment follow crime." Witherell, p. 31. Is the thunder unheard
till four years after the lightning's flash ? Peter's epistle bears
date A. D. 66 — Jerusalem was overthrown A. D. 70, four
years after. The text means just what it appears to mean. See
Sec. XLIX, also Sec. VIII.
LI. " For judgment I came into this world." John 9 : 39.
" Verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth." Ps. 58 : 11.
" Now is the judgment of this world." John 12 : 31.
" I came not to judge the world." John 12 : 47.
'• I will raise him up at tke last day." John 6 : 40.
In the Bible we find the words judge and judgment are fre
quently applied to events which have their fulfillment in this
world, and none to our knowledge ever disputed it. But were
we to derive our knowledge from Universalist authors only, we
should conclude that those who oppose their views, either wick-

120 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
edly deny this, or else are grossly ignorant of the fact. The
true question at issue between us is, Is there & future judgment 1
The negative of this is taken by their writers, and then they go
on to prove most conclusively, from the scriptures, that God
judges in this world ; and this they offer as a sufficient reason
why there shall be no future judgment ! Take the following
from Mr. Whittemore, as a specimen : " ' For JUDGMENT I
am come into THIS world.' John 9 : 39. It is.absolutely dis
respectful to the Son of God, who tells us that he came into
THIS WORLD for judgment, to suppose that judgment is in
some otlier world! Hear that, all ye Presbyterians, Methodists,
Baptists, and so called Orthodox Christians, who oppose God by
saying that Christ has gone into the future world for judgment."
Trumpet, April 28, 1855.
With thc same logical force do they frequently employ Ps.
58 : 11, " Verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth." The
argument is -this : God judgeth in the earth ; therefore, there will
be no future judgment. The sophistry of this will at once
appear by adopting this method with other subjects. For in
stance, God is glorified in tbe earth ; therefore God will not be
glorified in the future state ! "On earth peace, good will
towards men; " therefore there can be neither peace, Dor good
will towards men in the future world !
" We which have believed do enter into rest ; " (Heb. 4:3;)
therefore there can be no rest in heaven !
Take the words saved and salvation, which are often used to
express temporal deliverance and the state of the justified soul
in this world. Universalists talk much about salvation in the
future world, as all know. Now what would be thought were
we to rise up and deny future salvation, and make a great parade
of texts in capitals, to prove that salvation pertained to this
life — that men are said to be saved now, in a great number of
instances? Suppose that, to meet all the texts Universal
ists could urge in support of future salvation, we were to insist
upon it that they contain no evidence of future salvation for any

Sec. 51.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 121
of our race ; and should contend, most stoutly, that God's salva
tion is in this world, and urge in proof of this, that the Israel
ites (Ex. 14:13) were commanded to "stand still and SEE
THE SALVATION OF THE LORD," [which they could
not have done if salvation is in the future state ; and furthermore,
to put the whole matter to rest, the words of Paul should be
presented, (2 Cor. 6 : 2,) " NOW IS THE DAY OF SAL
VATION." And suppose, too, that we should demand of
them such texts as the following, to establish the doctrine that
men would be saved in the future state : " Men shall be holy
and happy in the future world." " Men shall be saved in the
immortal state." "Men shall be saved beyond the grave."
Suppose, we say, that we should deny that there is any salvation
in the future world, and bring such proofs, and make such a
demand to sustain it, what would be thought of such a course ?
It would be judged the vilest quibbling, and a most egregious
perversion of God's word. But as wicked as this would be, it
is precisely the course pursued by Universalists respecting the
judgment. If we speak of a future judgment, they reply with
an air of triumph, (John 12 : 31,) " Now is the judgment of
tbis world ; " and the author of the .Guide makes a similar de
mand with the one above named, respecting future punishment.
(Sec. CXV.)
Since the last named text is so much in use, a few thoughts
upon it will be given. Universalists seem to consider it of great
importance, because the present tense is used, "Now is," &c.
This was spoken nearly forty years before the destruction of
Jerusalem. Well then, if, because the Saviour said, " Now is
the judgment of this world," a future general judgment must be
set aside, then for the same reason must a judgment at the de
struction of Jerusalem be set aside. Take this out of their
theory, what will they do with the texts they find it so conve
nient to refer to that event? There is another text in the same
chapter with this, which this class of expositors see fit to let
alone, ft is this, (ver. 47,) " I came not to judge the world."

122 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
We have Mr. BalfoUr's Essay of 139 pages, in which he pro
fesses to examine all those places where the words judge and
judgment occur in the New Testament, but no notice is taken of
this text. There are five volumes of their books before us,
each having a somewhat copious index of texts, yet none of them
name this. So far as memory serves, we have never seen it
named in any of their writings. Why they are thus silent upon
ver. 47, while they so often quote a part of ver. 31 of the same
chapter, the reader can easily judge. Ver. 47 is not in the
right shape for them. The whole of ver. 31 reads thus : " Now
is the judgment of this world : now shall the prince of this world
be cast out." Mr. French, the Universalist minister named
Sec. 1, while attempting to correct his brethren in a sermon
before the Maine Convention, says :
" But do we not injure our cause by quoting the words of
our Saviour, saying: "Now is the judgment of this world;
now is the prince of this world cast out.' John 12 : 31. Is
not Wakefield right, who applies this text to the decision which
the Jews were about to make against Jesus ; rejecting him, and
declaring him worthy of death ? But how different this from
the judgment which God executes upon the world ? Should we
not make improvements by being more cautious, by selecting
proof texts with more care and judgment? " Banner, August
5, 1843.
Their perversions are so numerous, that Mr. French has a
task before him, if he thinks to reform the order in this respect;
and furthermore, should he succeed, it would be the death of
the system. This, the convention, it would seem, were aware
of, and were so much displeased with his effort, that they did
not vote the publication of his sermon. Christ says, (John
12 : 47, 48,) " If any man hear my words, and believe not, I
judge him not : for I come not to judge the world, but to save
the world ; * * * the word that I have spoken, the same
shall judge him in the last day." In this we are taught, that
tbe design of Christ's first advent was not to judge men, but to

Sec. 51.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 123
save them, and are referred to a future judgment, when men
shall be judged for their treatment of Christ's word or doctrine.
This is to take place at the last day. While the author of the
Guide fails to give us hght upon ver. 47, he does favor us with
an exposition of ver. 48. Upon this, as found Guide p. 166,
we shall offer a few thoughts. The course pursued is, as usual
with this class of writers, both evasive and sophistical, and dis
covers anything but a desire to bring out the true sense. He
carries his readers away to the parable of the vineyard, (Matt.
21,) then to the parable of the marriage feast, (Matt. 22,) then
to Matt. 24, where the phrase " end ofthe world " occurs, then
to Heb. 10 : 25, where the apostle speaks of a " day approach
ing," then to 1 John 2 : 18, where the phrase " last time "
is found, and he will have it, that all these texts relate to the
destruction of Jerusalem, and assumes that John 12 : 48 refers
to the same event. Now we ask, if truth only was the object of
this man, why did he not refer his readers to the other passages,
where our Saviour uses the expression " last day ? " No one
could learn from what he has said in the Guide on this te^t,
that the phrase " last day " occurred anywhere else in the New
Testament. Cbrist says, (John 6 : 40,) " And this is the will
of him that sent me, that every one whieh seeth the Son, and
believeth on him, may have everlasting life : and I.will raise
him up at the last day." See, also, verses 49, 44 and 54 of
the same chapter, where the phrase is used in the same sense.
How this expression was understood in our Saviour's time, we
may learn from the conversation between him and Martha, on
the death and resurrection of Lazarus. John 11:23,24.
"Jesus saith unto her, thy brother shall rise again. Martha
saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrec
tion at the last day." (Sec. XC.)
It is obvious that the expression " last day," as used by our
Lord and Martha, refers to the general resurrection. " This being
the case, can any be at a loss to know the meaning of the
Saviour, in the passage under consideration ? Christ says four

124 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I,
times, (John 6,) that he will raise men up at the " last day."
Martha had confidence in the fact that Lazarus would rise in the
resurrection in the last day (John 11 : 24 ) ; and Christ says,
(John 12 : 48,) of him who rejects him and his truth, "Tho
word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last
day." It must be obvious to all, we think, that if one of these
texts refers to Jerusalem's destruction, they all do, which repre
sents Martha as believing in the resurrection of her brother
from the dead, at the destruction of Jerusalem ! ! These texts,
taken together, connect the judgment with the resurrection.
They teach a resurrection and judgment at the end of time, or
in the last day, which is fatal to modern Universalism. This,
the author of the Guide probably saw, hence his labor to turn
the eyes of his reader to some half dozen other texts, havin°'
no connection whatever with the one before us, while he would
keep from their sight five passages in which the same expression
is found. Thus the word of God is handled deceitfully, and
Universalism propagated.
One thought more. Mr. Skinner asserts that, " All the
judgments of which the scriptures speak are to destroy sin, and
reform the sinner. U. III. and Def. p. 248. " I came not to
judge the world," says the Saviour, or in other words, to har
monize with Mr. Skinner's doctrine, " I came not to destroy sin
and reform the sinner " ! ! Did the Saviour mean to say that?
Truth never thus belies the Saviour and his work.
LII. " Te shall seek me, and shall die in your sins;
whither I go, ye cannot come," &c. John 8 : 21, 22, 23, 24.
" Te shall die in your sins." We are told (Trumpet, No.
577) that by this, " Jesus referred to tho approaching destruc
tion of the Jewish nation," and that "he spoke of a national
and not a natural death." But what evidence is there that our
Lord is discoursing about Jerusalem's overthrow here? Just
none at all, either in the text or context. " Ye shall seek me."
Have not the Jews as a people continued to reject Christ to the

Sec. 52.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 125
present hour ? How clear it is that the Saviour was speaking,
not of the nation, but of individuals. Mr. Page in his notes
disagrees with Mr. Whittemore, and says : " Some understand
this to denote the national or political death which soon after
wards befell the Jews, on account of their sinfulness. To me
it seems more probable that Jesus used the phrase shall die
in its literal sense. I understand his argument thus : You are
now sinful, and especially guilty of rejecting the Messiah, whose
divine mission has been sufficiently authenticated : I shall soon
depart from the earth ; you will continue seeking for the Mes
siah, (for me, though yo know it not,) but cannot come to him
or find him, for he will be in heaven. In this hopeless search
you will persist, and will die without having found or recognized
him, — guilty of having rejected him when he was manifested to
you, in addition to all your other sins."
So we see that the Universalist commentator admits that it is
not a national, but a literal death of the persons the Saviour
addressed, who were to " die in their sins." But it is said that
Christ expressed the same to his disciple (John 13 : 33) that he
did to the Jews, viz.: " Whither I go ye cannot come." By a
comparison of the passages, and the connection in which they
are found, it will be seen that there is a very important dif
ference. 1. Christ told the Jews that they should die in their sins.
But he said nothing like this to his disciples.
2. Christ said to the Jews, "Ye are from beneath ; lam
from above : ye are of this world ; I am not of this world ; "
and assigns it as a reason why he doomed them to die in their
sins. This he never said to his disciples.
3. Christ explained to Peter what he meant by sayino' to his
disciples, "Whither I go ye cannot come," as follows: "Whither
I go thou canst not follow me now : but thou shalt follow me after
wards." But he gave no such explanation and promise to the
Jews : but on the contrary he declared to them most positively

126 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Parti.
that they should die in their sins, and that they should not go
where he did.
The author of the Guide, p. 165, says: after quoting
the words addressed to Peter, chap. 13 : 36, " The same word
may be applied to the Jews. They could not follow Christ
then, but they would at another time." Mr. Whittemore may
so apply these words, but Christ himself gives them no such
application. The oft perverted text, " So all Israel shall be
saved," is lugged in by the author of the Guide to supply the
Saviour's omission, and to prove that all the Jews will go to
heaven where Christ has gone. See Sec. V, where this text is
examined. LIII. ' ' Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and
persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you
falsely, for my sake. Rejoice and be exceeding glad; for
great is your reward in heaven." Matt. 5:11, 12; also,
Luke 6 : 22, 23.
There hes before us a work entitled " Scripture Doctrine,''
by S. R. Smith, designed for the instruction of children in Uni
versalism, and has been used quite extensively in Universalist
Sabbath schools. The following is the note upon this text
entire, as found p. 28 : " Nothing is more common than for
professing Christians to speak of heaven as a glorified state after
death ; and as being the place where believers will receive their
reward. And yet it is believed there is no one place in which
the word is used in the Bible, where it obviously means life or
happiness, or the place of these, after death. Nor does any
one seriously expect the felicity of immortality as the reward of
his obedience — on the contrary, it is acknowledged to be the
free gift of God. Why then encourage others to hope for that
as a reward, which none can expect but as a gift ? The truth
is, the gospel is called heaven, and he who believes the gospel
is in heaven. Eph. 2 : 6."
This is the instruction Universalists are imparting to the youth

Sec. 53.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 127
of our land, under the guise of Christianity, and this is the
manner in which they dispose of this precious passage which has
afforded support to Christians in all ages of the church under
the most afflicting circumstances ; which has enabled them to
meet death in all its cruel forms, having respect to the recom
pense of reward. But now to support a rotten system, this
must be given up ; and we are told, by those who profess to be
ministers of Christ, that it is folly to " speak of heaven as a
glorified state after death," and that " there is no one place in
which the word is used in the Bible, where it obviously means
tke life or happiness of these after death!" So we see a
future heaven is denied as well as a future hell. Christians,
then, are not to speak of heaven as a glorified state after death,
and there is no reward for the righteous in the future world !
This is Universalism. But let us turn from this to the Bible,
and see if there is such a place as heaven after death. Where
is the Saviour? " So then after the Lord had spoken unto them,
he was received up into heaven and sat on the right hand of
God." Mark 16 : 19. " Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye
here gazing up into heaven ? This same Jesus, which is taken
up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have
Been him go into heaven." Acts 1:11. Peter speaking of
Christ, says : " Who has gone into heaven and is on the right hand
of God." 1 Peter 3 : 22. Paul says : " For Christ has not
entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the
figures of the true ; but into heaven itself, to appear in the
presence of God for us." Heb. 9 : 24.
Are any to he in heaven but Christ? The Saviour says,
(John 14 : 2, 3,) when about to go to his Father : " In my
Father's house are many mansions." " I go to prepare a
PLACE for you, that where I am, there yemay he also." Speak
ing of this heavenly family, Paul says, (Eph. 3 : 15,) " For this
cause I bow my knee unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named ; " and
in view of the glories of heaven he says, (Rom. 8 : 17, 18,)

128 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
" And if children, then heirs ; heirs of God and joint heirs with
Christ ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be glori
fied together. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present
time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall
be revealed in us." Christ prohibits laying up treasures on the
earth, (Matt. 6: 19, 20,) but enjoins laying up treasures in
heaven. Peter in speaking to his brethren of an incorruptible
inheritance, says of it, (1 Peter 1 : 4, 5,) " Reserved in heaven
for you, who are kept by the power of God through faith unto
salvation." A host of other scriptures might be adduced equally plain.
These teach that heaven is a place, and that Christians may
expect a glorified state after death, too plainly to need comment.
Again, it is said, " The gospel is called heaven, and he who
believes the gospel is in heaven ; " and in proof of this bold
assertion we are referred to Eph. 2 : 6. Does this teach that
the gospel is heaven, and that believers are in heaven?
" And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in
heavenly places in Christ Jesus." What is there here to prove
that the gospel is heaven, and that believers are in it? They
sit together in heavenly places, i. e., places partaking ofthe
nature of heaven, but not heaven itself." " He who believes
the gospel is in heaven." But what is it to believe the gospel
aceording to Universalist divines ? It is to believe in Univer
salism, for with them nothing else is the gospel, as all know
who hear them. So heaven is the inheritance of those, and
those only, who believe in Universalism, and they are now in
heaven ! ! Reader, did it ever occur to you before that those
around you who clamor for Universalism are now the pure in
habitants of heaven ? The doctrine of the Saviour, in the pas
sage is this : Tbe privations, persecutions and sufferings of every
kind the Christian shall be called to endure in this world for his
sake, will enhance his bliss and glory in the future world.
The same thing is expressed 2 Cor. 4 : 16-18. A heart com
forting and encouraging doctrine to afflicted faithful Christians;

Sec. 54.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 129
and palsied be the hand that would deprive them of it by infidel
perversions and sophistries. No Christian merits, or expects to
merit, heaven ; but God has graciously promised a reward in
heaven in proportion to our sufferings and faithfulness here, for
his sake. On salvation a gift, see Sec. XCIX.
LIV. " For thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection
of the just." Luke 14 : 14.
This text connects human conduct with the eternal state, and
of course it must be destroyed in some way : so Mr. Whittemore
occupies nearly eight pages of his " Notes on the Parables,"
contending with common sense and the Bible to make it appear
that the resurrection of the just took place when Jerusalem was
destroyed. Speaking of Christ's coming to destroy the Jewish
state, he says, (N. on Par., p. 168) : " At this time the
Christians were to be exalted, raised from a low condition."
Again : " This was the resurrection of the just ; and at that
time, those who had done them favors were to be recompensed."
The Saviour was at the table of a Pharisee, whose creed included
the doctrine of a resurrection, both of the just and unjust, (Sec.
X.) and he addressed him thus : " When thou makest a dinner
or a supper, call not thy friends nor thy brethren, neither thy
kinsmen nor thy rich neighbors ; lest they also bid thee again, and
a recompense be made thee ; but when thou makest a feast, call
the poo*r, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and thou shalt be
blessed ; for they cannot recompense thee, for thou shalt be
recompensed at the resurrection of the just." Did the Saviour
mean to say to this Pharisee, you may look to the destruction of
Jerusalem for your reward for entertaining the poor, maimed,
lame and bhnd, for they shall all be raised to eminence and
wealth then ? The thought forms the very climax of absurdity.
To attempt a serious refutation of such burlesque on the words
of the guileless Redeemer, would be useless. "It is sufficient
to say that this explanation makes the divine Saviour contradict
himself in the same sentence. To reduce it to plain Enghsh it
8

130 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
would read thus : Give not to the rich. Why ? Because they
can and will repay. But give to the poor. Why ? Because
they will soon become rich and then they will return the whole ! "
Whitman. LV. " The Lord will not cast off forever." Lam. 3 : 31.
" Who will kave all men to be saved." 1 Tim. 2 : 4.
We take the following from a number of the Trumpet :
" NEGATIVE AND AFFIRMATIVE.
" ' The Lord will not cast off forever,' Lam. 3 : 31.
" ' God will have all men to be saved.' 1 Tim. 2 : 4.
" It is necessary to reverse both these, if the doctine of end
less misery be true, and say God will cast off forever — God
will not have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge
of the truth."
This doubtless is considered a potent argument in favor of
their doctrine, by the readers of the Trumpet, while the whole
of it is built upon the perversion of two texts. The text in
Lam. 3 : 31, is made to teach as follows : "The Lord will ml
cast off endlessly in the future state. ' When a stubborn text
presents itself teaching endless punishment, it must be destroyed
in some way ; then come the quibbles, and quirks, and twists,
and sophistries, and negatives, and bold assertions, and orthodox
authorities, and garbled extracts, and scripture references, and
Greek criticisms; and, while the " poor blind candidate" of a
reader is groping about amid all this smoke, the question is
fully settled, and he is brought out into the glorious light of
Universalis^ by, " The Lord will not cast off forever," signifi
cantly put in italics or blazing capitals. For a specimen, see
Whittemore's Guide, pp. 124-128. Now this text has no more
reference to a future state, than it has to Jehu's furious driving.
Did it read, " The Lord will cast off forever," and were we to
bring it to prove our doctrine, we should be met with criticisms
showing that the word forever, as used here, does not mean

Sec. 55.] UNIVERSALISM not of the bible. 131
endless ; that the subject, over which the prophet was lamenting,
was not a casting off in a future state, but of the Jewish nation,
in this world. That this was spoken of the Jews, ' ' the daughter of
Zion," " the daughter of Judah," all will see, who will examine.
The Jews were then cast off. They were in captivity, at Baby
lon, and the prophet received encouragement from God that their
captivity should have an end, — that he would not cast off for
ever, but that the nation should be restored to their native land.
This perversion is so glaring, that some of the ministers of that
order begin to see that it is no benefit to their cause. In the
Banner, for August 5, 1843, is a sermon by W. R. French,
delivered before the Maine Convention of Universalists, in
which is the following :
" We contend that future punishment is not taught in the Old
Testament ; that all its inducements to reformation are drawn
from the fear of punishment and hope of reward, as suffered or
enjoyed in this hfe. Taking this ground, do we act consistently
in quoting texts from that book to prove that all men will bo
happy in the future life ? Does it look hke going on to perfec
tion ? To specify texts : Who has not heard the declaration of
Jeremiah : ' The Lord will not cast off forever,' Lam. 3 : 31,
adduced in proof of our doctrine ? Yet it has, probably, no
more reference to the future life, than to the temporal state of
the aborigines of America. Nor is this the sole text that might
be mentioned ; in a certain class of publications such evidence
abounds." True, Mr. French, this is not the only perverted text, and
Universalist pubhcations do abound with such evidence • and it
is also true that Universalism can be sustained in no other way.
The text connected with this to make out the argument is
equally a perversion. Rev. Sidney Turner, who renounced this
error in 1842, says, that while a Universalist preacher, he once
took this text, and so conscious was he that it did not teach the
salvation of all men, that he announced it to his congregation,
and told them that he thought it expressed a will of desire, and

1 32 universalism not of the bible. [Part I.
not a will of purpose. This of course was not very gTateful to
his audience. We quote from memory. Hear Mr. French
upon this text, in the sermon just named. He says :
"And would it not subject one to certain condemnation, a
query might be raised respecting the language of Paul, saying :
' Who will have all men to be saved, and come unto the knowl
edge of tbe truth.' 1 Tim. 2 : 4. For saith Paul, 'I exhort
therefore, that first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions,
and giving of thanks, be made for all men ; for kings, and for
all that are in authority : that we may lead a quiet and peace
able life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and
acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour ; who will have all
men to be saved, and come unto the knowledge of the truth.'
If we let the context explain, will it appear that salvation, here,
means anything more than leading a quiet and peaceable life in
all godliness and honesty, which all those will possess who come
to the knowledge of the truth."
Truly, if Mr. French keeps on throwing aside all the per
verted texts, he will rip up the whole foundation, and the crazy
and baseless fabric of Universalism will come tumbling down
about his ears shortly. Mr. F. is still a Universalist preacher.
We see, then, that Mr. Whittemore perverts two texts to make
his argument. There are no two scriptures more frequently
quoted by Universalists, than these. They seem to rely upon
them with the greatest confidence, to prove their doctrine. On
the will of God, see Sec. LXXXV.
LVI. " Therefore leaving ike principles of tke doctrine of
Christ, let us go on unto perfection ; not laying again the
foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith
towards God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on
of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal
judgment." Heb. 6 : 1, 2.
Mr. Bulkely, a Universalist, in discussion with Rev. E.
Hutchins, is of the opinion that " the several doctrines enumer-

Sec. 57.] universalism not of the bible. 133
ated were certain tenets of the Judaising Christians, that were
not essential to Christianity." But the apostle explicitly tells
us they were " the principles of ihe doctrine of Christ."
Which shall we follow ? If Mr. B. is correct, then the " resur
rection of the dead " is not essential to Christianity, and if this
is so, what becomes of Universalism ? In his zeal against eter
nal judgment he has discharged a gun which has mortally
wounded himself. But says Mr. B., " There is only one place
in the scriptures where an eternal judgment is spoken of."
Well, what of that ? How many plain testimonies to a point
are necessary before we are to believe what God says ? As an
offset to this, we state that the expression, " all shall be holy
and happy," does not occur even once in the Bible, and the
phrase "destruction of Jerusalem" is not found in the New
Testament. Dr. Clarke has doubtless given the true sense of
the expression, " eternal judgment." " It is so called because
the decisions of the judge will be irreversible and ever during,
and not that he will be forever making that decision. " Observe,
the apostle in the order of his arrangement, places the judgment
after the resurrection, which was in keeping with Jewish doc
trines upon this subject. He wrote to the Hebrews, and as they
would understand him so should we. These Christians are
exhorted to leave these principles as the scholar leaves the ele
mentary principles ; not to abandon them as useless, but to go
on to higher attainments, for so far are the elementary principles
from being worthless, that, though he leaves them, they are of
constant use to the scholar in making proficiency in the higher
branches of knowledge.
LVII. " For lam now ready to be offered, and the time
of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I
have finished my course, I have kept tke faith : Henceforth
there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness which the
Lord, tke righteous Judge, shall give me in that day," &c.
2 Tim. 4:6-8.
Of this striking passage the author of the Guide takes no

134 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
notice. It is not found in his index. But Mr. Balfour has
occupied no less than eleven pages of his Essay, in which he has
made his usual display of Greek criticism and scripture refer
ences, to prove that Paul had his eye upon the destruction of
Jerusalem when he addressed the above words to Timothy ! To
mention this to the honest reader of the Bible is to refute it. Paul
did not live to see Jerusalem's destruction, for he died under
Nero at least four years before ; neither did he expect to, for he
says: " The time of my departure is at hand." He stands,
as it were, between two worlds, and takes a pleasing retrospect
of his Christian and ministerial fidelity. He then looks forward
with eagerness to the judgment after death, where bis fidelity
would be rewarded with a crown of righteousness. Thus he
connects the present with his future state, for it is death that he
anticipates, and he is ready to be offered. How false the notion
that our conduct here affects not our future condition. (Sec.
XXVI.) Since writing the foregoing, a book has come to hand entitled
" The Future Life," by. J. Harris, containing the last edition
of the Universalist perversion of this text. Speaking of the
crown upon which the apostle had his eye, he says : " We need
not wonder that St. Paul should expect, after having fought his
battles in the cause of Christ, to have his name written high on
the records of the church." Page 191.
Posthumous honors, a great name in this world after death,
then, was what the apostle aspired to. His ambition " to have
his name written high on tke records ofthe church," was what
prompted him to sacrifice and suffer so much ; this was the
crown of glory he had in view ! But this crown was not only
for him, but for all those who " love his appearing." Hundreds
of his fellow Christians loved the appearing of Christ too, and
of course were all entitled to a crown. But do all of their
names appear high on the records of the church ? But very
few of them appear at all on the record. What an abominable
perversion !

SeC. 58.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 135
LVIII. "And as he reasoned of righteousness, temper
ance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled." Acts 24 : 25.
Upon this text Mr. Whittemore inquires, " Does the passage
say this judgment was to come in ihe future state ? No."
What paltry quibbling this, well befitting the cause it is designed
to support. So a future judgment is not meant in the text
because the exact expression, "future state " is not appended.
Can Mr. W. cite us to a passage in the scriptures where it says
in so many words, that all, or even any, men shall be saved in
the future state? No. Is there therefore no future salvation
taught in the Bible ? Mr. W. fails to inform us what judgment
is meant, but turns us over to Mr. Balfour. We take up Mr.
B.'s Essays and find eight pages filled with his learned parade
to show that Paul reasoned of the judgment about to come upon
the Jewish nation. A sad announcement that to a Roman gov
ernor. No wonder that he trembled to hear that the enemies of
Rome should be conquered, and their proud city destroyed ! We
leave the text with the common sense of the reader without fur
ther remark.
LIX. " Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness," &c.
" For as many as have sinned without law, shaU also perish
without law ; and as many as have sinned in tke law, shall be
judged by the law, — in the day wken God shall judge the
secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel."
Rom 2: 4-16.
Tbe falsity of refering this to the overthrow of the Jews, as
Mr. Whittemore has done, ( Guide, p. 179,) is apparent from
the fact that this was addressed to converted Jews and Gentiles
more than fifteen hundred miles from Jerusalem ; and of course
Christians so remote could have but little to fear from its de
struction. Paul speaks of a day of wrath and revelation of the
righteous judgment of God," (ver. 5,) which is not only gen
eral but particular. " To every man according to his deeds,''
to those Christians who continued in well doing, " eternal life."

136 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
But to those who should apostatize, " who are contentious and
obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and
wrath, tribulation and anguish." Ver. 8 and 9. But what
had Christians at Rome to fear from the destruction of Jerusa
lem, even though they should apostatize and obey not the truth ?
Or had they anything to fear from the Roman government in
case they renounced their Christian faith ? It would have been
the most ready way to have secured its favor, as all know who are
acquainted with the history of those times. The destruction of
Jerusalem was a judgment upon the Jews, as Universalists
assert. Now as if the apostle foresaw that some might pervert
his words by applying them to the Jewish calamity, he declares
that the rendering of which he speaks should be made not only
to the Jews, but " ALSO TO THE GENTILES." Yer. 9
and 10. This thought itself shows the glaring perversion of
the passage by Universalists. In this day of judgment, those
who had not the written law, heathens, are to be judged. Yer.
12-16. But heathens, as we have seen, were not judged at
Jerusalem. The apostle is treating upon the same day of judg
ment he is in chap. 14 : 10-12. (Sec. LXI.)
LX. " Some men's sins are open beforekand, going before
to judgment; and some men they follow after." 1 Tim.
5:24. Taking the position that no sinner is punished beyond this
life, (Sec. XLIX.) Universalists have never been able to meet
the argument against that view, drawn from the fact that some
die in the act of sinning. (Sec. XLVI.) To escape the diffi
culty, a flippant use is occasionally made of this text to give the
impression that God can and does punish sin, sometimes, at
least, before it is committed. We shall now show the unsound
ness of this position. If God punishes sin before it is commit-
ed, then the divine administration becomes indebted to the sin
ner, and he has the right, and can demand the privilege, of
sinning as much as he has been punished for. There is no

Sec. 60.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 137
evaiding this, if justice is connected with the divine administra
tion. Now as this involves an absurdity not to be conceived of
in the administration of a wise and holy God, the doctrine which
produces such a conclusion must be false. Every discerning
mind must see that such a view is contrary to all just concep
tions of human or divine law, and that none but those who are
hard pushed with truth will have recource to so miserable a sub-
terfuge. Again : We are frequently told that there is no future pun
ishment, because punishment is consequential and is inseparable
from sin. But if sin is prepunished, then is the punishment
seperate from the sin, which contradicts a very essential doctrine
of American Universalism. We are told of the hell of con
science. But how can men suffer in their consciences for sins
not committed, and of which they can have no conceptions?
The passage at the head of this has no reference whatever to the
infliction of God's penalties upon sinners. Paul is giving direc
tion respecting appointing men to the sacred office of the ministry,
and says, ver. 22 : " Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither
be partaker of other men's sins," i. e., by inducting improper
men into the sacred office. He then says, ver. 24 : " Some
men's sins are open beforehand," &e. Upon this, Dr. Clarke
gives the following : " In appointing men to sacred offices in the
church, among the candidates Timothy would find, —
" 1. Some of whom he knew nothing, but only that they
professed Christianity. Let such be tried before they are
appointed. " 2. Some, of whose faith and piety he had the fullest knowl
edge ; and whose usefulness in the church was well known.
" 3. Some, whose lives were not all, or but partially reformed ;
who were still unchanged in their hearts, and unholy in their
hves. " The sins of these latter were known to all ; they go before to
judgment ; with them he could have no difficulty ; there might
8*

138 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
have been hypocrites among them, whose sins could not be
known till after they were brought into the sacred office. The
characters of all should be fully investigated. The sins of some,
before this investigation, might be so manifest as to lead at once
to condemnation. The sins of others might be found out after,
or in consequence of, this investigation : and those that were
otherwise could not be long hid from his knowledge, or the
knowledge of the church. On all these accounts the exhortation
is necessary, ' Lay hands suddenly on no man.' " Clarke in
loco. LXI. " Wherefore God hath highly exalted him, and given
him a name which is above every name : that at the name of
Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things
in earth, and things under the earth ; and that every tongue
should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God
the Father." Phil. 2 : 9-11 ; Rom. 14 : 10-12 ; Isa. 45 :
23-25. This text seems to be relied on with the greatest confidence
to prove Universalism. But why do those who use it give us no
light on its parallel, found Rom. 14 : 10-12 ? It reads thus :
"But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set
at nought thy brother ? for we shall all stand before the judg
ment seat of Christ. For it is written, as I live, saith the Lord,
every knee shall bow to me and every tongue shall confess to
God. So then every one of us shall give an account of himself
to God." These texts are quotations of Isa. 45 : 23-25. "I
have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in
righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee
shall bow, every tongue shall swear. Surely shall one say, in
the Lord have I righteousness and strength ; even to him shall
men come ; and all that are incensed agamst him shall he
ashamed. In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified,
and shall glory." The passage in Romans is a more full quota-

Sec. 61.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 139
tion of the prophet than the one in Phihppians as the following
comparison will show :
Isaiah. Eohams. Philippiahs.
" I have sworn by my
self." 'Every knee sh'all

bow. " Every tongue shall
swear." "EventohimBhall men
come."

" As I live saith the
Lord." "Every knee shall
bow." " Every tongue shall
confess." " For we must all ap
pear before the judgment
seat of Christ."

" Every knee shall
bow." " Every tongue shall
confess."

We examine four volumes of Universalist books, each with a
copious index of texts ; but they furnish no light upon the pas
sage in Romans, while the passage in Philippians is never omit-
ed. We take up the Guide, look at the index, and are referred
to p. 186 ; turn to it, and are put off with the author's sophistry
on 2 Cor. 5 : 10. Now, why this concealment of the passage in
Romans ? It is doubtless seen by these men that if it is brought
out in connection with its parallel in Philippians it will destroy
all their capital, by teaching a future judgment. Universalist
writers unhesitatingly refer the passage in Philippians to the
future state, for it is in the resurrection state that all, as they
say, are to be saved. We also admit its future state reference.
But it bears no mark of a future reference that the text in Ro
mans does not. Universalist reader, be honest with yourself in
this business. Remember that there is a reason why the leaders
in your order maintain a dead silence respecting the last named
text. They have labored to make you believe in no future
judgment ; and then that Isa. 45 : 23-25, and Phil. 2 : 9, 11
teach the salvation of all in the future world. But the truth
is, Isa. 45 : 23-25, Rom. 14 : 10-12, and Phil. 2 : 9-10 are
correlative passages, and if one is referable to a future state, all
are, and then tke judgment seat of Christ is in the future state ;
while on the other hand if the judgment named is referable to
Jerusalem's destruction, or any calamity in this world, tke
lowing and confessing named is confined to this world, and
the passages in Isa. and Phil, can no longer be pressed into tke
service of Universalism. Paul says in Romans : "We shall

140 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Parti.
all stand before the judgement seat of Christ." Question:
How do you know this, Paul ? Answer : "It is written, (Isa.
45 : 23,) as I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,
and every tongue shall confess to God. So, then, every one of
us shall give an account of himself to God." Thus the apostle
quotes Isaiah in proof of a future judgment. As this may meet
the eye of one of the few, who, like Murray, admit of a future
judgment, but conclude that universal salvation is indicated at
that time, a few thoughts will now be offered upon some points
relied upon. Stress has been laid upon the universality of the
language, " every knee shall bow," &c. That all shall bow to
Christ's authority in the judgment, we believe, whether willing
or not ; but it by no means follows that all shall be saved. But
it is said, Isa. 45 : 24, " Every tongue shall swear." Some
have concluded from this that all will swear allegiance to Christ
and yield him a willing obedience ; but this is all assumption.
It is worthy of remark, that for the word swear, Paul substi
tutes the word confess in both of his quotations. All in the day
of judgment will confess Christ's Lordship and the justice of his
decisions to the glory of God the Father, who hath submitted to
him this judgment. They will also confess their course of life
to him. "So then everyone of us shall give an account of
himself to God." The devil once confessed Christ, (Mark
1 : 24) ; but this was no evidence of his holiness and happiness.
" All that are incensed against him shall be ashamed." May
not wicked persons be ashamed of conduct they still persist in,
" In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall
glory." Universalism says, " In the Lord shall all the human
race be justified, and shall glory." The prophet contradicts this
by confining the blessings to "THE SEED OF ISRAEL."
If reference is had to the natural descendants of Israel, then all
men are not included ; and if to his spiritual seed, which is
doubtless the fact, then all are not embraced, but only behevers
in Christ. Rom. 9:6; Gal. 3 : 7, 29. Instead of universal
salvation, a universal judgment is taught, when all shall be

Sec. 62.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 141
obliged to confess the justness of its decisions to the glory of
God the Father. But how can it be for the glory of the Father
if all are not saved ? We answer : In the same way that an
earthly government is glorified by the righteous decision of its
courts, and the just execution of its penalties.
One thought more. Universalists sometimes tell us that the
change by which all are to be saved, will take place " in a mo
ment, in the twinkling of an eye," that " there will be no con
dition for man in the future state, but that in which he will be
as the angels of God in heaven." Balfour's Essay, p. 192.
Trumpet, No. 679. Yet by the use they make of two of the
foregoing passages they teach us that men in the future state
will bow the knee, swear allegiance, be incensed, be ashamed,
&c, &c. The reader must reconcile these as he best can.
On confessing at the judgment, see a quotation from Josephus,
in Sec. XLI.
LXII. " For aU shaU know me from the least of them unto
the greatest of them, saith the Lord." Jer. 31 : 33, 34.
In this chapter the Prophet is speaking of the superior advan
tages of the Christian dispensation over the Jewish, and of the
spiritual blessings secured by the new covenant. See context,
also Hebrews, 8th chapter. It will be perceived that the word
all occurs in the text, and this is enough for Universalist ex
pounders to seize it, and declare that it teaches the salvation of
all men in eternity ! "In regard to the future condition of
mankind, the Bible declares explicitly, that all shall ultimately
know God, 'from the least to the greatest.' Jer. 31:34."
Guide, p. 270. This is a perversion. The covenant is not
made with aU men but with " the house of Israel," v. 33 and
the prosperous state of things named is not predicated of all men
in eternity, but of the seed of Israel in this world, where it is
possible for them to "cease to be a nation before the Lord,"
v. 36. The triumphs of Christianity are predicted here in the
world, and God's true Israel will enjoy the blessings named
Rom. 2 : 29 ; John 1 ; 47 ; Rom. 9:6.

142 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
LXIII. " But the way of transgressors is hard." Prov.
13:15. Often has it been proclaimed that the teachings of Christian
ministers tend to immorality, because they instruct the people
that sin is pleasurable, and thus lead men to seek pleasure in
sin ; while Universalist ministers are the only true reformers,
because they teaeh that the way of transgressors is hard. The
manner in which this is often done, amounts to a gross libel on
Christian ministers, as their constant hearers know full well.
(Sec. XLVI.) The gospel minister has at his command all the
motives a Universalist can possibly urge drawn from the effects
of sin in this life ; and in addition to these he has the powerful
motive to urge of the fearful retributions of eternity. But
while he shows the effects of sin upon the sinner here, and that
on a comparative view there is no true and lasting peace to the
wicked, he feels not at liberty to proclaim that there is absolutely
no pleasure in sin, — for this would not only contradict the Bible,
but tho experience of every sinner ; hence, he points out sinful
pleasures, exposes their delusive character and ruinous effects,
and labors to dissuade all, and especially the young, from follow
ing them. The man of observation, acquainted with his Bible
and capable of reflection, knows that in man's depraved state,
there are many sins committed for the sake of the sensual pleas
ure derived from the act. If Universalists choose to take the
position that there is no pleasure in sin, why, then they are only
at their own business — arraying themselves against common
sense and the Bible. See Heb. 11:25; 2 Thess. 2:12;
Prov. 4:16.
We subjoin the following, from the pen of another. "Those
who believe in future and eternal judgment, regard the ways of
the transgressor as hard indeed, involved as those ways are in
darkness here, and terminating as they do in ' everlasting de
struction from the presence of the Lord, and the glory of his
power.' But if Universalism be true, the ways of the trans
gressor are not so very hard ; they are quite tolerable. A Uni-

Sec. 64.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 143
versalist conscience, benumbed with fatality and seared with
guilt, and case-hardened by an almost total absence of a sense of
accountabihty, cannot be supposed to give the transgressor a very
serious annoyance in his ways, especially if he be strong in the
faith that a hfe of pleasure, infamy and guilt, will inevitably ter
minate in glory. It will be a hard task to persuade such an one
that ' all is (not) well that ends well.' " Russell.
LXIV. " Concerning this sect, we know that every where it
is spoken against." Acts 28 : 22.
The primitive church, in its purity, met with general opposi
tion from wicked men ; and Universalists, because their system
is extensively opposed by good men, labor to make the impres
sion that they are the only true successors of the apostolic church !
To effect this, they avail themselves of this text. Universalism
is extensively opposed, not by the wicked, for it meets their de
sires, and administers to them an opiate ; but by Christians gen
erally. And is the opposition of the mass of enlightened Chris
tians, many of them possessing the best heads and hearts the
world has ever seen, to be taken as evidence of the purity and
truthfulness of that which they oppose ? While it is true, as a
general thing, that the wicked do oppose that which is religiously
good, it is also true that we are not safe in considering a thing
good merely because it is extensively opposed, even by wicked
men. Look at the Mormon delusion. Sure we are that no sect
in our country, in the nineteenth century at least, has suffered
more by persecution from wicked men than the Mormons. But
is this to be taken as evidence of the purity of their hves, and
the truthfulness of their system ? Universalists have never suf
fered a tithe of persecution compared with the followers of Joe
Smith ; neither have they suffered anything compared with the
Baptists, Puritans, and Methodists. These have all seen the
time when each could say, " we are the sect everywhere spoken
against." Indeed, so far are Universalists from being the per
secuted, that they have persecuted others. (Sec. CXIX.)

144 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
Reader, when you hear a zealous disciple claiming apostohc suc
cession for Universalism from this text, just ask him if the Mor
mons have not a claim equally good.
LXV. "And being made perfect, he became the author of
eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." Heb. 5 : 9.
Does this text sound like Universalism ? That declares that
all shall have eternal salvation, whether they obey Christ or not.
But the apostle, speaking of moral agents under the gospel, con
fines this salvation to such as OBEY Christ. Which shall we
follow, Universalism or the Bible ? And then, again, Univer
salists deny that Christ is the author of future salvation. He
came not to provide it, but to proclaim it, is the doctrine. See
Sec. XXIX.
LXVI.- ' ' For if we sin wilfully, after that we have received
the knowledge ofthe truth," &c. Heb. 10 : 26-31.
This passage evidently teaches the doctrine of future retribu
tion. Death without mercy can be considered in no other light
than the severest of temporal punishments. But the text threat
ens a sorer punishment even than "death without mercy.''
What will Universalists do with this? Do with it? Why,
throw it into Jerusalem's destruction, the common receptacle of
all stubborn texts. Guide, p. 104. How absurd ! What
evidence had the apostle that all or any of the Christians who
might apostatize then, should live and be present to suffer by
the Romans at Jerusalem ? Just none at all. This epistle
bears date A.D. 64, six years before Titus came against the
Jews, and was addressed to Hebrew Christians who were scat
tered all over the Roman Empire. And then he does that
which is a great abomination in the eyes of Universalist divines,
for he appeals to the fears of Christians, to save them from apos
tasy. Hear him. " For we know him that hath said, Ven
geance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord."
So there is something in the Divine administration called YEN-

Sec. 67.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 145
GEANCE. How unlike Universalist teachings is this ! What
would be thought of a preacher of that order who should urge the
vengeance of God as a motive to move his hearers? (Sec. LXIX.)
And how long would his people employ him as their teacher ?
Again, " It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living
God," v. 31. But why a fearful thing, if " a just punishment
is as essential for our welfare as anything that love can do? "
Why should the most vile apostate of our race fear to fall into
the hands of the hving God, if all are to be taken to heaven,
irrespective of character here ? Paul, in the passage, shows the
possibility and awful consequences of apostasy, and solemnly
appeals to their fears respecting the future ; after which he ap
peals to their hopes and consciousness concerning the faithful
Christian's reward in heaven. He reminds them of their former
sufferings and sacrifices, and says ; " For ye had compassion of
me in my bonds, and took joyfully of the spoiling of your goods,
knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and endur
ing substance. Cast hot away, therefore, your confidence, wliich
hath great recompense of reward. For ye have need of patience ;
that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the
promise," v. 34, 35, 36. Here it will he seen that heaven,
with its letter and enduring substance, is presented as the result
of their Christian fidelity. Read the chapter from v. 24 to v.
36, and it will be seen that it lies with mighty weight against
more points than one of modern Universalism.
LXVII. " For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from
heaven, and returneth not thither," &c. Isa. 55 : 10, 11.
In their very frequent use of this passage, Universalists always
assume the very point in debate, namely, that it is the pleasure
or purpose of God to save all men unconditionally in the future
state. This we deny, for whatever the work to be accomplished
by this " word," or wherever done, one thing is evident, which
is, that its benefits are only to be received upon conditions.
This is clear, not only from the context, (verses 6 and 7,) but

146 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
from the figure employed in the passage. Observe, it is " as
the rain," " so shall my word be." Is it the purpose of God,
in sending the rain, to give the fruits of the earth to all men,
whether they till it or not? By no means. But it is to " give
seed to the sower," &c There is no need of enlargement here.
But what is God's word here spoken of, and is it to accomplish
the salvation of all men in the future state, according to Univer
salist expositions of scripture ? God's word mentioned in this
passage, says Mr. Whittemore, is the gospel. Guide, p. 40.
Well, what is the gospel ? It is not the salvation of all men
in the future state, but is simply the good news or glad tidings
which announces the fact that all will be saved. So say Uni
versalists. The gospel, according to their notions, is perfectly
independent of the salvation of men in the future state, just as
much so, as announcing the fact that there is such a place as
London, is independent of that fact. It is contended that gos
pel salvation is the effects experienced in this life of believing
the doctrine, that all will be saved hereafter, and that preaching,
receiving, or rejecting the gospel, will not affect our future salva
tion in the least. Mr. Whittemore ridicules the idea of man's
conduct being recompensed in a future state, and says, it "is
alike reasonable with saying, that a man who sows a field of
grain in Massachusetts, shall reap the harvest from it in the
State of Ohio." Trumpet, No. 635. By the way, we suppose
it is very reasonable to him for a man to sow a field of grain and
reap the crop just as quick as he has sown it ! In other words,
it is quite clear to him, that men are punished for their sins as
soon as they commit them. (Sec. XLIX.)
From the preceding we learn as follows :
1. The word that goeth forth, and is to accomplish that which
the Almighty pleases, is the gospel, i.e., the good news of the
salvation of all men in the future state.
2. This gospel, or good news, is independent of what it de
clares, and does not in the least affect the future condition of any
man, as all will be saved in the future state, whether they hear

Sec. 68.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 147
the good news in this life or not. It is seen, then, that accord
ing to Mr. Whittemore's own showing, the declared prosperity
of the word or gospel named in the passage, does not secure the
salvation of all or any men in the future state. Yet, when it
will serve his purpose, he can give it a future-state reference,
and use it to prove Universalism, as he has done on pp. 29 and
40 of his Guide. And thus the Scriptures are perverted, and
the people deceived. If there is a jingle of words, if perchance,
there is universal language in a passage, no matter what it was
designed to teach, or what its connection, no matter whether it is
spoken of the Jewish nation, or of the spread of the gospel in
this world, or of Christians only — it is taken and connected;
perhaps, with one or two other texts equally perverted, and thus
a Universalist argument is made. In proof of this, see Mr.
Whittemore's " One Hundred Arguments," which are wholly
made up of mangled and perverted texts.
The design to be accomplished by this word is seen in the
commission given hy Christ himself to preach it, which is as fol
lows : "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every
creature. He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved ;
but he that believeth not, shall be damned." Mark 16 : 15, 16.
LXVHI. " What shall I do to inherit eternal life." Luke
18:18. The phrase in our translation rendered eternal life, occurs
twenty-seven times in the New Testament ; and the phrase ren
dered everlasting life occurs thirteen times ; making in all forty
times, all of which, according to Universalist writers, mean some
thing experienced in this world. Mr. Whittemore says :
"Notwithstanding 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 when
ever they embraced it, the author takes this opportunity to say,
that he undoubtingly believes that a future state of immortality
and incorruption is revealed in the New Testament. This, like

148 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
the present existence, will be the gift of God, and cannot, in the
nature of things, as seems to us, be affected by the conduct of
men in this life." Notes on Par., p. 354.
Here it would seem that Mr. Whittemore is almost startled at
his own sentiments, and lest he should be thought an infidel
downright, he is under the necessity at the close of his book, of
informing his readers that he believes that a future state is taught
in the New Testament ! Again he says :
" What is meant by eternal life ? This phrase is not used by
the sacred writers to signify endless blessedness beyond the
grave, but that state of spiritual life and peace which was the
immediate effects of faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ."
Guide, p. 140.
The question may arise in the reader's mind, why it is that
Universalists should desire to destroy the future-state reference
of this phrase ? It is because it stands in such connections in
the Bible, that if it is admitted to mean a state of bliss, it con
firms, by parity of reason, the doctrine of future punishment.
Notwithstanding Mr. Whittemore, in the Guide, denies the
future-state reference of the expression " eternal life," yet such
is the twistical character of the man upon this subject, that he
can, in this same Guide, use this same phrase, " eternal life,
four times, to teach the salvation of all men in the future state!
See Guide, pp. 25, 45, 46, 52. How long would these men
be troubled with the Bible at all, were they left to themselves,
and the world sufficiently prepared for them to destroy it, and
substitute one of their own inventing ?
All true believers possess the seminal principles of a future
blissful life in this world ; and in view of it the inspired pen
men use the phrase "everlasting life" in a few instances, in
this sense, as in John 5 : 24, " He that heareth my words, and
believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life ; " also John
6 : 47, and a few other places. Universalists seize hold of these,
and claim the right to interpret all the rest of the passages where
the expression occurs by them, and thus deceive the people.

Sec. 68.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 149
The truth is, the phrase, primarily and properly, means a life of
bliss beyond this. This is evident,
1. From Jewish belief. In 2 Mace. 7 : 9, a Jew who was
put to death for refusing to eat swine's flesh, says to his mur
derer, " Thou, like a fury, takest us out of this present life, but
the King of the world shall raise us up, who have died for his
laws, unto everlasting life." We bring this simply as histori
cal evidence of what the Jews believed respecting everlasting
or eternal life. It bears date B.C. 167. Again, Josephus in
his Discourse on Hades, speaking of the intermediate state, gives
the following as the belief of the Jews : " But the countenance
of the fathers and of the just which they see, always smiles upon
them, while they wait for' that rest, and eternal new life in
heaven, which is to succeed this region." Now in the hght of
this behef of the Jews, let us look at the case of the young ruler.
He being an educated Jew, well understood Jewish theology.
His question is, "What shall I do to inherit eternal life?"
The Saviour answers, and adds, "and thou shalt have treasure
in heaven." This answer shows most conclusively that the
Saviour understood him to be anxious about his future state, and
that " treasure in heaven " is synonymous with "eternal life."
That eternal life properly means a life' beyond this, is evident,
2. From the absurdities involved by the Universalist inter
pretation of the phrase. Let us take two or three of these
illustrations. Matt. 25 : 46, " But the righteous into life eter
nal." This, we are told, "is that spiritual life which the
believer enjoys in this state." Notes on Par., p. 353. Now
the righteous must be already spiritually alive, or else they are
not righteous. This interpretation, then represents the judge as
sending the spiritually alive into spiritual life, which is mani
festly absurd ; therefore, cannot be the true interpretation.
John 12 : 25, " He that lovethhis life shall lose it, and he that
hateth his life in this world, shall keep it unto life eternal."
Life eternal, in this text, is contrasted with life in this world.
Just confine the meaning of " life eternal" to this world, and

150 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
the passage is reduced to this absurdity : He that hateth his life
in this world shall keep it, by gaining, by the loss of his life,
that eternal life which is enjoyed in this world. Or, in other
words, after he is dead he shall come back and enjoy spiritual
life in this world ! Is it said that the expression " this world "
means " this age," before the destruction of Jerusalem ? Then
we may read it thus : He that dies before the destruction of Je
rusalem, shall have eternal life by living through that destruc
tion ! But the word rendered world here, is not aion, which
in some instances means " age," but kosmos, the most appro
priate word for world. (Sec. XI.)
The more the reader thinks upon this passage, the more will
he see the violent wresting and absurdity of those who confine
the phrase " eternal life," to the spiritual life the believer enjoys
in this world. Take one text more. Titus 1 : 2, "In hope of
eternal life, which God that cannot lie," &c. Here Paul repre
sents himself as hoping for eternal life. Hope respects the
future. Paul was a. holy Christian, and of course aheady spir
itually alive. Now if eternal life means spiritual life in this
world, then the hope of Paul implies that he was destitute of
spiritual life, for what a man has in his possession he does not
hope for. Was Paul destitute of spiritual life at tbis time?
Was he a wicked man ?
We here present the reader with an entire argument from Mr.
Whittemore, in which he gives the expression " eternal life," a
future-state reference, the very thing he denies on page 140 of
the same book. He says, " The record which God hath given
of his Son, is this : ' That God hath given to us eternal life ;
and this life is in his Son.' 1 John 5:11. Is this record
true ? It surely is, Who are called on to believe it? All man
kind. If any man believes it not, he makes God a liar, by say
ing that God's record is not true. God, then, hath certainly
given eternal life to all men, in his divine purpose." Guide,
p. 52. This is one of Mr. W.'s One Hundred Arguments to
prove Universalism, i. e., the salvation of all men in the future

SeC. 69.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 151
state ; and thus he gives the phrase eternal life a future refer
ence. Which is to be beheved, Mr. W. on page 52, or Mr.
W. on page 140 of the same book ? If he is correct on page
140, and has proved anything by the argument, it is this : That
God hath certainly given in his divine purpose, to all mankind,
that spiritual life and peace which faith in the gospel imparts in
this world? As matter of fact shows that this has not been
accomplished, neither can it be, it is hoped we shall hear no
more from the author of the Guide about the absolute character
of the divine purposes. But, suppose that all the race of Adam
were in possession of the spiritual life and peace the Gospel im
parts in this world, would that secure them bliss in eternity ?
By no means, according to this author ; for, as we have seen,
in speaking of the eternal state he says, it " cannot in the nature
of things, as seems to us, be affected by the conduct of men in
this hfe." Beware, reader, how you follow such a crooked
Guide. In the text pressed into this argument, the apostle says,
" God hath given to us eternal life." This is spoken of believ
ers, and not of all men, as may be seen by v. 13. See also
John 3 : 15.
LXIX. " Fear not, little flock ; for it is your Father's good
pleasure to give you ihe kingdom." Luke 12 : 32.
Mr. A. B. Grosh, a great man, an editor and minister in the
Universalist order, uses this text, in connection with several
others where the expression "fear not " is found, to show that
men are not to be moved by fear " to repent and obey the com
mands of God." Of the Gospel, he says, " It makes its first
advances to the world of sinners, by exhorting them to "fear
not." To substantiate this, and to show that none have any
thing to fear, he quotes the expression as found in the address
to the shepherds, Luke 2:10; to Mary, Luke 1 : 30 ; to Zach
arias, Luke 1 : 13 ; to Simon, Luke 5 : 10 ; to the disciples,
Luke 12 : 32, also v. 7 ; to the women who sought the Lord at
the sepulchre, Matt. 28 : 5 ; and also what the Saviour says to

152 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Parti.
John, (Rev. 1 : 17,) " Fear not; I am the first and the last,"
&c. He will have it that those who teach that wicked men
ought to fear in view of God's penalties, are opposed to Christ,
who said, " fear not ; " and says, " but the wisdom of this world
has mingled its own inventions with the wisdom from on high,
and fear, /"ear, fear, is the grand instrument of convicting sin
ners, of converting them to the church, of confirming them in the
faith, and of keeping them steadfast unto the end of their pro
fessions. Fear of an endless hell — fear of an almost almighty
fiend — fear of the censures of the world and of the anathemas
of the church — these are the motives principally appealed to in
our days, to make and keep people religious." p. 52. With
this kind of cant do the advocates of Universalism labor to bring
into contempt the faithful teachings of Christian ministers.
Taking into the account the obvious design of the writer, it
stands thus : The scriptures enjoin upon certain persons, respect
ing some particular subjects, the duty to " fear not ; " therefore
all wicked and ungodly men have nothing to fear, and no appeal
should be made to their fears to deter them from sin ! But
where, we ask, is it to be found in the Bible that wicked men,
while continuing in their sins, have nothing to fear ? Has God
ever said to such, " fear not ? " Christians are complained of
because they would have men fear "an endless hell." To this
we plead guilty, but find ourselves in honorable company.
Christ said to the wicked, " Ye serpents, ye generation of
vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell." Matt. 23:
33. Here is an appeal direct to the fears upon this point, by
the Son of God himself. Hear him again ; " He that blasphem
eth against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in
danger of eternal damnation." Mark 3 : 29. Is there nothing
to be feared from eternal damnation ? This, being addressed to
Jews, must have been understood by them to mean just what
it seems to mean, for they believed in eternal damnation. But
men are made to fear " an almost almighty fiend." That gos
pel mmisters strive to impress men with a sense of their danger

See. 69.] universalism not of the bible. 153
from the temptations of the devil, is true ; and that there is such
a being, with subordinates, may be seen by turning to Sec.
XCVIII. They are made to fear " the censures of the world."
This is false, as all know who sit under the Christian ministry.
With great unanimity they urge their hearers to embrace Christ,
regardless alike ofthe frowns and flatteries of the world. Fear of
" the anathemas of the Church." That Christians are instructed
by their teachers to fear to violate their voluntary obligations to
the church, we admit. Since Universalists now form some asso
ciations they call churches, what do they teach concerning such
obligations ? Do they teach their members to " fear not " to vio
late ? It is complained that fear is the grand instrument in
"keeping them steadfast unto the end." That the fears of
Christians are appealed to frequently in the Bible, is most obvi
ous. When the sinner embraces the gospel, he is not freed
from the law as a rule of life, but strength is imparted by the
gospel, to assist the better to keep the law. Every law for the
regulation of human conduct has a penalty ; for, to talk of law
without a penalty, is a solecism. Every penalty is an appeal to
the fears of those who are bound to obey ; and although the
Christian is delivered from the fear of the penalty for sins that
are past, hy his justification, yet he is to fear to violate the law
in future, lest the apostate's hell be his doom. Hence the pro
priety of appealing to the fears, not only of unrenewed persons,
but of Christians. Says Paul, " Let us therefore fear, lest, a
promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should
seem to eome short of it." Heb. 4:1. This was addressed to
Christians. The Saviour enjoins fear upon his disciples. " Fear
not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul ;
but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body
in hell. Matt. 10 : 28. See also Heb. 10 : 26-31. We
should be obhged to transcribe no small -portion of the Bible,
were we to present all the passages where the fears of the
wicked are appealed to, and where fear is enjoined as a Chris
tian duty. Yet Universalism stands up in the face of all this,
9

154 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Parti.
and cries, " FEAR NOT ! " We must admit, however, that
at least in this, it is consistent with itself; for if " all the judg
ments of which the scriptures speak, are to destroy sin, and
reform the sinner," and if " no more punishment will be in
flicted than the good of the sinner requires," ( U. III. § Def,
pp. 248, 195,) why should any, enlightened by the luminous
rays of Universalism, ever fear the penalty of God's law ? What
should we think of a dying man who should fear to take a medi
cine he knew would cure him even though it were somewhat dis
agreeable? We say, then, that Universalism is consistent with
itself upon this point ; but this very consistency deprives it of
the character of a Christian system, inasmuch as it is directly at
war with the clear and evident teachings of the Bible. The
faithful minister uses fear as a motive, because the Bible
presents it as such ; but it is not the only motive with him.
He urges the love of God as developed in the gift of his Son,
and the gospel provisions. He urges the goodness of God as
seen in his mercy towards sinners, and 'in his long suffering—
bearing with sinners long when they deserve punishment. But
he appeals to the fears of men concerning the neglect and abuse
of these blessings, and the danger consequent upon such a course.
Noah was moved by fear to build the ark (Heb. 11 : 7) ; and
Christ, as we have seen, inculcates the same principle upon his
disciples. The love or goodness of God, it is admitted, is the
most noble principle ; yet, when we consider the fallen nature of
man, and the circumstances in whieh he is placed, fear will be
seen to be equally necessary. The truth is, God's government
is a reign of terror to the finally impenitent, and this by Paul is
urged as a motive against sin. " Knowing, therefore, the ter
rors of the Lord, we persuade mon." 2 Cor. 5 : 11.
" It is a question of vast importance, and which I fear minis
ters in general do not sufficiently attend to, whether the hve or
the terror of God operates most powerfully at first on the minds
of sinners. If they were governed by their reason, there would
be no necessity to preach the terror of the Lord to them; be-

Sec. 70.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 155
cause, as soon as they perceived that their interest and duty
are united, they would begin to promote the one by the practice
of the other : but he must have a superficial acquaintance with
men, who does not know that, in general, they are governed by
their corrupt passions and appetites, in opposition to the dictates
of reason and religion. The privileges of religion will never
operate as a motive on corrupt minds to practice its duties. Tell
them about the comforts of the Spirit ; the sweet communion
with God in religious exercises ; and the happiness of heaven, as
consisting in the vision of God, and the society of saints, angels,
and Jesus Christ ; in investigating the works and ways of God ;
singing his praises ; in loving and serving him forevermore ; — I
say, tell them of these things ; but, since they have no disposi
tion to enjoy them, they will express no desire after them. You
might as well cast pearls before swine. The temper of their
minds must be changed before such motives will have any influ
ence upon them. Should a minister neglect to address the
passion of fear, by leaving out the terror of the Lord, he may
preach the love of God, the joys of heaven, moral virtue, or
what he pleases, till his tongue cleave to the roof of his mouth,
without converting one sinner from the error of his ways."
Isaac. LXX. " Also unto thee, 0 Lord, belongeth mercy ; for thou
renderest unto every man according to his work." Ps. 62 : 12.
In view of the connection, the sense of the text is this :
Mercy is attributed to God, because he would deliver his people
and destroy their enemies (v. 3-8) ; while the obstinately
wicked, who delight in lies, (v. 4,) trust in oppression, and be
come vain in robbery, (v. 10,) shall be rewarded according to
their works. This scripture is often perverted to show that all
punishment is for the good of the sinner, and that men shall be
punished all their sins deserve, whether they repent or not.
That every man suffers the full penalty for all the sins he com
mits, may be considered a cardinal doctrine with American Uni-

156 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Parti
versalists. " Every man shall suffer to the full extent of his
deserts. There is no remission of punishment, either on account
of the Saviour's death, or the sinner's penitence." U. III. $
Def, p. 249. Quotations might be given harmonizing with this,
from most of their leading writers. In order to sustain this false
position, they are driven to another, viz., that the sinner maybe
fully punished and still forgiven. Says Skinner, " The com
mon opinion that forgiveness is a remission of punishment, is
altogether incorrect. We can be justly punished and still for
given." U. III. # Def, pp. 250, 254. Says Fernald,
speaking of the Bible, " It never teaches the forgiveness or re
mission of punishment for sins committed. It is the forgiveness
of sins ; by which is understood, the blotting out, or cleansing
from, after due justice is administered." U. against Part.,
p. 259. Says Sawyer: "Christ came to save men from de
serving punishment, rather than from punishment deserved."
Letter to Remington, p. 49. Another doctrine which Mr.
Whittemore asserts to be denominational, is, that the punish
ment of sin is executed as soon as it is committed, or that sin
punishes itself immediately. (Sec. XLIX.)
Now just compare these sentiments with the language of Paul.
" And be ye kind, one to another, tender hearted, forgiving one
another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you."
Eph. 4 : 32. Again : " Forbearing one another, and forgiving
one another ; if any man have a quarrel against any, even as
Christ forgave you, so also do ye." Col. 3: 13. In these
scriptures is taught most clearly that we are to forgive injuries
in the same sense that God forgives sinners. Now if all sin is
punished without delay, and if by gospel forgiveness none are
saved from deserved punishment, then we are taught to show no
mercy to those who have injured us ; for observe, we are to for
give those we have a quarrel against, even AS God for Christ's
sake hath forgiven us. Thus, to be in accordance with Univer
salist theology, the law of quick retaliation should universally
prevail in human society ! The injunction contained in these

Sec. 70.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 157
texts, when properly considered, entirely overthrows the doc
trine of no escape from punishment. A display of texts is made
by Mr. Skinner to show "that the scriptures never speak of
forgiving punishment," and that "forgiveness of sin only is
taught." U. 111. and Def, p. 250. This is not only weak,
but wicked, for the design is deceptive. Nothing is said of for
giving punishment, for the good reason that the sinner does not
commit punishment, but sin ; and when this sinful act is forgiven,
the sinner is saved from the punishment which would otherwise
follow. " What is pardon but a revocation of the sentence of
condemnation, and thereby a remission of the penalty of the
law ? We can form no other idea of pardon than this ; and the
reason is because sin — we speak of the transgression of the
law — is an action, not a substance, and therefore untangible,
and you cannot treat with it, either to forgive it, or to punish it,
apart from the agent which commits it. A sinner is pardoned
just so far as his punishment is remitted to him, and no farther."
Merritt. Great importance is attached to forgiveness, as every reader
of the Bible knows. But according to the hypothesis that none
are saved from deserved punishment by it, we think it would
puzzle a philosopher, as well as a divine, to show what advan
tage a forgiven sinner possesses over one that is not forgiven.
The forgiven is punished all his sins deserve, and the unfor-
given is punished no more. Such forgiveness is of equal value
with a pardon from his holiness the Pope. Having manufactured
a new theology, the leaders in the sect have found it necessary to
form a new language to suit it. What linguist has ever informed
us that forgiveness or pardon means to save from sin by pre
venting it in the future, and that too without conveying the idea
of deliverance from the punishment due sins that are past ?
These words are never so understood when employed in refer
ence to the common affairs of life. A number of persons unite
in petitioning the Executive of the State for the pardon of a
certam criminal in the state prison. The bearer of it appears

158 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
before the governor and explains as follows : May it please your
Honor : your petitioners do not wish to be understood as asking
that the criminal should be released from any punishment he is
doomed to suffer ; but on the other hand we desire he should
suffer the whole penalty. We mean by asking a pardon that
you should take away his love of crime and prevent his commit-
ing it in future. The Executive would either count the man
insane, or consider it an unmitigated insult. Some years ago,
President Jackson pardoned a leader of a piratical crew who
was under sentence of death in Boston. The pardon was
granted, not because he was innocent of the charge of piracy,
for none doubted his guilt, but in consideration of the pleadings
of his wife, and of a heroic and humane deed in which at one
time he had risked his own life to save others. On the reception
of the communication the officer in charge, with the Universalist
idea, would have reasoned thus : Pardon saves from the punish
ment of no sins already committed ; I will therefore proceed to
hang the man at the time appointed ! All must see that such
an act would be carrying out the Universalist idea of pardon,
for in such a case he would suffer the whole penalty and be most
effectually prevented from committing piracy in the future. But
what would the world think of that officer's idea of pardon?
The truth is, this notion that forgiveness implies no remission of
punishment for sins committed, is at war with common sense,
the common and established use of language, and the word of
God. That penitents have been saved from deserved punish
ment, and that such salvation is established in the economy of
God's grace, we purpose now to show most clearly from the
scriptures. So numerous are the texts where this doctrine is
taught, either directly or indirectly, that we shall present but a
few compared with the number which might be adduced, Take
the case of the woman in the house of Simon the Pharisee.
The Saviour said of her, (Luke 7 :47,) " Her sins, which are
many, are forgiven." That this had respect to sins already
committed, the language most explicitly declares. Remark :

Sec. 70.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 159
" Her sins, which are many," &c. Now sins could not be her
sins till she had committed them, hence she was, by her forgive
ness, saved from the punishment she deserved. This is clear
also from the illustration of the Saviour, as follows : ' ' There
was a certain creditor, which had two debtors : the one owed him
five hundred pence and the other fifty. And when they had
nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both." Ver. 41, 42.
Christ used this illustration to show Simon that the reason why
this woman loved so ardently was that she had been forgiven
much ; hence, he proposed the question respecting the forgiven
debtors, " wliich of them will love most? " Ver. 42. Simon
answered : " He to whom he forgave most." Ver. 43. The
Saviour replied : " Thou hast judged rightly." Ver. 43. But
according to the newfangled notions of Universalists, the forgive
ness of the woman reheved her from no punishment for past
sins, and the Saviour should have illustrated the case as follows :
" There was a certain creditor, which had two debtors : the one
owed him five hundred pence and the other fifty, and he exacted
the whole sum of them without remitting a single farthing, and
then frankly forgave them both ! " Such an act must have
produced great love for the creditor, and especially on the part
of the one that was forced to pay most ! ! So plain is this case,
that every honest mind must admit that the Universalist doctrine
of forgiveness is contradicted by the Son of God himself. If
we are not taught in this case, salvation from punishment for
past sins, by forgiveness, then, we can learn nothing from the
Bible. That forgiveness saves from punishment for past sins is
evident from these passages which s peak of remission of sins.
Take the declaration of Paul, where, speaking of Christ, he
says : " Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through
faith in his blood ; to declare his righteousness for the remission
of sins that arepast." Rom. 3 : 25.
Here the apostle asserts that Christ's righteousness was de
clared for the remission of sins that are PAST. To remit sin
that is past cannot mean to prevent the act, for to talk of saving

160 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
men from committing sin already committed, is to utter nonsense.
Sin, after it is committed, admits of no salvation except from its
guilt and punishment. What can be remitted of a sin past, but
the punishment ? Just nothing. Universalism opposes this
view, and in this it conflicts again, not only with the word of
God and Christian experience, but also with the most eminent
linguists of the age. Webster, in defining "remission," refers
to the scriptures, and says its meaning is, "Forgiveness; par
don ; that is, the giving up of a punishment due to a crime ; as,
the remission of sins. Matt. 26 ; Heb. 9." God's declaration
to sinners is, " When I say unto the wicked, thou shalt surely
die ; if he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and
right ; if the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had
robbed, walk in the statutes of life without committing iniquity ;
he shall surely live, he shall not die. None of his sins that he hath
committed shall be mentioned unto him." Ez. 33 : 14-16.
This has respect to past sins. Observe : "If the wicked restore
the pledge, give again that he had robbed — none of his sins
that he hath committed," &c A righteous God never threatens
a punishment which is not deserved, nor promises that which is
false or inconsistent. It will be seen at a glance that salvation
from deserved punishment for repentant sinners is here promised
by the God of truth, and thus is the Universalist assumption
again contradicted. (Sec. CIII.) Look at the parable of the
barren fig-tree : " A certain man," &c. Luke 13 : 6-9. We
suppose it will be readily admitted, that by the owner of this
vineyard God is meant ; and by the fig-tree we are to understand
accountable beings. Those represented by the fig-tree deserve
punishment. " Cut it down, why cumbereth it the ground? "
The intercession of the dresser of the vineyard, saying : " If it
bear fruit, well ; if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down,"
clearly indicates that, on condition of its bearing fruit in future it
should be saved from deserved punishment for its previous bar
renness. As this was spoken to illustrate the dealings of God
with men, salvation from deserved punishment is clearly taught.

Sec. 70.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 161
The man of Christian experience needs no argument to convince
him that forgiveness includes the idea of salvation from deserved
punishment ; neither does the man who is truly penitent for his
sins ever once imagine he has been fully punished for them up
to the present time, but enters deeply into sympathy with the
Psalmist and prays, " For thy name's sake, 0 Lord, pardon
mine iniquity, for it is great." Ps. 25 : 11. This supplication
stands directly opposed to the notion of no salvation from pun
ishment. Remark : Pardon mine iniquity or sin. No sin is
ours till it is committed. For it is great ; not will be great
after it is committed. It was pardon for past sin that the
Psalmist sought, as all must see.
Now we can form no conception of a blessing, called pardon
for past sin, save that of salvation from its consequences. Said
Ezra, that learned and pious scribe : " After all that has 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, and hast given us such deliverance as this." Ezra
9 : 13. What language could be framed to more positively con
tradict Universalism than this ? That says none suffer less than
their iniquities deserve, which is directly opposed to the Bible,
and of course must be false. The same fact is asserted by the
Psalmist : " He hath not dealt with us after our sins ; nor re
warded us according to our iniquities." Ps. 103 : 10. The
reader will please turn to Ex. 32:8-14: "And the Lord
said unto Moses," &c.
The following is from the pen of another upon this passage,
and also upon the threatening of God against the Ninevites :
" Here God is represented as threatening his people with an
overthrow, and as turning away from the evil which he thought
to do, at the intercession of Moses. The evil with which God
threatened them, was a punishment for the sin of idolatry, in
making and worshiping a golden calf. Now, this threatened
punishment was just, or it was not ; if it was just, then God
saved the rebelHous Isralites from a just punishment ; for he

162 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
turned away from the evil which he thought to do unto them,
and did it not ; and if the threatened punishment was not just,
then God once thought to do an unjust evil to his people ; there
fore, it must be admitted that God did save the people from
a just punishment, in this case, since it cannot be admitted that
he threatened and thought to do that which was unjust. The
divine clemency exercised towards condemned and devoted
Nineveh, is another instance of salvation from just punishment,
God threatened Nineveh with an overthrow in forty days, and
yet, on their repentance, it is said, (Jonah 3 : 10,) ' And God
saw their work ; that they turned from their evil ways ; and
God repented of the evil that he had said hie would do unto
them ; and he did it not.'
" The remarks which have been just made, on the case ofthe
idolatrous Israelites, will apply with equal force to the preserva
tion of Nineveh. God either saved the people of Nineveh from
a, just punishment, or else he threatened them with an unjust
punishment. It will not be a sufficient reply to this, to say that
the punishment, with which they were threatened, would have
been just had they not repented ; but in view of the change
which took place in their moral character, it was not just, and
therefore was not inflicted ; for this would be to suppose that
the threatened overthrow was intended as a punishment for their
sins which they had not committed, but which they would have
committed in future time, which is false.
"1. They were threatened directly for what they had already
done. The Lord said unto Jonah, (chap. 1:2,) ' Arise, go to
Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it ; for their wicked
ness is come up before me.' God here speaks of their wicked
ness in the present time, is come up, and not in the future, will,
or will have come up. God did not command Jonah to ciy
against them because they were about to be very wicked, but
because their wickedness had already come up before him.
' ' 2. Jonah attributes the preservation of Nineveh to the grace,
mercy and great kindness of God. (Chap. 4:2.) 'I knew

Sec. 70.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 163
that thou art a gracious God, merciful, slow to anger, and of
great kindness, and repenteth thee of the evil.' Now, on the
supposition that the Ninevites did not deserve the threatened
overthrow, in view of their reform, wherein do the grace, mercy,
and great kindness of God appear in their preservation ? This
view represents God as being gracious, merciful, and great in
kindness, merely because he did not inflict an unjust punish
ment, which is too absurd to be indulged in for a moment. It
is clear, then, that the punishment with which Nineveh was threat
ened, was just, in view of what they had already done ; and if so,
it is conclusive that God saved them from a just punishment."
Rev. L. Lee.
In the light of these scriptures we see the meaning of the
passage which Universalists drag into their service, found Ex.
34 : 6, 7 : "And the Lord "passed by before him, and pro
claimed, the Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-
suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy
for thousands, forgiving iniquity, and transgression, and sin,
and that will by no means clear the guilty."' The sense of
this text in obviously this : " God bears long with sinners when
they deserve punishment, and if they repent he forgives them,
but will by no means clear the guilty if impenitent." Many of
the threatenings, as well as the promises of the Bible, have con
ditions implied, though not expressed. Take, as an illustration
of this, God's message to Nineveh : " Forty days and Nineveh
shall be overthrown." Remark : It is not said it shallbe over
thrown, except the inhabitants repent ; but the language is pos
itive in its character, " shall be overthrown." But there was a
condition imphed though not expressed, for by their penitence
the evil was averted ; or, in other words, God cleared the guilty
as has been shown. Just so in the case before us; if penitent,
God will clear the guilty, but he will by no means clear such if
not penitent. The Lord in this passage declares himself to be
long-suffering. Peter gives him the same character, (2 Peter,
3:9): and Paul speaks of his forbearance and long-suffering.

164 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I
Rom. 2 : 4. By long-suffering is meant patience, clemency.
By forbearance, omitting to punish, lenity; i. e., sinners are
borne with when they deserved to be punished. But Univer
salist views drive long-suffering and forbearance completely out
of the divine administration. If God punishes men to the full
extent as soon as sin is committed, where, we ask, is his for
bearance and long-suffering ? A father punishes a child in every
instance just as soon as his commands are violated. What would
be thought of the man who should extol him for his long-suffer
ing and forbearance ? A. child of eight years would know bet*
ter. The falsity of the Universalist theory discovers itself in
contradicting the Bible in this as well as many other things,
The text at the head of this section is often used to prove that
God is merciful to the ungodly in punishing them, therefore
none will be punished more than shall be for their good. " We
admit that punishment is often connected with mercy, but not
that the mercy always extends to the individual sufferer.
" God ' divided the Red Sea into parts — and made Israel to
pass through the midst of it — but overthrew Pharaoh and his
host in the Red Sea ; for his mercy endureth forever.' Ps. 136 :
13-15. Mercy is here connected with the overthrow of Pharaoh
and his host ; but no man in his senses supposes the mercy
extended to the Egyptians. It was a mercy to the Israehtes to
be delivered in this way out of the hands of their enemies."
Isaac. So in Ps. 62 : 12, God is considered merciful because he
would protect his people and destroy their enemies.
One text more, and we leave the subject with the reader :
" He that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost hath never for
giveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation." Mark 3 : 29.
By this we see that forgiveness and damnation stand opposed to
each other. He who is forgiven is not damned, and he who is
damned is not forgiven. These words of Christ stand directly
opposed to the Universalist doctrine, that forgiveness saves from
no deserved punishment. To show that penitent believing sinners
are saved from merited punishment, we might call to our aid the

Sec. 71.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 165
doctrine of atonement, so fully established in the Jewish econo
my and consummated by the death of Christ, and taught all
through the New Testament, but especially in the epistle to the
Hebrews. But a sufficiency has already been presented to es
tablish the point with the candid. Universalist views of for
giveness are also refuted, Matt. 18 : 23-35.
LXXI. " For God shall bring every work into judgment,
with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be
evil." Eccl. 12 : 14.
It is inquired, "Is it said, 'God shall bring every work
into judgment ' in the future, immortal existence ? No such
statement is made. The Saviour said when on earth, ' Now is
the judgment of this world.' John 12 : 31 ; ' for judgment I
came into this world.' John 9 : 39 ; ' verily he is a God that
judgeth in the earth.' Ps. 58 : 11." Guide, p. 73. (On the
scriptures quoted see Sec. LI.)
Let us apply Mr. Whittemore's rule to his own doctrine. "Is
it anywhere said in the Bible that all men shall be saved ' in the
future, immortal existence ? No such statement is made. The
Saviour said when on earth,' ' This day is salvation come.'
Luke 19 : 9. Simeon said, ' Mine eyes have seen thy salva
tion.' Luke 2 : 30. Paul said, ' Now is the day of salva
tion.' 2 Cor. 6 : 2."
Now, if the argument of the Guide sets aside a future judg
ment, then is future salvation set aside by the same method,
and Universalism is proved a fable. So the man has discharged
a gun which blows his own brains out ! A kind of gun in very
common use among the class of writers to which he belongs.
The whole connection in which the text is found shows that a
judgment beyond the grave is intended. The inspired writer
brings it in as the winding up of the drama of human life. He
is giving a description of the scenes of old age and death, and
in a very impressive manner, adds : " Let us hear the conclu
sion of the whole matter : fear God and keep his commandments,

166 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every work
into judgment," &c. By judgment is here meant an examina
tion of conduct, a bringing to light of secret things, and decid
ing whether they be good or evil. But where in all the history
of this world is there anything which suits this language ? Some
die in the very act of murdering others. Such must he
judged in the future world if anywhere. See Sec. XLVI ;
also LX.
LXXII. "Behold, Ibring you good tidings of great joy,
which shall be to all people." Luke 2 : 10.
What is meant by the good tidings named? " The word
evangelizomai, here rendered, I bring you good tidings, is trans
lated, preach the gospel. Luke 4:18; 20 : 1 ; Acts 16 : 10.
The precise signification is expressed in the common translation."
So says Page, the Universalist commentator. The preaching of
the gospel, then, is what is meant by glad tidings. Well, what is
it to preach the gospel according to Universalists ? It is to pro
claim the salvation of all men. It is assumed, too, that all our
race are to be made joyful by these tidings. " The blessing was
designed for all ; hence the annunciation of it would be good
news, tidings of great joy, to all." Page in loco. The
tidings then are to produce the universal joy. But when is
this universal joy to take place by the preaching of Universal
ism. Not in this world, surely, Universalists themselves being
witnesses ; for they tell us that the blind Partialists are en
shrouded in gloom and sadness because they do not believe in
their doctrine ; and furthermore, millions have died who have
never heard of universal salvation. Now as it is affirmed that
all will be made joyful by the preaching of this gospel ; and as it
is an admitted fact that all are not made so in this world, it fol
lows that to produce this universal joy, this gospel must he
preached in the future state. But if this be so, then all are not
joyful in the future world ; for if they are, then they need no
gospel preached to make them so, and thus the idea so fondly

SeC. 72.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 167
cherished, that " there is no condition for man beyond death,
but that in which he is as the angels of God in heaven," is
blown to fragments at once. In view of this conclusion, growing
out of premises furnished by themselves, we see no other way for
them but, after having made so much proficiency in the science
of divinity, to go back to the old obsolete doctrine of their
fathers, by which they taught that devils and damned spirits
would have the gospel preached to them in hell, and thus be
recovered. It cannot be well doubted but the commission given
by Christ to preach the gospel would harmonize with the an
nouncement of the angels respecting the same subject. If the
angels, by their message, taught Universalism, the divine Saviour
knew it ; and if he was a Universalist, and came into the world
to establish that doctrine, we might reasonably expect to see
great prominence given to it in the gospel commission that he
gave to his apostles, especially as they were to go out to preach
among behevers in endless punishment. (Sec. CXXXII.) We
should expect to find in it something like the following : Go ye
into all the world and preach to all classes of sinners, saying,
fear not in your unbelief and wickedness, but rejoice and be ex
ceeding glad, for heavenly bliss is yours, irrespective of your
conduct here, as soon as death does its work, or at the next
conscious existence. Fearlessly expose and rebuke, before every
creature, the great errors of a future judgment and endless pun
ishment, showing them that hell is a fable, that their conduct
here takes no hold on the future, and that they cannot commit
sin enough to incur any more punishment than shall be for their
good. This, in substance, is a Universalist commission. But
the one our Saviour gave is very unlike this, and reads thus :
" Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every crea
ture. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; and he
that believeth not shall be damned." Mark 16 : 15.
Suppose Mr. Ballou had commissioned a class of men to have
preached his gospel, would he have failed to have inserted future
bliss for all, and hell for none. No Universalist of the modern

168 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE, [Part I.
school would be guilty of such an omission. But the Saviour
not only omits this, but says of those to whom the gospel is
sent, " he that believeth not shall be damned." How deficient
the Saviour was in commissioning men ; or rather, how false is
Universalism !
It is assumed that the phrase " all people," must mean the
whole of the posterity of Adam. That this is incorrect, is evi
dent from the fact before stated, viz.: that millions have died
who have never heard the gospel preached ; neither will they,
unless it is preached to them in the future world ; and this will
not be contended for by Universalists themselves, as it is de
structive to other fond notions of theirs. God threatened the
Jews, that if they worshiped other Gods he would make them
"a proverb and by-word among all people." 1 Kings 9: 7.
Were the Jews to be a proverb and by-word among the whole
human race ? Certainly not ; but only among them who should
know them after they had worshiped other gods. So the good
tidings are designed for all people to whom they are sent ; but
the history of Christianity shows that they have failed to make
all who have heard them joyful. That Christ died for all, and
that God, as a moral governor, wills the salvation of all moral
agents, is equally true ; and it is true, too, that all do not yield
obedience to his will. The Saviour preached his own gospel, but
all who heard it did not become joyful, but many were exceed
ingly enraged, and despised him and his message ; and his com
plaint was, " Ye will not come unto me that ye might have
life." He sent out apostles, and how did they succeed ? Paul,
although he was enabled to preach the gospel extensively, yet
his labors proved a savor of death unto death to some, (2 Cor.
2 : 16) ; and he threatened those who were disobedient to the
gospel with everlasting destruction. 2 Thess. 1 : 8, 9. Now
if the good tidings preached by the Son of God himself, and hy
his inspired apostles, failed to produce joy in great numbers of
those who heard them ; what folly to argue universal joy or

See. 72.] universalism not of the bible. 169
salvation as a result of the preaching of the gospel. It should
be observed that the text under consideration does not say that
the good tidings skodl make all people joyful, but they were to
be " to aU people," that is, they were to be proclaimed, not
merely to the Jews, but to all people, or as the Saviour com
manded, " to every creature; " hence, Simeon after clasping the
Saviour in his arms, said : " Mine eyes have seen thy salvation,
which thou hast prepared before the face of all people ; a light
to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel." Luke
2 : 30-32. But how can these be good tidings to all people if
all are not saved ? We answer, that those tidings deserve the
denomination of good which propose any advantages to us,
whether we avail ourselves of them or not. The quality of the
tidings does not depend upon the treatment they receive. To
deceive the unthinking, a play of words has been made upon
the fact that ministers preach the doctrine of endless punish
ment, and it is very gravely inquired, " If such doctrine can be
considered good tidings ? " Now the design of the gospel is not
to procure' or threaten men with this punishment, but to offer
them salvation from that to which they were already exposed.
A man is exposed to a midnight assassin ; a friend warns him of
it, and points him out a way of escape. Is not such a warning
good tidings to the man, although it apprizes him of great dan
ger ? Where there is no danger, there can be no deliverance.
The gospel is indeed glad tidings to men, because they are
greatly exposed, and in proportion as they discover their danger
will they prize their deliverance. If a man is saved from the
harmless bite of an insignificant insect, he will value it but
little ; but if he is saved from intense suffering, or an untimely
death, it will forcibly impress his feelings. The gospel cannot
be preached without pointing out the evils and 'danger from
which it proposes to deliver those who receive it ; and as the
faithful minister finds a future judgment and endless punishment
clearly revealed in the Bible, he urges the danger of these as a
motive why men should embrace the gospel. Universalists scout

170 universalism not of the bible. [Part I.
the idea of being exposed by sin to any suffering beyond this
life ; hence, they can never value their gospel very highly, for
they were never in any very great danger, and of course have
never experienced any great deliverance. This accounts for the
heartlessness found among its votaries when left to them
selves. Such is the want of vitality in the system, that were
New England wholly given up to this dogma it would soon die
out, so far as organization and support of its ministry is con
cerned. The great vital principle of action in the order is, op
position to others. Remove this, and there is not enough in it
to keep it alive a single year.
But the Christian sees in the gospel a great and glorious plan
to rescue man from eternal death ; and in Christ he sees a great
Saviour dying for his sins and becoming " the author of eternal
salvation unto all them that obey him," (Heb. 5:9); and all
this the effect of great love. He has felt, too, his own personal
exposure and wretchedness, and has been led to cry to God for
salvation through Jesus Christ, and has found the gospel to be
good tidings, for his is a great salvation. He now fe'els as no
man with Universalist views can feel, for he is forgiven much
and he loves much. Luke 7 : 47. Impressed with such views
and feelings, he needs not the spur of opposition to keep him
awake to duty, for the love of God is not merely talked of, but
is shed abroad in his heart by the Holy Ghost ; and this prompts
him to deeds of noble daring and sacrifice for Christ and lost
men, that they may receive the gospel too.
LXXIII. " For this purpose the Son of God was mani
fested, that he might destroy the works of the devil." 1 John
3:8. But what has the devil done ? Has his work exposed men to
a future hell ? Universalists will not admit this for a moment.
Well, what has Christ done by being manifested ? Did he come
to save from misery in the future world ? It is denied by high
authority among Universalists that Christ came into this world
to save men in the next. (Sec. CV.)

Sec. 74.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 171
1. According to this dogma, universal salvation is to take
place in the next world by the resurrection. (Sec. I. and
XCV.) 2. The works of either devils or men cannot endanger this
salvation, as it was all made sure when God created man. (Sec.
CV.) 3. Christ never came into this world to save men in the
next. With these positions, taken generally by the order, what force
or consistency is there in bringing this text, as Mr. Whittemore,
(Guide, p. 52,) and others of the order, are wont to do, to
prove the salvation of all in eternity ? Shall we so reflect upon
the intelligence of these men as to count them ignorant of these
contradictions in their arguments? Christ's coming- that he
might destroy the works of the devil, is expressive of the design
of his advent, but is a very different thing from saying that he
will save all men unconditionally. John in this same epistle,
(1 John 1 : 9,) has clearly stated the conditionality of this de
struction ofsin. " If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just
to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
In such penitent, believing hearts Christ destroys the works
of the devil and qualifies them for heaven. That the finally
impenitent will not be saved, because Christ was manifested that
he might destroy the works of the devil, is also seen by the fact
that to punish the sinner for his wickedness is not the work of
the devil. After the sinner has slighted mercy and failed to
comply with the conditions, and dying in that state, God's pen
alty must be inflicted, and there is no escape.
LXXIV. " That in the dispensation of the fullness of
times he might gather together in one aU things in Christ, both
whick are in heaven and which are on earth." Eph. 1 : 10.
In an unrestricted sense, the text includes not merely human
beings, but every created object, such as beasts, birds, fishes,-
reptiles, planets, &c. As none will contend that these things

172 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
are included, we see that the text is to be understood in a re
stricted sense. John the Baptist eame to " restore, all things."
Matt. 17 : 11. It was not his office to restore the universe to
its original order, or to restore the whole human race to bliss ;
but to restore all things to be restored by his ministry. (Sec.
XXX.) So God in the fulness of times will gather all things in
Christ to be gathered. The idea is, that in the "fullness of
times," when Christ shall have finished his work as mediator,
when he shall deliver up the kingdom to the Father, (1 Cor.
15 : 24,) from whom he received it, (Matt. 28 : 18,) all the
saints in heaven, and all the faithful then living upon earth,
whether Jews or Gentiles by birth, shall be made to constitute
one triumphant church, as they are in fact one family now.
Eph. 3 : 15.
But bear in mind that it never was the design of God in the
gift of his Son, that moral agents who fail to comply with the
conditions of the gospel, should be gathered into the church tri
umphant. We learn by language equally strong, (Col. 1 : 20,)
that God designed to " reconcile all things unto himself," by
Christ. But we also learn from the context that the reeonciliar
tion takes place in this world, and that it is conditional, for the
reconciled are exhorted to " continue in the faith," and not to
be moved away from the hope of the gospel ; " and the apostle,
speaking upon the same subject, (2 Cor. 5 : 19, 20,) shows not
only that the work takes place in this world, but conjoins this rec
onciliation with the moral agency of men ; for while the ambassa
dors for Christ beseech, sinners are to become reconciled, which
would be a work wholly uncalled for if all are to be reconciled
unconditionally in a future state. (Sec. LXXV.) Further
more, the Saviour has declared most explicitly that at the time
specified by the apostle, instead of a gathering of the whole
human race to constitute them happy forever, some shall be sent
"away into everlasting punishment." Matt. 25:46. Paul
teaches the same. 2 Thess. 1:9.

SeC. 75.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 173
LXXV. "And having made peace through the blood of
ihe cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him -.
I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven."
Col. 1 : 20.
This text simply informs us of God's design in giving his Son
to die for the world, which was that he might reconcile all things
unto himself by Christ. That the design contemplates in its
provisions the reconciliation of all men to God, is admitted. But
it does not follow from thence that all are, or ever will be, re
conciled, for there are certain terms of reconciliation presented
which men as moral agents are to comply with. That men can
resist the means by which God designs to bring about this recon
ciliation is clear from what the apostle says in another place upon
the same subject. Hear him : "To wit, that God was in Christ
reconciling the world unto himself, and not imputing their tres
passes unto them, and hath committed unto us the word of re
conciliation. Now, then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as
though God did beseech you by us ; we pray you in Christ's
stead, be ye reconciled to God." 2 Cor. 5 : 19, 20. Observe :
Universalists bring the text at the head of this to prove, not
that it is the purpose of God to make all holy and happy in this
world, but in the future, for the resurrection is to usher all into
bliss ; and they scout the idea that men in this world can do
anything towards procuring or preventing their final salvation.
(Sec. XCV.)
But it is the purpose of God that men shall be reconciled
in this world, and for this intent ambassadors are sent. That
this is correct we see by the scriptures following the passage,
where we learn that some were then reconciled, (v. 21,) and
that even after the reconciliation has taken place, final salvation
is suspended upon the condition of perseverance, (v. 22, 23) ;
for immediately after the apostle had expressed the pleasure of
God concerning the reconciliation of all things, he adds : " And
you hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death,
to present you holy, and unblemished, and unreprovable in his

174 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
sight ; IF YE CONTINUE in the faith, grounded and settled,
and be not MOVED AWAY from the hope of the gospel."
With what propriety a passage can bo brought which con em-
plates a reconciliation to take place in this world, in which man's
agency is employed, both as ambassadors and recipients of the
blessing, to prove that all will be saved in the future state, in
dependent of human agency, by the resurrection, the reader
must determine. The truth is, it no more teaches the salvation
of all men in the eternal state, than it does the return of the
Jews to Palestine.
LXXVI. " Behold ihe righteous shall be recompensed in
the earth, much more the wicked and the sinner." Prov.
11 : 31.
This text is adduced to prove that the righteous and the
wicked experience a full retribution in this world. But does
the passage assert this ? It neither asserts or implies this ; for
to understand it in the absolute sense of the language, it affirms
that the wicked and the sinner are much more than recompensed.
Again : The Universalist construction makes the first member of
the text deny that the righteous are recompensed in heaven,
which contradicts the Saviour. Matt. 5 : 11, 12. Our oppo
nents profess to believe in just rewards and punishments in this
world aceording to works ; that the wicked and the righteous suf
fer and enjoy all they deserve in this world as a result of their
conduct. But the Bible says : " All things come alike to all :
there is one event to the righteous and to the wicked ; to the
good, and to the clean, and to the unclean ; to him that sacri-
ficeth, and to him that sacrificeth not ; as is the good so is the
sinner." Eccl. 9:2.
This is asserted of men in this world, as the context shows.
Taking this text alone, we see that a retribution in this world is
positively denied ; and if we allow the Universalist construction
of Prov. 11 : 31, we have scripture arrayed point blank against
scripture. We have not introduced this text because we believe

Sec. 77.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 175
that the Spirit designed to teach that there is absolutely no differ
ence between the righteous and the wicked in this world, but
just to show what might be done were we to use the same license
Universalists do in applying scripture. They bring Prov.
11 : 31 to disprove future retribution, and with equal propriety
we bring Eccl. 9 : 2, containing language more explicit,
to disprove present retribution, and thus God's righteous
administration is banished from both worlds ! Now what does
this result teach us ? It shows us that to arrive at the truth, we
should compare scripture with scripture. If we take these pas
sages to the New Testament and compare them where the future
condition of man is more clearly brought to light, we shall find
that after death is the judgment, (Heb. 6:2; 9 : 27,) and that
endless punishment awaits the finally impenitent. Matt.
12 : 32 ; 25 : 46. That God smiles upon the good here, and im
parts an inward comfort that the wicked are strangers to, and
that he frowns upon the ungodly, and thus gives each a foretaste
of what awaits them in the future, is true ; but then the good
often suffer here by the conduct of the wicked, while some of
the wicked enjoy worldly comforts of which some of the pious
are deprived. Even their own pious acts have often been the
occasion of intense sufferings in this world. Ps. 34 : 19 ; John
16 : 33 ; Acts 16 : 22 ; 1 Cor. 15 : 19 compare with Job 21 : 7,
9 ; Ps. 73 : 3-12. Is this the way that each class is fully " re
compensed ? " (See Sec. XLVI.)
LXXVII. "Another parable put he forth," &c. Matt.
13 : 24-30.
With the exception of a few thoughts of our own respecting
the commencement of the Christian dispensation, by permis
sion of Rev. P. R. Russell, we present the reader with his able
refutation of the Universalist interpretation of this parable, as
found in his "Letters to a Universalist," p. 115-125.
He says : " This parable I regard as clearly teaching the pro
bationary nature of time, and the reality of a judgment to come.

176 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
But this natural and obvious view of the passage, you object to,
and refer me to standard authors among Universalists, for the
true scriptural sense of this portion of our Lord's preaching.
I will now examine the commonly received exposition of Univer
salists. Messrs. T. Whittemore and H. Ballou shall be our
guides. They differ a little between themselves, but in the main
agree. Let me then ask,
"1. What is meant by the field ? Mr. Whittemore answers :
' Here the word world is a translation of the Greek word
kosmos, which usually signifies the material universe. The
world, therefore, is to be understood in its usual sense in the
instance before us.' Whittemore on Par., p. 96. Now, re
member the field in which the wheat and tares were sown, is
' ihe material universe' A large field truly.
"2. What is denoted by the tares ? Mr. Ballou shall answer :
He tells us that the wheat represents sound doctrine, that is,
Universalism, and the tares false" doctrine, that is, the doctrine
of future and endless punishment. Hear him : ' Nor are tares
of a very different character from false doctrines, which make
many appearances like the truth, as tares do like wheat,
when in the blade.' Again: 'That it was the will of the
Saviour that false doctrines should be imbibed [Monstrous !]
until their fruits should come to maturity, is shown, in that he
saith, " Let them both grow together till harvest." ' Ballou's
Notes on Par., pp. 72, 68. A popular preacher of your de
nomination, a few months since, in preaching from this parable
addressed his audience thus : ' My hearers, do you not sometimes
feel a desire in your hearts, that all men may be holy and
happy in the world to come ? Yes. Well, this is the wheat.
On the contrary, do you not at times feel a shudder at the
thought that you may be seperated from your friends in eternity,
and that any of them should sink in endless torments? Yes.
Well, this is the tares.' That is, according to Mr. Ballou and Uni
versalist authors in general, pure, bona fide Universalism is the
wheat ; and the doctrine of future punishment is the tares.
Remember this.

Sec. 77.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. Iff
" 3. The harvest, or the end of the world, what does that
denote ? Mr. W. shall answer : ' It never should be forgotten
that the end of the world, at which the harvest was to take place,
was not the end of kosmos, the world said to be the field ; but
the end of aion, the age, and unquestionably referred to the
conclusion of the Jewish state,' i. e., destruction of Jerusalem.
Notes on Par., p. 101.
" 4. Our Saviour in his exposition of this parable, says :
' At the end of the world,' at the time of the harvest, ' the Son
of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of
his kingdom all them that offend, and them that, do iniquity.'
Who are these angels that the Son of man employs as reapers ?
Mr. W. will answer : ' It is certainly meant that the Roman
armies were the messengers (angels) which God sent to destroy
his rebelHous people, the Jews.' p. 103. Remember then,
the angels of Christ, were the Roman armies. They were the
reapers ofthe field, ' the material universe.'
" 5. Our Saviour says, in his explanation, that ' then ' 
(that is, at the end of the world), ' the righteous shall shine
forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.' What does this
denote, according to the new hght shed upon the scriptures by
modern Universalism? Mr. Whittemore will answer.
" ' Their persecutors, the Jews, being destroyed (at the de
struction 6f Jerusalem), and persecutions on every hand being
abated and softened, they would experience comparative earthly
felicity, and have an enlarged enjoyment of gospel peace and
life' Separated from the hypocrites, the church would be
pure ! ! ' p. 104.
" We have now before us the Universalist exposition of the
parable of the tares and wheat. It is furnished by two of your
most popular divines, fathers and oracles of the order. It is un
questionably the best exposition of which the system is capable.
Is it sound ? Will it stand the test of examination 1 Look it
over. The field is the material universe — the wheat is sound
doctrine, that is pure unadulterated Universalism. The tares
10

178 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
represent false doctrine ; particularly the doctrine of future pun
ishment ; the harvest or end of the world, was the destruction of
Jerusalem ; the angels were the Roman armies ; the exaltation
of the righteous, was the earthly felicity which Christians en
joyed at the destruction of Jerusalem. To all this I object.
"1. It contradicts the exposition which the Saviour himself
has given of this parable. After the multitude were sent away,
the disciples came to Christ with this request : ' Declare unto us
the parable of the tares of the field.' Now if Christ meant to
teach that at the destruction of Jerusalem, he would by the agency
of those ungodly, mercenary idolaters, the Roman soldiers,
gather the doctrine of future punishment out of the material
¦universe, and leave nothing but the doctrine of Universalism,
he would have undoubtedly expressed it in clear and emphatic
language. Did he do so ? Look at his explanation of his own
parable. " ' He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good
seed is the Son of man ; the field is the world, the good seed
are the children of the kingdom ; but the tares are the children
of the wicked one ; the enemy that sowed them is the devil ;
the harvest is the end of the world ; and the reapers are the
angels. As, therefore, the tares are gathered and burned in
the fire, so shall it be in the end of the world. The Son of
man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his
kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity, and
shall cast them into a furnace of fire : there shall be wailing and
gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the
sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let
him hear.' Matt. 13 : 37-43.
"1. Here we are taught by one that cannot lie, (1.) That
the good seed, or wheat, when ready for harvest, is not Univer
salism, but ' the children of the kingdom,' called ' the righteous,'
in v. 43. Here a figure of rhetoric is used, called metonomy,
in which the cause is spoken of as the effect, or the effect as the
cause. The seed sown by Christ in person, or by the agency of

Seo. 77.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 179
his true ministers, is the truth ; the crop, or result, is the ' chil
dren of the kingdom.' (2.) The tares in harvest are not false
doctrines ; but ' the children of the wicked one,' the natural
product of false doctrines. False doctrine produces depraved
hearts. Here the same figure is used as before. The wicked
are frequently spoken of as the children of the master whom
they serve, or the principles they adopt. They are called the
' children of disobedience ; ' ' children of their father, the
devil.' Now, in saying that the tares and wheat, not when sown
as seed, but when reaped in as a harvest, are false and true doc
trines, you contradict Christ, who says : ' The tares are THE
CHILDREN OF THE WICKED one; ' the wheat, ' the chil
dren of ihe kingdom,' ' the righteous.'
"2. I object to your exposition again, because it is absurd
and nonsensical. Look at it. Did Christ employ the Roman
soldiers — a wicked and bloody set of men as ever lived — to
purge his church and gather out of it all false doctrine ? Did
they, as a matter of fact, gather out the tares — the doctrine of
future punishment — from the field, the material universe, and
burn it up in fire ? If so, then it follows that the Roman army
which destroyed Jerusalem, a wicked crew of heathen monsters
in human form, were the most successful preachers of Univer
salism which the world has ever beheld. They reaped down
and burnt up the doctrine of future punishment, not only under
the walls of the holy city, but through the material universe.
Nothing but pure Universalism, of course, could have been left
throughout the material universe.
" It is surprising that some ancient historian has not chron
icled this wondrous harvest time of the Roman, army, when they
so effectually, as the ' mighty angels .' of the Son of man,
cleansed not only the sanctuary, but the material universe from
false doctrine and wicked men. We should naturally suppose
that Josephus, Philo, Tacitus, or Suetonius, or some other his
torian of those days, would have noticed so extraordinary an
event. But no. They have left us in the dark, both as it re-

180 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Parti.
spects the modus operandi and the fact of this marvellous cir
cumstance. Besides, if the tares — false doctrine — were
gathered out of the field, the material universe, and burnt up
at the destruction of Jerusalem, is it not a little extraordinary,
that the whole field, the material universe, was so quickly cov
ered over again with tares ? For it is a matter of fact, which you
will not presume to deny, that the doctrine of future retribution,
your tares, has been adopted, so far as we can learn from eccle
siastical and profane history, by the entire mass of Jews (the
small sect of Sadducees excepted) and Christians, Pagans and
Mahommedans, from the days of the apostles down to the begin-
ing of the present century. Where did these tares all come
from ? I think' your reapers must have acted the part of eye-
servants, and left large patches of the old crop standing, with
which the enemy seeded over the whole field again. Besides,
it is a circumstance which I cannot account for, that the entire
harvest of wheat, true doctrine — Universalism, gathered in hy
the angels, Roman army, should have been so lost, and that for
nearly eighteen hundred years ; for you are probably well aware
of the fact, that the peculiar system of Universalism has not a
single advocate in all antiquity. True, your authors tell us that
Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and some other Christian
fathers, were Universalists; but this is all deception. These
men believed in the doctrine of a judgment to come. They/
were Platonic philosophers, and their error consisted in blending
the speculations of that vain philosophy in relation to the pro-
existence and transmigration of souls with Christianity. (Sec.
CXXXIII.) "3. It is not true that the end of the world took place at
the destruction of Jerusalem. The word aion, world, hero, I
admit, does not mean material world. It denotes age or dis
pensation, ' the gospel age, or dispensation. The Jewish age,
or dispensation, closed thirty-seven years before the destruction
of Jerusalem. ' Now once in the end of the world (Jewish
age) hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of him-

Sec. 77.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 181
self.' Heb. 9:26. Now when did this take place ? Not at
the destruction of Jerusalem, for he had appeared, been sacri
ficed, and reascended to glory, between thirty and forty years
before that event. The cross was the boundary line between
the two dispensations ; hence, the apostle shows the necessity of
Christ's death in order to introduce the new dispensation. Heb.
9 : 16, 17. He then shows, as we have seen, that this had taken
place, and thus the New Testament or gospel dispensation had
taken the place of the Jewish. Christ, the great antetype of
Jewish types, had been offered, Christian ordinances instituted,
the gospel commission given, and the gospel had been preached
all over the Roman empire., before the Jewish city was de
stroyed. Yet, to sustain other false positions, Universalism as
serts that the Christian dispensation did not commence till Jeru
salem was destroyed ! !
" 4. Mr. Whittemore's exposition as to what is meant by
' the righteous shining forth in the kingdom of their Father,'
will not stand the test ; for (1.) It is not true that the Jews,.
the enemies and persecutors of the Christians, were destroyed at
the destruction of Jerusalem. Multitudes of the Jews survived
the destruction of their city and temple, nor does it appear from
the page of history, that their calamities purged their hearts of
prejudice against Christ or his followers. (2.) It is not true
that Christians, in consequence of the destruction of Jerusalem
by the Roman army, experienced any remarkable degree of
earthly felicity. On the contrary, the Christians in Judea were
seperated forever from their unconverted friends, driven out
from their houses and homes ; their property given to the flames,
and they were obliged to take shelter in the dens and caves of
the,earth. Is this ' shining forth as the sun in the kingdom of
their Father ? ' Is this experiencing ' earthly felicity ? '
It is such ' earthly felicity,' such ' shining forth in the
kingdom,' as Mr. Whittemore would be unwilling to re
ceive as his reward for well doing. Let a company of furious
savages be let loose upon the city of Boston — and with sword
and torch in hand, let them butcher the helpless, burn the city,

182 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Parti.
Trumpet office and all, break up the editor's family, and chase
him into the mountains of Vermont — and he would be the last
man who would call such a retreat, such a disaster, ' shining
forth as the sun in the kingdom of his Father,' or ' comparative
earthly felicity ! ! ' (3.) Nor is it true that ' the church was
separated from hypocrites and became pure,' at the destruction
of Jerusalem. No such fact can be proved from history. It is
a fact invented to help out with this explanation. On the con
trary, the church was more pure before than after the destruc
tion of Jerusalem. While the apostles were alive, the church
was more pure in doctrine and discipline, than at any period
since. As these holy men, one after another, passed away, men
continued to rise in the church, who ' brought in damnable
heresies.' " 5. I cannot adopt your exposition of this parable, because
it requires me to violate an important rule of biblical interpreta
tion, viz.: That every explanation of scripture should be re
garded as false, which does not harmonize with well known
facts, or with itself. Well, now your exposition of this parable
of the tares and wheat, does not harmonize with well known
facts — well known historical facts are against it. It does not
harmonize with itself; hence it must be false.
" 6. I cannot adopt your exposition, because it is supported
by sophistry and false application of scripture. 1 Cor. 3 : 12-
15, is commonly brought forward to prove that the tares repre
sent false doctrine, and not wicked men, and that while their
false doctrines were burnt up at the destruction of Jerusalem
they themselves will be saved. ' Now if any man build upon
this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stub
ble ; every man's work shall be made manifest ; for the day
shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire ; and the fire
shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's
work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a re
ward. H any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss ;
but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.' 1 Cor.

Sec. 77.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 183
3 : 12-15. Now, if you will consult the preceding context, you
will readily perceive that the apostle is speaking here only of
believers, those who have built their hopes upon Christ, the
riokt foundation. ' For other foundation can no man lay than
that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ ; now if any man
build upon this foundation," &c. Now as all men do not
build upon this foundation, so the text affirms nothing as to their
destination. Again : We are gravely asked, when we listen to
Universalist expositions of this parable, if tares can become
wheat, or wheat tares. I answer, Yes. Dr. Clarke tells us that
tares are a bastard or degenerate wheat. Wheat, then, in orien
tal countries, sometimes degenerates and becomes tares, and by
cultivation, like all degenerate plants, may be reclaimed. Tares,
then, among wheat, very fitly represent degenerate men, who
may appear like and with the righteous, but are unhke them at
heart. But if tares and wheat were never convertible, still
there would be no impropriety in employing tares to represent
the wicked in the final judgment. Sheep cannot be converted
into goats, nor goats into sheep, and yet Christ likens the
righteous to sheep and the wicked to goats. This you will
admit. So the argument built upon the false premises, that
wheat can never become tares, falls to the ground.
" 7. It is an outrage upon good sense, to call the Roman
army, a class of human butchers, the angels of Christ. No
where in the New Testament, are wicked men or devils spoken
of as the angels of Christ.
" 8. The Roman army did not at the destruction of Jerusa
lem, as a matter of fact, do either what Christ says is to be
done at the harvest by his angels, or what Universalist exposi
tors represent them as doing. They did not ' gather out of the
kingdom of God all things that offend, nor them which do
iniquity; ' nor did they gather out of the church, or out of the
whole or any part of the material universe false doctrines. If
Universalism be true, they gathered out of the earth, I will ad
mit, some thousands of wicked Jews, and gave them a passport
by the sword to the world of the blessed.

184 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
"9. I reject your exposition of the parable of the tares and
wheat, because this parable was evidently designed to represent
the same event with the parable of the drag-net which Christ
delivered on the same occasion.
" ' Again: The kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that
was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind ; which, when
it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the
good into vessels, but east the bad away. So shall it be at the
end of the world : the angels shall come forth, and sever the
wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the fur
nace of fire : there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.'
Matt. 13:47-50.
"Here the bad fish is evidently designed to represent the
sarne thing as the tares ; their being seperated from the good by
the angels at the end of the gospel age, or world, cannot be said
to represent the purging out of false doctrine, without givingthe
lie direct to the Son of God. ' Angels . shall come forth and
sever THE WICKED from among the just.' Can language be
more plain ?
" In fine, I have carefully examined your standard authors on
this parable. I have frequently heard your preachers attempt
to explain it away. I have also carefully examined the explana
tion which Christ has given of his own words as therein em
ployed, and I find so much that is false in point of fact, absurd
and contradictory in itself considered, in the Universalist expo
sition ; while in the exposition given by the Saviour himself, I
find so much that is natural, easy, and obvious to the common
sense of mankind ; that I hope you will not regard it as disre
spectful to you, or fanatical in me, to wholly decline the adop
tion of your exposition, while I take that of the Son of God."
LXXVIII. " For as much then as the children are par
takers of flesh and blood, he also took part of the same ; that
through death he might destroy him that hath the power of

See. 78.] universalism not of the bible. 185
death, that is, the devil ; and deliver them, who, through fear
of death, are all their life time subject to bondage." Heb. 2 :
14, 15.
This passage is brought by Universalists to prove that sin
and the punishment of wicked men will have an end, because
the devil will be destroyed. But before this text can avail
them anything, they must prove that destruction, in the sense
here used, means annihilation, and this they cannot, do since,
it is often said that the wicked shall be destroyed, who, they
contend, will live in the enjoyment of bliss forever. See 2
Thess. 1:9. But were we to admit the annihilation of the
devil, could that fact be brought in proof that all men will be
saved ? By no means, for the death that he has the power of
is not spiritual or eternal death, but the death of the body, as
will be seen by a moment's attention to the passage. It is pre
sumed that no one supposes that the word death, which occurs
three times in this passage, is to be understood in different
senses. We ask, then, what death did Christ die ? It was not
a spiritual death, for he " did no sin." It was most certainly
the death of the body ; the death which was a consequence of
his partaking of flesh and blood, verse 14. Then it must surely
be the death of the body which the devil has power over, and
Christ by his resurrection has so destroyed (not annihilated)
him, as that he has lost that power, and hence all shall be raised
from the dead. But this proves nothing in favor of the salva
tion of all men, for while we learn from the scriptures that by
the resurrection the " vile body" shall be changed, (Phil. 3 :
21,) it is nowhere asserted that the vile soul shall be changed
by that event. That by the devil is meant sin personified,
is assumption without proof. The apostle was not in the habit
of adopting this blind method in speaking of sin, as all his
epistles show. On the personality of the devil, see Section
XCVIII. The promise of a seed to bruise the serpent's head
(Gen. 3 : 15,) is sometimes presented in connection with this
passage, whieh informs us that Christ took flesh, " that through
10* ^

186 universalism not of the bible. [Part I.
death he might destroy him that hath the power of death, that
is, the devil." " If the latter of these passages explains the
former, then both were accomplished when Christ died and rose
from the dead ; and by destroying the devil the apostle does not
mean a literal destruction, but a destruction of his power, by
which he held the children of God in bondage through the fear
of death, ver. 15. And the apostle applies this to the time
which then was, and not to the future state. If then it proves
universal salvation, it must be that all men are now, and have
been for eighteen hundred years, saved, and the devil destroy
ed !" Merritt. It has been denied by Universalists that Christ
ever came into this world to save us in the next (Sec. XXIX.)
and Mr. Whittemore says, ' ' The evils from which Jesus came
to save men are in this world, and for this reason he came into
this world to save them. Guide, p. 254. Yet he takes the
passage we have been considering, which treats of Christ's
coming into this world and his work, to prove the salvation of
all men in eternity ! Guide, p. 51. Truth never demands
such zigzag work to sustain it.
LXXIX. " And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel
descending,'' &c. Acts 10 : 10-16.
The following is Mr. Whittemore's whole argument to prove
Universalism from Peter's vision. " Peter saw, in the vision of
the vessel like a sheet knit at the four corners, that all men
came down from heaven ; that they are all encircled in the kind
care of God, while here on earth ; and, that all will be drawn
up again into heaven." Guide, p. 44. Well done, Mr.
Whittemore ! Reader, are you not captivated ? All men came
down from heaven, and are placed upon earth, and all will be
drawn up again into heaven ! So it seems that the whole race
of man, all who have lived, now live, or may hereafter hve,
have once been holy and happy in heaven, and while in this
plaee of bliss the Lord put them out and let them down to earth
to suffer, as a race, six thousand years or more, and then he is

See. 80.] universalism not of the bible. 187
to draw them all up to heaven again. How does this comport
with the idea of a kind father, about which Universalists say so
much ? Would a kind earthly parent do thus ? But the suf
ferings of earth are doubtless rendered less intense by the fact
that but few remember that they once lived in heaven. We
doubt if the author of the Guide, with all his acumen, has any
recollection of it. People have, very generally, been in the
habit of thinking that all have not lived upon this earth an
equal length of time, hence the distinctions, in language at least,
of old and young that have obtained. Many, too, have been in
the way of thinking that some have already gone to heaven
while others linger below. But progress is a characteristic of
the age, and we now see by Peter's vision, while Mr. Whittemore
holds the candle, that these views are all wrong, for the whole
human race came down from heaven at the same time, remain
on earth the same length of time, and will all be taken to
heaven at the same time. This is Universalist divinity. Ad
mirable ! But to be serious. What instruction did this vision
convey to Peter ? Was it that all were to be saved in heaven ?
Nothing like it. It was this : "Of a truth I perceive that
God is no respecter of persons ; but in every nation he that
feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted of him"
Ver. 34, 35. Peter had conscientious scruples against asso
ciating and eating with the Gentiles, which of course would
debar him from preaching the gospel to them. God took this
method to divest Peter's mind of these scruples and prejudices,
and he saw clearly that God would accept all of every nation
who feared him and wrought righteousness. This is a very dif
ferent thing from the salvation of all, whether they fear God
and work righteousness here or not. To fear God does not
sound well in Universalist ears. (Sec. LXIX.)
LXXX. " And Enoch, also, the seventh from Adam,
prophesied of these) saying, behold, the Lord cometh with ten
thousand of his saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to

188 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
convince all that are ungodly among (hem of all their ungodly
deeds which they have ungodlily committed, and of all their
hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against
him." Jude 14, 15.
The author of the Guide favors us with no light upon this
striking passage. Mr. Balfour finds in it a prophesy of Jeru
salem's destruction. But how false and absurd to say that the
Lord came with ten thousand of his saints to execute judgment
upon all at the destruction of Jerusalem. Did thousands of
saints come with Christ to Jerusalem ? Christ did not come
himself at that event; (Sec. XLIII.) and as to his saints, he
contradicts this absurd exposition by representing it as a time
when they should flee from Judea into the mountains, (Matt.
24 : 16-20,) instead of coming with him, as those who wrest the
scriptures assert. As this interpretation contradicts the Saviour,
no more need be said to refute it. This passage refers to the
great day of which we read so much in the scriptures, when
Christ shall come as judge " to execute judgment upon all,"
whether Jews or Gentiles. See Sec. XLIX.
LXXXI. " Marvel not at this ; for the hour is coming
in which all that are in the graves shall hear his ' voice,
and shall come forth ; they ihat have done good, unto ihe
resurrection of life ; and they ihat have done evil, unto the
resurrection of damnation." John 5 : 28, 29.
But few texts have given more trouble to Universalists than
this, and many are the labored articles they have written to
destroy its force. Sometimes it denotes a moral resurrection,
and then again it is a figurative one, and had its fulfilment when
Jerusalem was destroyed. We are favored with criticisms to
show that the Greek word anastasis, rendered resurrection, does
not always mean a literal resurrection from the dead, and that
damnation does not necessarily imply endless punishment, to
gether with the usual display of scripture references and ortho
dox authorities. Mr. S. Cobb, sees the Jerusalem catastrophe

Sec. 81.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 189
most clearly in the passage, and discourses thus : " When the
terrible calamities began to break forth upon them, (the Jews,)
then they waked from the dust ; then were they called forth
from their graves, or their secret places, in which they had
been sleeping — they were roused from their dormancy. They
came forth to a sense of their own shame, to the resurrection of
their own condemnation — and suffered that dreadful punish
ment, of which Moses and the prophets, and the Son of God,
had so repeatedly forewarned them. And this judgment did
not affect the wicked alone ; it affected the faithful disciples of
Jesus, also. It called them forth into a more full enjoyment of
life and happiness. They had been pressed down under griev
ous persecutions, and the calamities of war prevailed in all the
land. And when every thing in the natural world appeared .
blackness and darkness, no doubt considerable darkness brooded
over their minds." After assuming that a very wonderful
change took place in the temporal and spiritual condition of
Christians at the destruction of Jerusalem, Mr. Cobb adds,
" Now this important change in the condition ofthe disciples, so
wonderfully wrought, was as properly called their coming forth
from the graves, through the authority of Christ, to the resur
rection, as the redemption of the Jews from Babylonish captivity
into their land, was called of the Lord by Ezekiel, the bringing
them up from their graves, to inherit the land of Israel ; and
equally striking is the declaration, They that have done evil
shall come forth to the resurrection of condemnation, to express
the effectual arousing of the wicked and unbelieving from their
graves of secrecy and their refuge of hes, to misery, shame and
contempt. Trumpet, No. 669. In the same number of the
Trumpet, Mr. Whittemore, speaking of Mr. Cobb's interpreta*
tion, says, " it is maintained by the Universalist denomination
with hardly an exception." So Mr. W. endorses it in behalf
of the order. From these expounders, then, we leam that
" all that are in the graves" were Jews and Christians, and that
these both experienced a resurrection at Jerusalem's destruction

190 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
the former to damnation and the latter to life. But were Jews
and Christians raised then ? Let us contemplate the Jews in
the light of history. This informs us that Jerusalem was he-
sieged six months by the Roman army, that eleven hundred
thousand Jews perished in the city, and some hundreds of
thousands out of it ; that the city and temple were totally de
stroyed, that the Jews ceased to be a nation, were cast down
from the high privileges they had hitherto enjoyed, and that
large numbers of them were consigned to hopeless bondage.
This must be called a resurrection ! What is said about the
Jews being " waked from the dust," " called forth from their
secret places," &c, is mere home-made cloth, and proves nothing
but the weakness of the cause it is designed to support. There
is a beauty and propriety in the use of the figure in Ezekiel's
vision, (Ez. 37 : 11-14,) it being there used to show that the
Jews as a nation would be brought up out of their degradation
and bondage in Babylon to the civil and religious privileges for
which they were afterwards distinguished. But in the case
before us, the reverse is the fact. They now became degraded
instead of being raised. Their national character and privileges
were now taken away instead of being restored. They now,
keeping Ezekiel's figure in view, were sent down into their
graves instead of coming forth from them. All must see the
sophistry of producing Ezekiel's vision to patch up this interpre
tation. Again, these interpreters are quite sure that by John
8 : 21, "Ye shall die in your sins," is meant the death of the
Jewish nation, which took place when Jerusalem was destroyed.
Guide, page 164. So their exposition of John 8:21, andof
John 5 : 28, 29, when taken together, amounts to this : the death
and resurrection of the Jewish nation both took plaee at the
same time and by the same event, viz. : the destruction of Jeru
salem ! ! Error is ever inconsistent with itself.
But Christians also came forth from their graves to the resur
rection of life when Jerusalem was destroyed. Now we ask in
what sense Christians were dead and in their graves before that

Sec. 81.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 191
event? Were they spiritually dead? Then were they not
Christians. Were they inactive in their Master's cause? —
Never were Christians more active and devoted than before the
destruction of Jerusalem. Such was their zeal, that the gospel,
before that event, had not only " spread through the Roman
empire, but even to India and Parthia." Porteus' Evidences.
Was darkness brooding over their minds, as Mr. Cobb would
have us believe ? Of this there is no evidence whatever.
What ! is Christianity a mere creature of circumstances ? Must
gloom and darkness brood over Christian minds in times of
temporal calamities ? The martyrs were happy in the flames,
and it is one of the chief glories of Christianity that it can ren
der its recipients happy independent of outward things. They
can " rejoice and be exceeding glad when persecuted." Matt.
5 : 12. True Christians have done this in all ages of the
church ; but to serve a rotten system, it must be now made to
appear that early Christians were a gloomy, disconsolate,
wretched, inactive people who were represented by the Saviour
as in their graves, needing the destruction of Jerusalem to raise
them to life and make them happy ! To say nothing of the
perversion, we ask where is the man, knowing anything of the
power of the gospel upon his own heart, who can for a moment
beheve this ? But did not Christians experience some great
temporal blessing at Jerusalem's overthrow ? Tn Matt. 24 : 9
which Universalists apply to this event, we learn what reward
Christ's followers received at that time. " Then shall they de
liver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you ; and ye shall be
hated of all nations for my name's sake." See, also, ver. 16-
18. Was this their reward for having done good ? But it is
said that they were raised to great privileges, and entered into
great rest from persecution after the power of the Jews was
broken. But what evidence is furnished of this ? Just none
at all ; but on the contrary we learn that Christians were perse
cuted in a manner unparalleled for .at least two hundred years after
Jerusalem was sacked by the Romans. (Sec. XXVI.) Was

192 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
this their resurrection to life ? Universalists, upon this and a
few other texts, would make it appear that deliverance from the
Jewish power was a great blessing to Christians, and that the
Roman power was not to be dreaded, for under it great rest and
privileges were to be enjoyed ; but in their work on Matt. 10 :
28, they will have it that Christ is instructing his disciples not to
fear the Jews, but to greatly fear the Roman power ! (Sec.
XCII.) And thus the serpent bites himself again. All must
see at a glance the perversion of the text when applied to Jeru
salem's destruction.
But some take the position that a moral or spiritual resurrec
tion is intended in ver. 25, of this chapter, and that the same
construction is to be given to verses 28 and 29. But this re
duces the Saviour's language to nonsense. Hear it : "There is
to be a spiritual resurrection ; marvel not at this, there is to be
a spiritual resurrection ! " Such senseless tautology was never
uttered by the Great Teacher, and the construction which re
quires it must be false. The text paraphrased upon this princi
ple stands thus : ' ' Marvel not at this, for the spiritually alive
(they that have done good) shall come forth from their spiritual
graves and be made spiritually alive ; and they that are spirit
ually dead (have done evil) shall come forth from their spiritual
graves and be made spiritually alive by a spiritual resurrection
to damnation ! ! "
If the same resurrection is taught in ver. 25 that is in verses
28 and 29, then it must be obvious to all that the death and res
urrection must be exactly the opposites the one to the other. If
the resurrection is a spiritual or moral one, then the death is a
moral death, i. e., a death " in trespasses and in sins." "To come
forth from this death is to come forth to a life of purity and
happiness." Well, then, " the hour is coming, in the which all
that are in the graves of sin and moral death shall come forth ;
they that have done good! " What! done good? Dead and
buried in sin, and yet be doing good ? Is a man when dead
and buried, alive, in the very sense in which he is dead ? Dead

Sec. 81.] UNIVERSALISM NOT 'OF THE BIBLE.

193

in trespasses and sins, and yet the condition of their coming forth
unto the resurrection of life, (that is, holiness and purity,) is
their having done good, that is, having been holy and pure,
while dead and buried in sin. But look at the other part of
the verse. " They that have done evil, to the resurrection of
damnation." Of course all that were dead, had done evil, if the
death was a death in trespasses and sins. To come forth from
this death, is to come forth to a life of holiness and purity, and
yet this holiness and purity is the resurrection of damnation !
May the good Lord dehver us from such holiness and purity.
Such a construction resolves the whole passage into a mass of
absurd nonsense." Rev. C. Kingsley.
The Universalist commentator assumes that a spiritual resur
rection is intended, and of course denies that Christ speaks of
the immortal resurrection. He says : " Whenever the sacred
writers mention a retribution, they are silent in regard to a res
urrection ; and whenever they mention a resurrection to immor
tality, they are silent in regard to a retribution. If we inter
pret this passage, therefore, to mean a resurrection of mankind
from natural death to immortality, some to happiness and some
to misery, we must do it in defiance of the invariable usage of
the New Testament writers." Page in loco.
Here it is asserted that a resurrection to immortality is never
spoken of by the sacred writers in connection with a retribution.
The falsity of this is seen not only from the passage under con
sideration, but also ia Heb. 6 : 2, where Paul, in giving a sum
mary of Christian doctrines, speaks of the resurrection in con
nection with eternal judgment. (Sec. LVI.) Mr. Page avails
himself of Mr. Balfour's favorite rule of "scripture usage,"
a handy method by which to set aside a plain declaration of
God, if he has not repeated it in the same language elsewhere.
So the Saviour must not be understood to mean what he appears
to mean in John 5 : 28, 29, because the scriptures nowhere else
assert the same thing in the same form of language ; as though
God is not to be believed unless he announces the same thing in

194 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
the same form a dozen times. Christ says : " God is a spirit,"
and Universalists profess to believe it. Now what is "scrip
ture usage " upon this ? God's nature and attributes are often
spoken of in the Bible, but nowhere, save in John 4 : 24, is it
asserted that " God is a spirit." Are we to conclude from this
fact, that the spirituality of the Divine Being is not taught by
the Saviour ? By no means. Speaking of the words graves
and resurrection, Mr. Page says : " It is certain that the two
words are not thus connected in any other place in the New Tes
tament." This is said to bear against a literal resurrection. But we
might with equal force say of the words God and Spirit, that
" it is certain that the two words are not thus connected in any
other place in the " whole Bible, and thus prove that God is not
a spirit ! But such work would be worse than trifling, as all
must see, yet it is just the work of Universalist expositors.
They assert, too, that all will be saved in the resurrection ; hut
neither the word saved or salvation is found in connection with
the word resurrection, when spoken of the immortal state, in
either the Old or New Testament. Is it just to conclude from
this, that none will be saved in the resurrection ? If so, where
is Universalism ? We have met with another quibble, as fol
lows : " If the passage refers to the immortal state, then all
must be saved and all must damned, since all have done some
good and all have done some evil." Now what of force there
is in this lies equally against any other application. Is it re
ferred to Jerusalem's destruction ? Were each class, Jews and
Christians, destroyed by the Romans, and each saved from that
destruction ? No more upon this need be said.
Another twist of the serpent is this : " If the immortal res
urrection is intended, then only those will be raised who have
done good or evil, and thus infants are excluded." In reply
we say, If a Universalist Jerusalem resurrection is intended,
then only those were to be raised who had done good or evil, and
thus infants are excluded. But among the eleven hundred

Seo. 81.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE.

195

thousand that perished in that resurrection, (!) were there no
infants? History informs us that mothers devoured their own
infant offspring, in that dreadful siege, called by our opponents
a resurrection. It does not follow that no infants will be raised,
merely because they are not named by the Saviour ; for observe,
he does not say that those only are to be raised who have done
good and evil, but all are to come forth from their graves. He
then speaks of the retribution of moral agents, and omits naming
infants for the good reason that he was addressing adults, and
his words were designed to influence moral agents, in all suc
ceeding ages of the church ; and this omission no more excludes
infants from salvation, than women are excluded from the benefits
of the Saviour's death by the assertion of Paul, that Christ
"tasted death for every MAN;" thus omitting to name
women. One more subterfuge : " This cannot refer to the resurrection
of the bodies of men, for multitudes of the dead are not in their
graves at all." This is a most peurile objection. All must see
that the general expression, " all that are in the graves," means
all the dead, all within the empire of death, whether in the dust
of the earth or in the sea. Observe, this was addressed to Jews,
who believed in the resurrection of all men constituting two
classes, denominated "the just and unjust." Acts 24:15.
We learn from Josephus that the Jews believed that all men,
the just and the unjust, would be raised and brought before
God, the Word, or Christ, and be judged by him according to
their works : that he should pass upon them a just sentence,
" by giving justly to those who have done well an everlasting
fruition ; but allotting to the lovers of wicked works eternal pun
ishment." Dis. on Hades. Paul declared he believed as the
Pharisees did concerning the resurrection. (Sec. X.) Taking
into connection the Saviour's words, and the belief of the Jews,
can any be at a loss to know how they must have understood
him ? They must have understood him as teaching the resur
rection in their sense, for he qualifies nothing. He gives no ex-

196 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
planation, showing that he is using their doctrine of a future
state as a figure to convey the idea of spiritual life and death in
this world, or temporal calamities upon their nation. He gave
the Jews (ver. 25-27) instruction relative to a spiritual resur
rection, and his power and authority to execute judgment, be
cause he was the Son of man or the Messiah. At this they
were astonished, and the Saviour seeing it, said : " Marvel not
at this, (for this is no more surprising than the doctrine of the res
urrection, already admitted by you,) for the hour is coming in the
which all that are in the graves (making a distinction between
those morally and those literally dead), shall hear his voice, and
shall come forth ; they that have done good, unto the resurrec
tion of life, and they that have done evil, to the resurrection of
damnation." " If the Saviour here is speaking of men dead in
sin, and representing them as buried, he would, to have pre
served sense, have represented the good as being alive. But
both classes, the good and the evil, are dead ; both are in their
graves ; both hear the voice of the Son of God ; both come
forth from their graves, the one to a resurrection of life, the
other to a resurrection of damnation." This passage of itself
is an ever-enduring refutation of Universalism, and the Bush
theory of the resurrection. See Sec. LT. where a resurrection
and judgment at the end of time are proved ; also, Sec. XXVI.
and LXI. on the coming of Christ, where the same is shown.
LXXXn. " Thy kingdom come, thy will be done." Matt.
6 : 10.
" Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Rom. 14: 23.
In No. 634 of the Trumpet, is the following weighty affair
thrown in by the editor :
" Partialists say that Universalism is the devil's doctrine ;
and yet they all pray that it may be true. Is this praying —
' thy kingdom come, thy will be done.' "
The assertion that all pray that Universalism may be true, is
very common, and as false as it is common. No understanding
Christian ever prays that Universalism may be true, or false, or

Sec. 82.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 197
that any other doctrine may be so. Doctrines are principles of
the Divine government, and no more to be changed than God
himself is to be changed. God's truth is immutable, whatever
that truth may be. Christians do not pray for the salvation of1
all men in the Universalist sense, for,
1. They believe there are millions of souls already saved,
and, of course, for these they do not pray.
2. They believe there are millions of souls already lost : for
these they do not pray.
When they use universal language in their prayers, they have
respect to men who are on probation, and to certain ¦ scripture
promises which are to be fulfilled through the instrumentality of
the church and the agency of the Divine Spirit, whose aid is
promised if asked, and not to the whole human race, i. e., all
who ever have lived, now live, or may hereafter live on this
earth. In assuming that Christians pray for all men in the above
named sense, Universalists connect with it Rom. 14 : 23, and
consider it a great argument in favor of their views. The follow
ing is a specimen of this kind of sophistry, found in the Univer
salist Companion, for 1841 :
" If, then, we pray for the salvation of all mankind, and at
the same time do not believe that our prayers will be answered,
or, in other words, do not beHeve that all will" be saved ; do we
pray in faith ? And are such prayers acceptable to God ? Ans.
' Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.' Rom. 14 : 23."
We have shown that Christians do not pray for the salvation of
all men in the sense here named. We now ask, for what do Uni
versalists pray ? Their ministers stand up before the people, and
pray for all men. What do they mean by it ? Is it that all may
be saved from an endless hell in the future state ? No. They
deny that men are exposed to such a punishment. Furthermore,
they no more beheve that our praying will in any way affect the
salvation of men in the future state, than that whistling or swear
ing will effect its accomplishment. To admit that men are iu any

198 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
way exposed to endless punishment, would be fatal to their whole
theory, as they well know. It is not, then, for the salvation of
men in the future state that they pray. For what, then, do they
pray, when they use universal language in their prayers? If
they do not pray in reference to the future world, it must he
that they have reference to the salvation experienced in this.
Well, do they really believe, when they pray, that all men in
the Universalist sense, i. e., all that ever have lived, and that
now live, will come to the knowledge of the truth, and be saved
in this world ? Certainly they do not ; for such a thing is im
possible. Notice, then, they do not believe that all, or any
men will be saved in the future state, in answer to prayer ; for
all will be saved independent of prayer, or anything else done
here. Neither do they believe that all will be saved in this
world. Reader, remember this when a zealous disciple of Uni
versalism presents this weighty argument. Question bim upon
these points, and be careful to tell him that " whatsoever is not
of faith is sin."
Questions are sometimes put as follows : Can you pray that
one soul may be damned to all eternity ? and if you cannot,
ought you to believe that for which you cannot pray? In
answer to the first question we say, No ; and to the last we say,
Yes. Sufficient reason for these answers could be given ; but to
show the sophistry of such questions in a few words, we submit
the following. The destruction of Jerusalem was a punishment
divinely inflicted upon the Jews for their sins. No Universalist
will deny this. They will have it, too, that Paul taught Jeru
salem's destruction in the most of those vivid descriptions of
judgment and punishment he has given in his epistles, but none
will for a moment suppose that Paul desired, or would pray for,
that dreadful calamity to come upon his brethren, the Jews ;
but the Jews experienced that calamity, notwithstanding. Now
if the doctrine of endless punishment is false, because Christians
cannot pray that men may suffer it, the doctrine of Jerusalem's
destruction was false when Paul preached it, for the same rea-

Sec. 83.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 199
son, which is contrary to matter of fact ; therefore all such rea
soning is false. We are told that men suffer in this world for
their sins, but are Universalists in the habit of praying that men
may suffer ? Think of these things, reader, when these ques
tions are proposed.
For Universalist views of prayer, see Sec. CVII.
LXXXHI. " The desire ofthe righteous shall be granted."
Prov. 10 : 24.
The following upon this is found in the Universalist Compan
ion, for 1841 :
" Do not the righteous desire the salvation of all mankind?
Will not the desire of the righteous be granted ? Ans. Prov.
10 : 24. ' The desire of the righteous shall be granted.' "
The whole text reads thus : " The fear of the wicked, it shall
come upon him ; but the desire of the righteous shall be
granted ; " and it is dismembered to serve the purposes of Uni
versalism. The text teaches a personal evil to the wicked, and
a personal good to the righteous, and has no more reference to
the salvation of all men, than it has to the damnation of all men.
Let us take the same liberty with the first member of this text
that these men do with the second, and see what it teaches.
Do not many wicked men fear future and endless punishment ?
Yes ; for Universalists themselves assert that many wicked men
beheve the doctrine.
Will not the fear of the wicked come upon him? Ans.
Prov. 10 : 24. -" The fear of the wicked, it shall come upon
him." Then is endless punishment true.
Let us try the other member, and see what we can prove.
Do not the righteous desire that sin and misery may now
cease throughout the world ? Will not the desire of the right
eous be granted ? Ans. " The desire of the righteous shall be
granted." This world, then, is a paradise !
Again, did not Jesus Christ, the righteous, desire the salva
tion of the Jewish nation, and evince that desire by his tears ?

200 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
Will not the desire of the righteous be granted ? Ans. " The
desire of the righteous shall be granted," therefore, Jerusalem
was never destroyed by the Romans, just as sure as Universalist
logic is sound.
LXXXIV. " And the Lord God formed man ofthe dust of
the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life ¦
and man became a living soul." Gen. 2:7.
"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was; and the
spirit shall return unto God who gave it." Eccl. 12 : 7.
The following dialogue, manufactured by Mr. A. B. Grosh,
a leading man in the denomination, was thought so valuable by
Mr. Drew, that he copied it into his Banner.
" Limitarian. My dear sir, your doctrine is a dangerous,
a very dangerous fallacy ; and, if you take not heed, will result
in the endless damnation of your immortal soul.
' ' Universalist. What is the soul ? Is it that ' breath of life '
which God breathed into the nostrils of man, when he ' became
a living soul? " i
"L. I think it is.
" U. You agree, then, with me, that whatever is immortal
in man must have come from Deity — must, in fact, be apart
of himself.
" L. I do. For he created all that is created.
" U. Very well. Now do you really believe that God will
punish 'his breath' — a part of himself — to all eternity?
[The Limitarian was silent, evidently unwilling to answer.]
Now, my dear friend, the Bible teaches me that he will not. It
says (Eccl. 12 : 7), ' the spirit shall return unto God who gave
it,' when the body returns to dust.
" L. Yes, but that only refers to the souls oi good men.
"U. And pray, from whom do the wicked receive their
souls ? Is it from Satan, that they must return to him? Or
does Satan get that portion of Deity so completely under his con
trol that he can hold it and punish it to all eternity, in despite
of that Almighty Being, of whom and whose it is ?

Sec. 84.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 201
"L. Dangerous sophistry ! Blasphemy! [Exit."
This is a choice specimen of Universalist divinity. The obvi
ous design is to teach an old, heathen notion, that the soul of
man is a part of God ; and then, that endless punishment is
false, because God will not punish himself to all eternity ! That
the soul is not a part of God, but was created, is evident from
the scriptures, which deelare that God made man in his own
image. This, we conceive, was not spoken of the creation of
the body, for that is no more the image of an intelligent, immor
tal, holy Spirit, than any other material substance. It was the
soul that God made in his own image. Were it necessary,
argument and scripture might be produced, to prove that God
created the whole man, the soul as well as the body ; but other
considerations will show, in a few words, the absurdity of the
idea that the human soul is a part of God himself. Admit for a
moment this idea, and what follows ? It follows that a part of
the Almighty is scattered about in millions of parts in the form
of human souls, and that these souls have been suffering more
or less ever since the creation ; for none doubt, that we know of,
but what the souls of men suffer, as well as their bodies. " Will
God punish a part of himself to all eternity ? " is the wise ques
tion proposed in the dialogue. In answer, we say, that it
requires no greater stretch of our credulity to believe that God
will punish himself eternally, than it does to believe he can pun
ish himself six thousand years, by inhabiting human bodies.
Again, the notion is quite common with Universalists, that we
are dependent upon the resurrection for a future existence ; but
if the soul is a part of God, that must be false, unless a part of
God may be annihilated ! Again, Universalists very generally
deny the resurrection of the body ; hence, all the future salva
tion so much talked of, pertains to the soul. But we ask, is it
not both absurd and blasphemous to talk of saving a part of
God ? We read of the death of the soul, and the Scriptures
count man a sinner. Is the body the sinner, or has the soul
something to do with it ; and if the soul has something to do in
11

202 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
the matter, we ask, does a part of a holy God sin ? Some have
told us that all sin originates in the flesh, and that the soul is
pure of itself, but is, by its connection with the body, forced into
the service of the body, and thus sin is accounted for. But,
we ask, is a part of the Almighty so pent up in the human body
that it is obliged to do its bidding ; or in other words, does the
creature govern the Creator ? No wonder that Mr. Grosh should
represent the Limitarian as exclaiming " Blasphemy! "
But no soul will be punished to all eternity, because " the
spirit shall return to God who gave it." Eccl. 12 : 7. Let it
be observed that here nothing is said about the misery or happi
ness of the spirit. That all spirits will return to God, Chris
tians believe, and they believe, too, that he will dispose of them
according to their deserts, and that to the ungodly, "it is a fear
ful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." Heb. 10 : 31.
Thoughts might be given upon the attributes of God, to show
the anti-christian character of the sentiment inculcated by the
dialogue ; but these brief hints are sufficient to show the reader
that it wars with scripture, the nature of God, and common
sense. This argument upon the soul, to prove their doctrine,
was a very common one among Universalists a few years since,
but we had supposed, like much of their former truth, it was
now obsolete, and were surprised at meeting this new edition of
it in the Banner. Anything and any way, only prejudice the
people against evangehcal sentiments, and induce them to
believe, if possible, in Universalism.
One thought more. Stress is laid upon the phrase " breathed
into," &c, as though the soul wasa part of God on this account.
The prophet, (Isa. 30: 33,) speaking of Tophet, says, "the
breath of the Lord, like a stream of brimstone, doth kindle it."
Did a part of Deity kindle the fire in Tophet? All will see
that this is simply an expression of God's agency in producing
it. So with Gen. 2:7.

Sec. 85.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 203
LXXXV. "il!^ counsel shaU stand, and I wiU do all my
pleasure." Isa. 46 : 10, 11.
Is it the design of the Spirit in this text to teach that the
pleasure of the Lord is done in all things ? By no means ; for
respect is had to a particular subject, and we are not to draw a
general conclusion from a particular case, especially when the
Bible declares (Ezek. 33 : 11), that some things take place con
trary to the pleasure of God. What is God's pleasure in the
case before us? The context explains as follows : " Calling a
ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel
from a far country ; yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it
to pass ; I have purposed it, I will also do it," v. 11. This
counsel or pleasure was to be executed by a man. If we turn
to chap. 44 : 28, we shall see who this man is, and what the
pleasure of the Lord is. It reads thus : " That saith of Cyrus,
He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure ; even
saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt he built ; and to the temple,
Thy foundation shall be laid." Here we see that God says of
Cyrus, " he shall perform all my pleasure," i. e., all my pleas
ure concerning the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the temple.
The position taken by Universalists is, that God's will is
always done ; and their leading writers deny the freedom of the
human will. Mr. Ballou says, " It is evident that will or choice
has no possible liberty." T. on Atonement, p. 42. Mr. Rog
ers, following in Hs wake, says, "the notion of free-will is a
chimera." Pro cf Con, p. 290. Mr. Ballou, in showing that
sin is intended for good, says, " It is not easting any disagreea
ble reflections, on the Almighty to say he determined all things
for good ; and to believe that he superintends all the affairs of
the universe, not excepting sin, is a million times more to the
honor of God, than to believe he cannot, or he does not when he
can." T. on Atonement, p. 40. Again he says, " Natural
evil is the necessary result of the physical organization and' con
stitution of animal natnre," p. 31 ; and then he informs us that
" moral evil or sin owes its origin to natural evil," p. 32 ; and also

204 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF TnE BIBLE. [Part I
that " man is independent of his volitions, and moves by neces
sity," p. 64. Mr. Ballou is consistent with his theory when he
says, " The Almighty had no occasion to dislike Adam after the
transgression, any more than he had even before he made him/'
p. 104 ; and according to his deductions, " the Divino favor
can neither be gained nor lost." Exp., v. 1, p. 28. Says Mr,
Whittemore, " Man cannot do what his Maker wills he shall
not do, and he cannot leave undone what his Maker wills he
shall do." Trumpet, No. 968. Other leading writers in the
order might be added to this list, whose views are in harmony
with these. (Sec. CIV.) Indeed, Universalism can be sus
tained in no other way than by resolving all the wickedness of
the world into the sovereignty of God, and annihilating the
moral agency of man ; for if the above views are correct, a
steam engine is as much a moral agent as a human being. Sin,
by this view, is not merely reduced to a trifle, but there can be
no such thing unless we come to the blasphemous conclusion
that a holy God sins. These sentiments in fact make him the
author of all sin and misery in the universe ; and when viewed
in connection with Bible declarations, charge him with the gross
est acts of hypocrisy towards his creatures, to say nothing of
cruelty in punishing them for what they cannot avoid. As a
specimen of its application in proof of Universalism, the follow
ing syllogism is presented, taken from the Universalist Compan
ion, for 1842 :
" 1. It is God's will for all men to be converted and saved.
" 2. God's will will be done.
" 3. Therefore all men will be converted and saved."
We find a set of syllogisms ready made at our hand, in the
5th No. of the " Sword of Truth," in answer to the above,
by which its soundness may be readily tested. They are the
following :
"1. It is the will of God that all men should keep sober.
"2. God's will will be done.
" 3. Therefore, all men do keep sober, and the temperance

Sec. 85.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE.

205

reformation is finished, just as sure as Universalist's arguments
are sound.
" 1. It is God's will that all men should embrace the truth.
"2. God's will will be done.
" 3. All men do not embrace Universalism ; therefore Uni
versalism is not the truth.
" This cannot be retorted upon us, because we hold that many
things transpire contrary to the will of God."
We will change the form of this fruitful syllogism, for it will
answer almost every purpose.
"1. If the will of God is done in every act, and in every
event, as the syllogism asserts, it follows that everything that is
done, and everything that takes place, is in accordance with the
divine will.
" 2. Murder, robbery, drunkenness and whoredom, all take
place. " 3. Therefore murder, robbery, drunkenness and whoredom,
are all in accordance with the blessed will of God.
" Once more,
"1. Universalists ought not to be opposed to the fulfillment of
the will of God.
" 2. If the above Universalist syllogism be sound, murder,
robbery, drunkenness and whoredom transpire in fulfillment of
the divine will.
" 3. Therefore Universalists ought not to be opposed to mur
der, robbery, drunkenness and whoredom."
Again, " If God's will can but be done in everything, it follows that
what does not take place, is not according to the will of God.
" All men do not pray, therefore it is not the will of God that
all men should pray.
" All men do not believe the truth, therefore it is not the will
of God that all men should believe the truth.
" All men do not keep his commandments, therefore it is not
the will of God that all men should keep his commandments."

206 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
The Saviour said, (Matt. 7 : 21,) " Not every one that saith
unto me Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven •
but he that doeth ihe will of my Father which is in heaven."
Here we have proof that the will of God is not done in all cases.
A host of such texts might be adduced, were it needful. What
is sin, but a transgression of the Divine law ? and what is that
law but a transcript of the Divine mind, or an expression of His
will? Thus these men array the God of truth against himself.
LXXXVI. " He retainetk not Ms anger forever, because he
delighteth in mercy." Micah 7 : 18.
Says the author of the Guide, p. 42, "A precious assurance !
altogether at variance with the doctrine of endless misery."
This forms one of those arguments by which the faith of a cer
tain class of minds receives its enlargement. The prophet
¦predicts the desolation of Israel, on account of the wickedness
of the people. He is interceding in their behalf, after which
God is introduced promising their future restoration to national
privileges in this world. Then a chorus of Jews is introduced,
singing a hymn of thanksgiving, beginning with the verse of
which this text is a part. The reader will see by examination,
that this was not spoken of all men, nor of the future state, but
of the Jewish people in this world, " the remnant of his heri
tage." But no matter for this, it can be woven in as occasion
may require, with other texts, to deceive the people. We
might, with at least equal propriety, bring Isa. 27 : 11, to dis
prove Universalism. It reads thus : " He that made them will
not have mercy on them, and he that formed them will show
them no favor." Here it is asserted of a certain class, that God
will not have mercy on them, and that he will show them no
favor. How will this comport with the idea of God's endless
mercy and favor to all men ? Reader, is not our argument as
sound as Mr. Whittemore's ?

Sec. 87.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 207
LXXXVIL " God shall wipe away aU tears from their
eyes ; and there shaU be no more death, neither sorrow, nor
crying ; neither shall there be any more pain; for the former
things are passed away." Rev. 21:4. See also verses 7
and 8.
Paraphrased in accordance with Universalist views, the pas
sage reads thus : " God shall wipe away all tears from the eyes
of the whole human family ; and to all there shall be no more
death, neither shall they suffer any more sorrow, or crying, or
pain ; for the former things have passed away from the whole of
Adam's posterity." But the reader will see at a glance that
this happy state of things is not predicated of the whole human
race, but of the inhabitants of the " NEW JERUSALEM,"
v. 2. " There shall be no more death." This, with Univer
salist divines, is a kind of make-weight text to be thrown in at
any time, hke Lam. 3 : 31, and 1 Cor. 15 : 22. Mr. Whitte
more has put it in capitals, and says, " Although we read in the
scriptures of the second death, yet, if we read of thirty deaths,
it would be no argument against Universalism, since the time is
to come when " there shall be no more death." Guide, p.
53. The substance of this, when connected with the facts in
the ease, is this : a certain class shall suffer no more death ;
therefore, none of the human family shall suffer any more death !
Not very logical. But when is the happy state of things con
tained in the text to4ake place ? Not in this world, as " none
are saved from all moral evil here.", U IU. fy Def, p. 261.
" No man on earth is entirely free from sin." Page, on Matt.
7 : 23. It is in the future, then, that the blessings named in the
text are to be enjoyed. We too admit the future-state reference
of the passage, and we know, too, that if there is any meaning
in language, it is descriptive of the bliss of the saints as distil
guished from the state of the wicked (v. 8). Inspiration, after
describing the exemptions and bliss of saints, says, " He that
overcometh shall inherit all things (all the things just described) ;
and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. But the fear-

208 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
ful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and
whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall
have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brim
stone ; which is the second death," v. 7 and 8. It will be seen
by examination, that there is not a single mark of future refer
ence in v. 4, that is not found in v. 8. They both refer to tho
future condition of man, presenting two classes and conditions,
aceording to character. One class are to experience "no more
death ; " but the other are to suffer " ihe second death." One
is freed from tears, sorrow, and pain; the other "shall have
their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone."
Never was there a more gross perversion than using v. 4, or any
part of it, to prove the salvation of all men. The fact that the
system demands such work of its advocates to sustain it, should
be considered proof demonstrative that it is not of God. Reader,
beware of the " second death."
LXXXVIII. "For it is impossible for those who were once
enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift," &c. Heb.
6 : 4-6.
The author ofthe Guide, p. 197, labors to show that this pas
sage cannot mean what it seems ,to mean, because " the scrip
tures teach that all things are possible with' God," and " that
all will admit that God can do anything which does not involve
in itself a necessaiy contradiction or impossibility." Very true,
and the case named in the passage is just of that character.
When the Bible declares that all things are possible with God,
it is to be understood in a restricted sense ; for it is evident from
the nature of God, and also from the Bible itself, that it is "im
possible for'God to lie," and that "he cannot deny himself."
Repentance is a work God has enjoined upon the sinner, without
which he cannot be saved. But while none can repent without di
vine aid, it is also true that God as a moral governor, cannot coerce
men into repentance. It must be voluntary on the part of man,
or it involves a contradiction, arraying the Deity against himself

Sec. 88.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 209
by attributing to him a work which he has enjoined upon the
sinner, and which none but a sinner can perform. The apostle
speaks (2 Tim. 2 : 25) of God's giving repentance, by which we
understand that he gives the means and opportunity, and not
that he repents for the sinner. Man is not passive in this work,
but an active agent, as the Bible and experience clearly show.
But says the Guide, " If a man becomes incapable of repent
ance, he will be no longer a moral agent ; nor will he be under
obligation to do that which he cannot." To this quibble we
reply, that the responsibUity of a man before God who has lost
his moral agency, or power of right action, depends upon how
he lost it. If a man in the providence of God becomes insane,
independent of his voluntary action, justice declares him not
responsible. But if a man by his voluntary acts, hardens his
heart, sears his conscience, grieves the Spirit, and hurls his own
reason from its throne, justice requires that such a man be held
responsible for acts committed while in such a state. Is the
man who voluntarily deprives himself of the means to sustain his
own family, in no way responsible for the poverty and wretched
ness which may follow such an act ? A man becomes beastly
drunk, reason is dethroned, he burns his neighbor's buildings,
and murders his own wife. ' Does not God hold him responsible
for these acts ? Civil law, even, holds him responsible, for the
good reason that he had no right to abuse his powers by drink
ing to intoxication. God has given man powers as a moral
being, but if he abuses them by acts of sin so as to destroy his
reason, is it not just to conclude that God will hold him respon
sible in the day of judgment, not only for the evil he commits in
such a state, but also for the good he fails to do, which he might
otherwise have accomplished ? Most certainly it is. Again ; it
is said by the Guide, that " Paul only meant that it was impos
sible for him, by his preaching to apostate Christians, to renew
them again to repentance." Well, what is gained by this, sup
posing that it be admitted ? Does it prove that their renewal is
possible from some other source ? Inspiration declares of such
11*

210 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
apostates that it is IMPOSSIBLE, that is, they are past recov
ery ; it is impossible for any instrumentality or agency " to
renew them again unto repentance ; seeing they crucify to them
selves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame."
But Universalism contradicts the Bible, and says it is possible.
Which shall we credit, Universalism or the Bible. See Sec. IY.
LXXXIX. " What must Ido to be saved? " Acts 16: 30.
Why does the jailer tremble and fall before Paul and Silas,
proposing this important question ? Did he fear the Roman
law ? This could not be, for that had not been violated ; and
this he knew, for Paul had just said to him, " Do thyself no
harm, for we are all kere." Would he have consulted two poor
missionaries of the cross, if the Roman law was all he feared ?
Then see the answer of Paul. " Believe on the Lord Jesus
Christ, and thou shalt be saved." Was faith in Christ the way
of salvation from the penalty of Roman laws? Faith in
Christ was quite a sure way to incur that penalty. Paul had
been whipped in the public streets of Philippi only the day
before, and the jailer knew it ; and now Paul directs him to
believe on Christ in order to escape the Roman law ! This is
too absurd, even for Mr. Whittemore ; hence, in his Guide, p.
' 175, he admits that the jailer in effect inquired, " What must I
do to become a Christian? " But, lest it should be thought
that he had any respect to the future world, a dust is raised
about the word saved, and ten texts of scripture are produced to
prove most conclusively what no one ever denied, viz : that
Christians are said to be saved in this world, a fact with which
all Christians are perfectly familiar ; and what does it prove ?
Does it prove that the jailer had no thoughts of eternity, in the
deep convictions he evinced ? Much is said about universal sal
vation, which of course is to be experienced in the future state.
Suppose we were to deny that there is any salvation in the future
world, and then, to prove it, should make a great parade of text
to show that men are said to be saved in this world, would it be

Sec. 90.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 211
honest? Yet this could be done with equal fairness. (Sec.
LI.) The jailer was without doubt a believer in future retribu
tions, for this doctrine was common not only among Jews, but
also among GentUes (Sec. CXXXII) ; and it is highly proba
ble that he heard the praying and singing of the apostles, and
knew something of their teachings ; these, together with the
earthquake and the Christian demeanor of the prisoners, were
set home to his heart by the Holy Spirit. He now sees himself
a sinner, and has such a discovery of his awful exposure, that he
trembles, rushes in and falls down before Paul and Silas, and
cries, " Sirs, what must I do to be saved ? " Faithful Christian
ministers, in all ages of the church, have witnessed the trembling
power which sometimes seizes the guilty before God, in view of
their lost condition. The jaUer bears every mark of being
strongly excited by fear, which completely refutes the idea so
much dwelt upon by Universalists, viz : that fear has nothing to
do with making men Christians ; for observe, Mr. Whittemore
admits that he desired at this crisis to become a Christian, and
the history shows that he did become one.
XC. " For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all
be made alive." 1 Cor. 15 : 22.
In this section we purpose to examine those texts in 1 Cor.
15, which are involved in the controversy with Universalists,
passing over those which have no particular bearing upon the
subject. As may be seen most clearly, the apostle is not prov
ing how all men will be made holy and happy, but his subject is
the resurrection of the body. To prove and Ulustrate this, the
chapter was written. It will be seen, too, that this was addressed
to Christians, to " beloved brethren," and after proving the res
urrection, he very beautifully illustrates and explains what they,
as Christians, might expect pertaining to their bodies in that
state. This was called forth by the fact that some false teachers
at Corinth denied the doctrine of the resurrection of the body.
In the first part of the chapter he proves the resurrection of

212 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
Christ, and then shows the fatal consequences to the whole Chris
tian system, if it be a fact that Christ has not risen, as follows :
" Now, if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how
say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead ?
But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not
risen ; and if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain,
and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false wit
nesses of God ; because we have testified of God that he raised
up Christ : whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise
not. For if the dead rise not, then is Christ not raised. And
if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain ; ye are yet in your
sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are per
ished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of
all men most miserable." Ver. 12-19.
Mr. Balfour (Essays, p. 193) denies the immortality of the
soul, and contends that none who die have any conscious exist
ence until the resurrection, which is yet future, and brings in
proof of this, v. 18. That the apostle never designed to teach
materialism in this passage, the reader will see by consulting the
scriptures referred to a few pages forward in this section. He is
showing, from ver. 12 to ver 19, the fatal consequences to the
whole Christian system of denying the resurrection of the dead.
Some, it seems, admitted the resurrection of Christ, while they
denied that others would be raised. But the apostle shows them
that consistency required that they discard the resurrection of
Christ, and that they virtually did so by the doctrines they put
forth. He then shows them, that occupying this ground they
made Christ a deceiver, and the apostles false witnesses, and if
the gospel could be thus stripped of the evidence it derives from
the resurrection of its author, and the resurrection of the body
be set aside, then every other doctrine pertaining to it must fall.
Then the world must be left without Christianity, without any
light respecting the future, and all must be as dark and dreary
as Paganism. They had experienced present salvation from the
guUt of sin, through the atonement; and some of their brethren

Sec. 90.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 213
had suffered all manner of indignities, and had died most cruel
deaths in hope of a future life of bhss. But the apostle shows
that if the resurrection of Christ is false, then all other Chris
tian doctrines were of no avail ; that their preaching was vain,
and they " which had fallen asleep in Christ had perished," be
cause they trusted in Christ to save them from their sins. But
if he had not risen from the dead, he was himself a sinner,
having been guilty of deception and falsehood, and had himself
gone to perdition, and could never save them from the same fate.
Furthermore, the doctrine of present justification was destroyed,
for "your faith is vain, and ye are yet in your sins." Then,
upon the principle that the Christian system is false, he shows
the folly of those who, unlike some in our day who contend that
conduct here takes no hold on the future state, were laboring
and enduring with, respect to a better world, he says : " If in
this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most
miserable." We see by these brief thoughts that the idea
taught, is not that there is no conscious existence unless the
bodies of men are raised, but that a denial of the resurrection
is equivalent to a rejection of the whole gospel plan, and thus
the world would be left without any hope or just conceptions re
specting the future. The apostle continues : " But now is
Christ risen from the dead and become the first fruits of them
that slept." Ver. 20.
" Of tkem that slept." Are we to understand by this all
mankind, or a particular class of persons ? The latter, as is quite
evident. This sense is fixed by ver. 18 : " Then they which
have fallen asleep in Christ," Seo., that is, those who had died
in his cause, perhaps as martyrs. The same class Paul names
in 1 Thess. 4 : 16': " The dead in Christ shall rise first ; " and
the same that John refers to, Rev. 14 : 13 : " Blessed are the
dead which die in the Lord." The clause, " Christ the first
fruits," will be considered in connection with ver. 23 : " 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

214 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
be made alive. But every man in his own order : Christ the
first fruits ; afterwards, they that are Christ's at his coming."
Ver. 21-23. What death did Adam die, or what death was in
troduced by him ? " His death was simply moral ; he died to
innocence ; there was nothing affected but his mind and heart ; no
change took place in his moral or physical constitution." U.
III. and Def. , p. 76. But in what sense do all dio in Adam ?
Some years since while delivering a course of lectures in one of
the villages of Maine, we gave a public call upon Universalists
for information respecting their views upon ver. 22. We knew
that this text was often used to prove their doctrine, but could
find nothing explicit, in the many books ' from their authors we
had in possession, to show how all die in Adam. The next
week an anonymous letter was received, supposed to be dictated
by the Universalist minister of the place, in which we were in
formed that all men do not die in Adam, as we bathe in water
or sail in a boat, but that Adam died to innocence, or died a
moral death by sinning, and that all men by sin die as Adam
did, and that by Christ all are to be made alive morally. Ac
cording to this view, to die in Adam means simply to die as
Adam did. Moral death, we suppose, is indicated Rom. 8:6:
"For to be carnally minded is death." Also, Eph. 2:1:
' ' Dead in trespasses and sins. ' ' Upon the hypothesis that a moral
death and resurrection are intended, let us paraphrase the three
texts and see what character is given the Saviour and his holy
saints. " For since by Adam came moral death, by Christ came
also the resurrection of the morally dead. For as in Adam all
die a moral death, even so in Christ shall all be made morally
alive. But every man in his own order in this resurrection from
moral death to moral life : Christ the first fruits of the morally
dead ; afterwards, they of the morally dead that are Christ's at
his coming ! " And is it so ? Was Christ the immaculate, who
" did no sin," " dead in trespasses and sins ? " Was he in his
resurrection " the first fruits of them that slept " in moral pollu
tion ? And then are those who in the scriptures are denominat-

Sec. 90.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 215
ed Christ's, morally dead? No ; for " they that are Christ's
have crucified the flesh, with the affections and lusts." Gal.
5 : 24. But to carry out the Universalist view of a moral death
and resurrection, the passage is made to teach that which is both
blasphemous and absurd, namely : That Christ was the first
fruits of those who are raised from moral death and pollution,
and afterwards those that are Christ's at his coming shall be
raised from the same deplorable condition ! Says Mr. Skinner :
" Perhaps there is no better way of detecting the fallacy of a
doctrine, than by looking at the-difficulties into which it leads."
U. HI. and Def, p. 171. We beg the reader to look at the
difficulties into which Universalist interpretations lead in the
subject under consideration. Adopt the truth, that the death
and resurrection of the body constitute the apostle's theme, and
all becomes plain and luminous in his reasoning. The reader
need not be informed that ver. 22 is a text ever at hand to prove
Universalism. This has, by the advocates of this dogma, been
Ulustrated by scales. In the first scale is placed, " As in
Adam all die," then " even so " under an even beam, and in
the second scale, " In Christ shall all be made alive." The
object of this is, to show that just as much was gained by Christ
as was lost by Adam ; and this is doubtless true in the sense of
the text. , Now, if we can ascertain what is in the first scale, we
can soon learn what is in the second. To get at this, let us in
quire about what was Paul writing. Is he showing how all men
became sinners in consequence of Adam's transgression, and
how all men wUl be made holy and happy by Christ's obedience ?
Nothing of the kind. He is not Ulustrating the plan of salva
tion at all. Is Paul calling the attention of his brethren to the
subject of spiritual death and spiritual life ? By no means.
This chapter, as all must see, was written to prove and illustrate
the resurrection of the body, and this very naturally led him to
show how men became subject to temporal death, which he does
thus: "For since by man, i. e., Adam, came death, i. e. the
death of the body, by man, i. e., Christ, came also the resur-

216 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
rection of the dead." Ver. 21. " For as in Adam (the man
alluded to,) all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive," i,
e., shall be raised from the dead. Ver. 22. " But every man in
his own order ; Christ the first fruits, afterwards they that are
Christ's at his coming." Ver. 23. No man, it would seem,
need mistake the subject. It is not a resurrection of all men to
holiness and happiness in heaven ; it is not a resurrection to
spiritual life, but the resurrection of the bodies of men, is the
apostle's subject. He teaches us, most clearly too, by implica
tion, that all will not be Christ's, at his coming to raise the dead.
It must be obvious to all, that the death of the body is taught
by the first member of the text, and the resurrection of the body
by the second, and nothing more. It is worthy of remark, that
it is said (Phil. 3 : 21) of Christ, when he shall come to raise
the dead, that he " shall change our vile body; " but it is no
where said he shall change our vile soul ; and we have yet to
learn that anywhere in the Bible, anything is said equivalent to
it. But suppose we go directly against the whole scope of the
apostle's reasoning here, and admit that spiritual death is here
intended ; we then ask, do Universalists hold that all men were
exposed to endless spiritual death or misery, by dying in Adam,
and that all are to be, by Christ, raised to endless bliss ? This
they must admit, or the seale, containing the first member of the
text, kicks the beam at once, and the "even so " is even non
sense. Will Universalists admit that Adam's sin affected his
own future state, or that of his posterity ? If they do, what be
comes of that much cherished notion among them, that man's
conduct here takes no hold on eternity ? for if Adam's conduct
took hold on the future state, then does the conduct of aU men,
inasmuch as the principles of God's moral government are the
same respecting all men, as moral beings. There is no avoiding
this. But, on the other hand, if the death, by Adam, takes no
hold on the future state, then the hfe, by Christ, takes no hold
on the future state, for it is " EVEN SO."
It is well known, that modern Universalists stoutly contend

Sec. 90.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 217
against the idea that mankind are at all exposed to a future hell,
either by Adam's or their own sins. Just to show how the use
they make of this passage, when properly considered, wars with
their own theory, let us inquire, what do they contend is taught
by the last member of the text, or what is in the second scale ?
We are told, with great confidence, that it contains Universal
ism. Well, what is Universalism ? It is this : All men, by the
resurrection, will be raised to endless bliss. No Universalist
wUl complain of this definition. This, then, is what the second
scale contains. Now what must the first scale contain to balance
it? Observe, it is " even so." It must contain, then, that
which is directly opposite. Well, what is that ? It is endless
misery, as all must see. There is no avoiding this, as the text
is antithetical-, strictly so. From this view of their interpreta
tion of the last member of the text, we arrive at the following
conclusion : by Adam, all were exposed to endless misery ; by
Christ, all are saved from endless misery. Now modern Uni
versalists know that it would be fatal to their system to admit
that men were ever exposed to endless misery ; therefore they
wUl not adopt the conclusion, although it grows legitimately from
the premises they themselves furnish. Error is always inconsist
ent with itself. The doctrine of the text, as we have seen, is
this : the temporal death of all men by Adam, the resurrection
of the bodies of all by Christ, and thus the scales are even.
It will be seen from the above, that this text no more teaches
the salvation of all men, than it does the restoration of the Jews
to Palestine.
That some of our readers may have a better understanding of
Universalist sentiments, and also see how they war with the
scriptures, we shall present the views of two, who have been
reckoned among their ablest divines, upon the resurrection. Mr.
Balfour contends that man has no immortal soul, and can have
no patience whatever with the idea of disembodied spirits. Hear
him upon this point : " Man comes into the world and dies simi
lar to the brute creation. God made man wiser than the beasts

218 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I,
of the field, or the fowls of the air ; and he has given him a
promise of a resurrection from the dead : but to say he has given
him an immortal soul, to be happy or miserable in a disembodied
state, is traveling beyond the record." Essay, p. 97.
His doctrine is, that none that have died since the world
began, have now any conscious existence, neither will they have
until the resurrection, then all will be raised to a state of immor
tal bliss, irrespective of character here. This event he considers
yet future. This' materialism of his is abundantly refuted by
the following scriptures, to which the reader is referred, to say
nothing of many more texts. Eccl. 12 : 7 ; Matt. 10 : 28 ;
Luke 16 : 19-31 ; 20 : 37, 38 ; 23 : 43-46 ; 24 : 36-40, whero
our Lord sanctions the doctrine of disembodied spirits ; John
11 : 26 ; 8 : 51 ; Acts 7 : 59; 2 Cor. 12 : 1-4; 5 : 1-9; Phil.
1:20-25; 2 Pet. 1:13-15.
The materialism of Mr. Balfour, we conclude, has never been
very extensively received by the denomination, for such is the
state of the human heart, while under the influence of modern
Universalism, that the rule seems to be readily adopted that no
doctrine can be true which does not afford its recipients the most
pleasurable sensations respecting the future, whatever may be
their character here.
In this fact is found a reason why the doctrine of a limited
future punishment has been so generally rejected, which was at
one time held by the denomination. (Sec. CXXXVI.) For
the same reason Mr. Balfour's views have not obtained exten
sively among them. Errors of as great magnitude as Mr. B.'s
are readily received by their people, if they are only in keeping
with their desires ; but his errors have the misfortune not to be
of this stamp. They desire to be happy immediately at death.
But there is something very repulsive in the thought of going
into a state of nonentity, perhaps for thousands of years, before
heavenly bliss can be enjoyed. Hence their teachers, who are
always accommodating men upon such subjects, and are always
disposed to impart peace to troubled minds, have sought out an

Sec. 90.] ' UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE.

219

invention by . which all men are to enter into bliss immediately
when they die. 'So far as we can learn from their books and
papers, the ideas which prevaU most extensively among Univer
salists at the present respecting the resurrection, are, that it^ is
not general, but successive, or as some say, progressive, and
that the human body will never be raised. This resurrection,
they conclude, has been going on, from the time of Adam down
to the present. Some talk of it as though it took place at death,
and others, as if to get rid of certain difficulties growing out of
a death resurrection, would have a space of insensibUity between
death and the resurrection of some days' duration. The fol
lowing extract is taken from a sermon by Mr. J. B. Dods, who
has been one of the most noted divines in the order, and from
aU we can gather, we think it contains very nearly the senti
ments of many of the Universalists upon this subject :
" We have already shown that the resurrection ofthe dead
was to be at the sound of the last trump. And as that trump
commenced sounding at the end of the Jewish age, when Christ
came in his kingdom, I deem it sufficient to estabhsh the fact,
that the dead are continually rising in this last, this gospel day.
But the question presents itself — were any of the human fam
ily raised immortal before that period ? To this question I give
an affirmative answer. I firmly believe, thatthe dead have been
rising immortal from Adam to the present day, for God has never
changed the established order of the universe. I beheve that
the dead are raised without any miracle, in the common accep
tation of that term, as much as I believe that we are born, and
die, not by a miracle, but according to that constitution of things
which God has immutably established from the beginning. I
believe this doctrine of Christ to be founded upon the unchang
ing principles of philosophy, but so mysterious, that man in his
present existence cannot comprehend the subtle causes and
effects by which he shall put on immortality." Trumpet, No.
718. These views are certainly more anti-scriptural than Mr. Bal-

220 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
four's, for with all his absurdities, we must give him the credit
of one correct thought, viz. : a future general resurrection ; but
in these we cannot discover even one truth. Those views 'war
with the scriptures, (ver. 20 and 23,) which declare Christ to
be the first fruits. Aceording to this hypothesis, the first fruits
appeared many ages before Cbrist, for men had been rising from
the dead ever since Cain killed Abel, or four thousand years be
fore the Saviour's resurrection. The apostle, as if he here fore
saw that some would attempt to teach that the phrase " first
fruits " has reference to rank and not to the order of the resur
rection, has established the fact that Christ is the first in the
immortal resurrection, by language which cannot be frittered
away. In Col. 1 : 18, he calls him "the first born from the
dead," and in Acts 26 : 22, 23 he says : ^
"Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto
this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other
things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should
come :
" That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first
that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the
people, and to the Gentiles."
" Here Christ is declared by the inspired apostle to be " the
first that should rise from the dead." A progressive resurrec
tion stands opposed to those scriptures, which speak of the event
as yet future. See Mark 12 : 23, 24 ; Luke 14 : 14 ; John
5 : 28, 29 ; Acts 24 : 15 ; 1 Thess. 4 : 14-17. Others might
be named, but these texts are enough to establish our point.
Again : This resurrection is to take place at the coming of
Christ. 1 Thess. 4 : 14-17 ; 1 Cor. 15 : 23. Did Christ come
at the resurrection, thousands of years before he assumed human
nature ? Does he now come at the death of every individual ?
Are the scriptures referred to, and other similar ones fulfilled,
in this way ? Preposterous ! Mr. Balfour, in contending with
those who hold that the resurrection takes place at death, has
the following :

Sec. 90.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 221
" When shall the resurrection of the dead take place ? Some
say it takes place at every man's death. But certainly Martha
did not think so, for she said concerning Lazarus — ' I know that
he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.' She
probably borrowed the phrase last day, from what she heard" our
Lord say, (John 6 : 39, 40-45,) where he four times spoke of the
resurrection, as being in the last day. If the resurrection is at
a man's death, she ought to have said : ' I know that he rose four
days ago,' for Lazarus had been four days dead. But she spoke
of the resurrection and the last day as simultaneous events. It
appears to me, that the resurrection, the last day, the period
called the end, and the coming of Christ, all refer to the same
period. But how many years, or ages until it arrives, the Bible,
so far as I understand it, does not inform us, and I have no de
sire to be wise above what is written." Essay, p. 179.
Again, in speaking of Christ's conversation with the Saddu
cees, he says :
" In concluding my remarks on these passages, I would merely
notice, that if the resurrection takes place at a man's death, both
our Lord and the Sadducees speak as if they had been of a dif
ferent opinion. The Sadducees speak of it as a future event,
thus : ' In the resurrection therefore when they shall rise.' So
did our Lord, for he says : ' For when they shall rise from the
dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage.' But
would either of them have spoken in this manner, had they be
lieved that every man is raised at his death ? It is easily perceived
that this would have entirely altered the shape of the Sadducees'
question." Essay, p. 187.
Mr. Balfour's arguments upon this point are sound, as all
must see.
Upon the hypothesis of Mr. Dods, and others, the body is
never to be raised. But we ask, was not the resurrection of
Christ the pattern of ours as well as the pledge ? Was not
Christ's literal body raised ? or was his only the resurrection of
the spirit ? Said he to his astonished disciples after his resur-

222 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Parti.
rection, " Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and
bones as ye see me have." Surely, if the scriptures (Luke
24 : 37-43) do not teach that the Saviour's material body, the
same body that died upon the cross, and was put into the sepul
chre, was raised, what can they be relied upon teaching ?
Another thought. Did the resurrection of Christ take placo
when he died ? Certainly not.
Should it be thought that a progressive resurrection militates
no more against the idea of Christ's being the first fruits, than
the resurrections which took place when the Saviour was upon
earth, such as that of the widow's son and Lazarus, we answer,
these have no connection with the resurrection taught by Chris
tianity. In these cases there was divine power exerted, or a
miracle performed, to restore natural life in this world. This is
a very different thing from the Christian resurrection, by which
all men are to be raised, and the righteous to be glorified with
their Saviour in heaven. We know not that any ever contended
that these form a part of the Christian resurrection.
Again : Universalists have written much to prove that Christ
came at the destruction of Jerusalem. Will they give ver. 23
such a reference ? If so, then the resurrection took place and
death was destroyed at the destruction of Jerusalem !
" Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the
kingdom to God, even the Father ; when he shall have put down
all rule, and all authority, and power." Ver. 24.
" Then cometh the end," that is, when Christ shall come to
raise the dead. By " the kingdom " isto be understood Christ's
mediatorial kingdom, which shall be restored to God the Father
when he (Christ) shall have put down all rule, and authority,
and power which opposed itself to his government. See on
verses 27 and 28.
" For he must reign till he hath put all enemies under his
feet." Yer. 25. This is a willing subjection say Universalists,
and they will have it that it surely indicates the salvation of
all men,. But we see nothing whatever to warrant such an as-

Sec. 90.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 223
sumption. Remark, he must reign, not till he makes all men
holy and happy, but till he hath put all his enemies under his
feet. This is an allusion to the practice of conquerors who trod
upon the necks of their conquered enemies. This, however,
was preparatory to their destruction, and not to their restoration,
as maybe seen Josh. 10 : 24-26.
" The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." Ver. 26.
Or as some would render it, " The last enemy, death, shall be
destroyed." Keep in mind the apostle's subject, which is not a
moral resurrection, and consequently it is not moral death which
shaU be destroyed. His theme is the resurrection of the body ;
hence, the death spoken of is animal death, or the death of the
body. What Paul asserts, is simply this: "Death, the last
enemy of our physical nature shall be destroyed by the resurrec
tion. But what has this to do with making all the race holy and
happy in heaven ? Just nothmg.
" For he hath put aU things under his feet. But when he
saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is ex
cepted which did put all things under him. And when all
things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also be
subject unto him that put all things under him, that God maybe
all in all. Ver. 27 and 28.
To say that the subjection named is a spiritual and willing
one of all moral beings, is taking for granted what should be
proved. It is mere assumption. When a sovereign has sub
dued his rebellious subjects, are we to understand by it that all
are to be restored to favor, that none will suffer ? A strange
conclusion that. Great stress has been laid upon that part of
the text which says: "That God may be all in all." But it
should be remembered that it is said of Christ, (Eph. 1 : 23,)
that " he filleth all in all; " also, in Col. 3 :11, " Christ is all and
in all." Christ is now sovereign, as he has notyet delivered the
kingdom to God the Father; and in the government of it he is
now "all in all," yet millions are unsaved. This being the
case, the sovereignty may be transferred to the Father, and he

224 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
become all in all, in the sense of government, which is the sense
intended, and still a portion of the human race may remain un
saved. Observe : it is said, " Then shall the Son le subject
unto him, that God may be all in all," which implies that if the
Son should not deliver up the kingdom and become subject, God
could not be all in all in the sense intended in the text. This
plainly shows us that reference is had to authority in this pas
sage, and not to the salvation of all men, and that by God's
being all in all, nothing more is meant than that he will then
govern the universe in his own person, as he did before all power
in heaven and earth was transferred to Christ. Matt. 28 : 18.
Thus we see the passage yields no support to Universalism.
" But soma. man will say, how are the dead raised up? and
with what body do they come ? " Ver. 35. This is not the
language of a sincere inquirer after truth, but of an objector.
It is the language of one who intended to make the most direct
and positive denial of the doctrine. From the argument of tbe
apostle it appears that, the objection was based upon the fact,
that the body after death becomes decomposed, and mingles with
other elements, as if the objector had said : The dead can never
be raised up, for the thing is unreasonable and impossible, as the
body becomes decomposed, its matter is scattered and its identity
is destroyed. Now, this is in substance the reasoning of a large
portion of Universalists at the present time, against the resur
rection of the body.
Prof. Bush, a few years since, came to their aid, and has
written a book against the resurrection of the body, in which he
says, (p. 40) : " The resurrection of the body, if my reason
ing and expositions are well founded, is not a doctrine of reve
lation." Again he says, (p. 70) : "The resurrection body is
that part of our present being to which the essential hfe of the
man pertains." " It constitutes the inner essential vitalities of
our present bodies : and it lives again in another state because it
never dies." Again, ( p. 170) : " Let it (the resurrection) he
understood as an event which transpires with every individual
believer, as soon as he leaves the body."

Sec. 90.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 225
We have rarely if ever found, even among Universalist
writers, more bare-faced skepticism connected with a professed
regard for the Bible, than is found in the book from which these
extracts are taken. Everything in the Bible must bow to his
rational deductions, as he calls them. Speaking of the body
raised, he says : "It lives again in another state, because it
never dies." If we look at this chapter, and elsewhere in the
Bible where the resurrection is taught, we shall find that it is
the dead that are raised. We think it would puzzle Mr. Bush,
with all his philosophy, to show how they are raised from the
dead who never die! We have shown on ver. 23, the anti-
scriptural character of the notion, that the resurrection takes
place when a man dies, which need not be repeated here. The
resurrection is not to be accounted for upon philosophical princi
ples, but is an effect produced by the immediate agency of God.
It is to be considered in the light of a miracle and in no other,
and certainly the man who lays any claim to a belief in Chris
tianity must admit that God can perform a miracle. Then,
" why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God
should raise the dead ? " Acts 26 : 8.
What though the body be decomposed, and form new compo
sitions, or be scattered to the four winds, is not Almighty power
and skUl adequate to the task of raising the same identical body ?
" Cannot the chemist take a piece of gold coin into his laborato
ry, file it to powder, dissolve it with acids, alloy it with other
metals, grind it again to powder, throw it into the fire, and min
gle it with soot, ashes, and charcoal, and yet bring out the same
fine gold ? And cannot he mold it again in the same die, and be
perfectly sure that it is the very same gold ? And is the God
of all power and wisdom, whose vast laboratory is the universe,
less skillful than the creatures he has made ? And cannot he
who is intimately present to every particle of matter, who knows
every particle by name, and whose power has brought every
particle into being, collect together again the scattered frag
ments of the human frame, although mingled with the elements
12

226 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
and driven to the four winds of heaven. May we not reply to
those making this objection to the resurrection of the body, " Ye
do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God."
Rev. C. Kingsley.
" Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened except
it die : and that which thou sowest," &c. Ver. 39-49. Paul
answers the objection named ver. 35, and says : "Thou fool!
objectest against the resurrection of the body, because it is dead,
and decomposed, and mingled with the dust. But your own
experience shall condemn you ; for the very seed you sow,
whether wheat or other grain, never rises out of the ground ex
cept it die and become decomposed, the very objection you al
lege against the resurrection of the body. You talk of the
body as being a mass of loathsome corruption. But even the
grain you sow becomes the same in this respect. But you do
not sow the body that shall be, as to this circumstance, but
naked grain which putrifies in the earth ; but God giveth it a
body such as pleases him, differing as to the circumstances just
mentioned, but composed of the same matter. It comes forth
from corruption new and beautiful. So is the resurrection of
the dead. The body that is sown or buried in the earth is not
the same body that rises again, as to its frailty and tendency to
corruption and dissolution, though composed of the same matter ;
for (ver. 42-44) " it is sown in corruption, in a state of decay :
"it is raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor ; itis
raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in
power. It is sown a natural body," the subject of all
these weaknesses ; "it is raised a spiritual body," subject to
none of them. For " there is a natural body," namely, that
which was sown, " and there is a spiritual body," namely, that
which rises again, very different as to its circumstances, but com
posed of the same substance. This we conceive to be the true
state of the apostle's argument, without ever being intended to
give the least sanction to the " germ " doctrine. Any compari
son may be tortured and spoiled by tracing analogies which were
never intended. The point of comparison is a state of decay

Sec. 90.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 227
and corruption, in both the grain and the body, and the coming
forth out of a state of corruption to new life and vigor. It was
6od who gave the grain such a body as pleased him ; and the
God that could do the one could do the other. "It is sown in
corruption, it is raised in incorruption." What is sown in cor
ruption ? Why the dead body, carrying out the metaphor of
the grain. " It is raised in incorruption." What is raised in
incorruption ? Why that which was sown in corruption,
namely, the body. "What else was sown in corruption ? Was
the resurrection body of the new theory ever sown or buried
in corruption? It was never sown or buried at all, for "it
escapes from the body before it is consigned to the dust." It
never was corruptible at all; for "it is immortal in its own
nature." It was never dead at all ; for " it lives in another
state, because it never dies." It never had any body at all ; "it
is only called a body because of the poverty of human language."
" It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory." What is sown
in dishonor ? Why, the body, in a state of dissolution, wben it
becomes food for worms. "It is raised in glory." What is
raised in glory ? Why, that which was sown, or buried, in dis
honor, viz., the body. " It is sown in weakness, it is raised in
power." What is raised in power? Why, that which was
sown in weakness, viz., the body. " It is sown a natural body,
it is raised a spiritual body." What is raised a spiritual body ?
Why, that which was sown a natural body. What else is sown
or buried, but the natural body ? It is the same natural body
which becomes changed to a spiritual body by the resurrection
from the dead." Rev. C. Kingsley.
Mr. Kingsley, in the work from which this extract is taken,
is combating the denial of the resurrection of the body by Prof.
Bush ; hence, some of these points whieh have a bearing upon
the Universalist controversy are unnoticed. We add a few
thoughts. The apostle in this passage is treating upon the spiritual cor
poreity of the resurrection body, which differs radically from

228 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Parti.
flesh and blood, and is contrasting it with the gross animal putre
factive corporeity of the present state. It has been asserted
that by " the dead," (ver. 35,) all the dead are meant. But
admitting that the apostle puts into the mouth of the objector
the question, " How are all the dead raised up? " it would by
no means follow, that what is said in the rest of the chapter is
true of all men. But it is not admitted that the phrase, " the
dead," necessarily means all the dead. If Universalists contend
that it does, let them never refer to Rev. 20 : 12, 13, where the
expression occurs four times, to Jerusalem's destruction again.
Guide, p. 240. The sense is to be determined by the connec
tion in which the expression is found. It is obvious that Paul
means by " the dead," those who had fallen asleep in Christ,
(ver. 18,) who are Christ's at his coming, (ver. 23). What
follows was addressed to " brethren," and the use of the pro
noun we, as we find it, shows us that he was speaking of Chris
tians only.
"It is raised in glory." Are we instructed by this that all
men, the wicked as well as the righteous, are to be raised in
glory ? This is the assumption, but it is without proof. The
proof is all to the contrary. Observe : The resurrection named
in this chapter is to take place at the coming of Christ. Yer.
23. That all men are not to be raised to glory at Christ's
coming, is evident from 1 Thess. 1 : 7-10, where a marked dis
tinction is made between Christ's saints and the wicked. (Sec.
XLI.) We are not to make the inspired apostle contradict himself.
In Acts 24 : 15, speaking of the Pharisees, who were accusing
him of heresy, in repelling the charge, he says : " And have hope
toward God, which they themselves allow, that there shall be a
resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust." Now
what did the Pharisees allow ? Did they allow that all men
would be raised in glory ? By no means. They held that the
righteous only would be raised in glory ; and as Paul declares
he believed with them upon this point, he of course is teaching

SeC. 90.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE.

229

nothing contrary to this in the chapter under examination.
(Sec. X.)
We must not contradict the Son of God. Where has he ever
informed us that all shall be raised in glory? Nowhere. But
he has informed us that the wicked shall be raised to damnation,
(John 5 : 29,) which is quite another thing. Where in all the
Bible is it to be found, that all men are to be glorified with Christ
at the resurrection ? It is not to be found ; but wherever the
subject is named, it is confined to saints. Take the follow
ing, (Col. 3:4): " When Christ, who is our life, shall appear,
then shall ye also appear with him in glory." Te. Who ? All
men ? No ; but Christians, as may be seen by the context.
Rom. 8 : 17. " If so be that we suffer with him, that
we may be glorified together." This, too, is spoken of
Christians, and none else. Phil. 3 : 20, 21. " For our
conversation is in heaven ; from whence we look for the
Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ : who shall change our vile
body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body."
Here again the same idea is presented, namely : That Chris
tians are those who are to be glorified with Christ when he
shall come to raise the dead. Observe, too, it is not the
vile soul which is to be changed, but the vile body, and this
agrees with the subject of this chapter. As then, the righteous
dead only are the subjects of this glorification, nothing is gained
by it for the doctrine of Universalism.
" Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot in
herit the kingdom of God," &e. Ver. 50-52. Here we learn
that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; "
that is, in its fraU perishing state, hence the need of a change.
But what shall become of those who are still hving when Christ
shall come to raise the dead ? Paul reveals the mystery. " We
shall not all sleep, that is, all will not die, but we shall all be
changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye." The idea
is, that the change that will pass upon the bodies of the living,
will make them precisely like those of the dead after the resurrec-

230 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Parti.
tion. It will be seen, too, that the change and resurrection are
simultaneous events, which forever destroys the doctrine of a
progressive resurrection. Paul speaks of the same resurrec
tion, 1 Thess. 4 : 14-17. The reader will find this transcribed
in Sec. XXVI., also a quotation from Mr. Whittemore, admit
ting that it refers to Christ's coming to raise the dead.
In comparing 1 Thess. 4 : 14-17 with this chapter we find
the following points of resemblance.
1. Cor. The coming of Christ is taught. Ver. 23.
Thess. " We which are alive and remain unto the coming of
the Lord." Ver. 15.
2. Cor. The resurrection of the pious dead is the theme.
Ver. 52.
Thess. " The dead in Christ shall rise." Ver. 16.
3. Cor. In stating the order, they that are Christ's are to he
raised first." Ver. 23.
Thess. The dead in Christ shall rise first. Ver. 16.
4. Cor. The death of the body is called a sleep. Ver. 51.
Thess. "Them also which sleep in Jesus shall God bring
with him." Ver. 14.
5. Cor. The bodies of the living saints are to be changed when
Christ shall come. Ver. 52.
Thess. " Then we which are alive and remain shallbe caught
up together with them." Ver. 17.
6. Cor. The change of the living and the resurrection of the
dead, are to take place instantly at the coming of Christ
and the sound of the trump. Ver. 52.
Thess. " The Lord himself shall descend from heaven with
a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump
of God." Ver. 16.
No man can well mistake the apostle. He is describing the
same event in one epistle that he is in the other. How utterly
at variance is this description with* the doctrine that every man is
raised when he dies. Some have asserted that all men are to be
changed in the twinkling of an eye (ver. 52) from sin to holi-

SeC. 90.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE.

231

ness. This change is not predicated of all men, and if it were,
it would prove nothing in favor of such a view, for it is not the
soul which is to be changed, but the body. But Christians are
the class the apostle is speaking of.
" For this corruptible must put on incorruption," &c. Ver.
53, 54. In these verses we learn that when the saints are raised
that this corruptible mortal body will put on incorruption and
immortality, and in this will be fulfilled "the saying that is
written, Death is swallowed up in victory." What death ? Why
the death of the body, which is corruptible and mortal, as the
whole connection shows. How false the notion, that the body is
never to be raised ; for what is this corruptible and mortal to be
raised, if it is not the body ?
" 0 death, where is thy sting ? 0 grave, where is thy vic
tory ? The sting of death is sin," &c. Ver. 55-57. Here
death is personified, and is said to have a sting, which is sin.
What is meant by this ? Its most obvious meaning is this : Sin
ners fear to die because of their sins. The tormenting fear of
death, then, produced by sin, is its sting. But we ask why,
upon Universalist principles, should the vilest wretch in creation
fear death? This theory asserts that, " so far as admission to
endless glory is concerned, the saint and sinner stand on a per
fect level." U. IU. and Def, p. 266.
So we see that the most polluted sinner is just as well pre
pared for death, so far as the future is concerned, as the most
holy saint, and has in reality no more to fear. This one idea,
" the sting of death is sin," when properly considered, over
throws of itself the no future punishment theory. This theory
stands directly opposed to the idea that the sting of death is sin,
and therefore must be false. The apostle exclaims: "Thanks
be to God, which giveth us the victory," &c. Us. Who ? All
men ? No, it is Christians he is speaking of.
"Therefore, my beloved brethren," Sec. Ver. 58. This
verse closes up the apostle's argument, and in it he connects
man's conduct in this world with his eternal state ; for in re-

232 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
ferring to what he had been saying concerning the resurrection
of the righteous dead, he says : " Therefore, my beloved breth
ren, be ye steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work
of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labor is not in vain
in the Lord."
This exhortation harmonizes with the apostle's own practice,
who was willing to sacrifice every worldly consideration, " if,"
says he, "I might by any means attain to the resurrection of
the dead." Phil. 3:11. What did he mean by this ? Did
he fear that he would not be raised at all ? That cannot be it,
for he has declared (Acts 24 : 15) most positively that he be
lieved in the resurrection of all men. It was the blissful resur
rection of the just to which he aspired. What should we think
of a Universalist minister in our time, who, in speaking of his
labors and sacrifices, should assign as a reason for his so doing,
his anxiety " to attain to the resurrection of the dead ? " What
should we think, were he to exhort others to labor and steadfast
ness in reference to a future state ? Think ? why we should
think he was either playing the hypocrite, or that he had re
nounced his Universalism. Yet Paul is called a Universalist !
We have thus passed through that jjortion of this chapter
which treats of the resurrection of the body. This is called the
Magna Charta of Universalism. But where is that doctrine
taught in it ? Where is it once said that all shall be saved in
the resurrection, or that which is equivalent to it ? The place
cannot be shown ; but on the contrary it lies with great weight
against certain doctrines advocated by Universalists with great
zeal, as the following will show :
1. It is asserted in this chapter that, " By man came death."
But Universalism teaches that man was created mortal, and
would have died if he had never sinned, and so death is attrib
uted to God and not to man, and thus the apostle is contra
dicted. 2. Universalists very generally discard the resurrection of the
body. But Paul teaches it most explicitly in this chapter, as
we have shown.

Sec. 90.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 233
3. Universalists very generally teach a progressive resurrec
tion; that men have been rising from Adam to the present time.
But in this chapter it is represented as instantaneous.
4. Universalists teach that all wUl be Christ's in the resurrection.
But the apostle speaks of those who " are Christ's at his com
ing," thus making a distinction between those who are his and
those who are not.
5. Universalists very generally deny the second personal ad-
ven of Christ to raise the dead. But Paul teaches it, as we have
seen. (Sec XLI.)
6. Universalism teaches that, ' ' As there is no intimation of
any difference of situation, or any distinction in the plentitude
of their blessedness, we are authorized to believe that the res
urrection state is one of equality." Scrip. Doc, p. 42. But
Paul makes a distinction even among the righteous in the resur
rection. Ver. 41, 42.
7. Universalism says : " The phrase ' kingdom of God/ we
have already frequently explained in these pages. It signifies
the moral reign of Jesus upon earth." Guide, p. 182. But
Paul uses the expression to designate the future state. Ver. 50.,
This must be admitted, unless the resurrection named and its
predicates take place in this world ; a position which would at
once destroy all the capital Universalists wish to make out of
the chapter.
8. Paul teaches that the sting of death is sin. Universalism
teaches that sin is no more its sting than holiness, as we have
seen. 9. Universalists scout the idea that our actions here, affect
our future condition. Mr. Whittemore thinks it "is alike rea
sonable with saying that a man who sows a field of grain in Mas
sachusetts, shall reap the harvest from it in the State of Ohio."
Trumpet, No. 635. But Paul, as we have seen, exhorts his
brethren to labor in reference to the future world.
In at least these nine particulars, are Universalist teachings
at war with the evangelical teachings of Paul in this chapter.
12*

234 . UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
And here we add, that with the same liberty Universalists take
with certain phrases and texts, an ingenious man could, with
some good degree of plausibility, deprive this whole chapter of
its future-state reference. (Sec. CXXIII.) As Mr. Whitte
more has furnished us a rule, (Sec. CXV,) let us now apply it
to this chapter. Is it said that all men shall be holy and happy
in eternity ? Is it once said that all men shall enjoy endless
bliss beyond tke grave ? As this is not said, we conclude noth
ing like it is meant in this chapter. Observe, we do not adopt
this rule, but only apply it to show how the demand for a par
ticular phraseology, that Mr. Whittemore makes, wUl destroy his
own proof texts.
XCI. " But ihey which shall be accounted worthy to obtain
that vjorld, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry,
nor are given in marriage ; neither can they die any more :
for they are equal unto the angels ; and are the children of
God, being the children of the resurrection." Luke 20 : 35,
36 ; Matt. 22 : 30 ; Mark 12 : 25.
The assumption is, that all men by the resurrection are to bo
made equal unto the angels, and are to die no more. But the
reader will see at a glance, that 'what is here asserted by the
Saviour is not spoken of all men, but of a particular class,
" ihey which shall be accounted worthy'' This passage and
Matt. 22 : 30 ; Mark 11 : 25 are parallel texts. They occur in
our Lord's conversation with the Sadducees. The rule laid
down for the interpretation of parallels, is this : "Where par
allel passages present themselves, the clearer and more copious
place must be selected to illustrate one that is more briefly and
obscurely expressed." Home.
All who acknowledge the divine authority of the scriptures,
will see that this rule is a just one, as the Holy Ghost would ex
press nothing unimportant or untrue. The text in Luke is the
more full and copious, and among other things not found in
Matthew and Mark, is this : ' ' But they which shall be accounted

Sec. 91.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE.

235

worthy to obtain that world and ihe resurrection from the
dead." This part of the text stands directly in the way of these
expounders, so they must get rid of it, by hook or by crook.
To do this, the rule named is trampled under foot, as all will
see, by the following comment upon these texts, from the
" Guide to Universalism," p. 155 :
" John makes no record of our Lord's conversation with the
Sadducees on this subject at all. Now what shall we do ? We
find, that two or three Evangelists who report this discourse,
make no mention of the qualification found in Luke. But what
then ? Are we, therefore, to say that what Luke reported is not
true ? No, certainly not. What we . are after is the weight of
evidence as to the importance of that qualification. And that
weight is as two to one against the importance of the words in
question. We say against the importance, because had Mat
thew and Mark considered them important, (as the objection we
are noticing certainly is,) it is hardly rational to conclude they
would have omitted them altogether. The most probable con
clusion is, that, whatever we may understand by the words now,
Luke did not intend by his report to give a sense to the conver
sation, which the other Evangelists did not receive or record.
They ought to be understood as harmonizing."
Here you have it, reader, with all its beauties. Mr. W.
would not say, that what Luke says is not true. No, that would
be showing the cloven foot of Infidelity too plainly. But he
makes a dust about the importance of the qualification, if pos
sible, to destroy the force of the Saviour's words. But there
they stand faithfully recorded, and with mighty weight, too,
against the Universalist perversion of this passage. Mr. W.
knows this, hence his labor to render them unimportant. To
labor to make them unimportant, is virtually to labor to fix upon
the Saviour the character of a trifler. To say that all men shall
be accounted worthy, is to make the Saviour utter nonsense.
Why is the qualifying phrase thrown in, if there is no distmc
tion in the future world ?

236 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
It will not be admitted that the Saviour taught by implication
in this passage, that a part of mankind would never be raised
from the dead, as that would be fatal to Universalism ; for, ac
cording to that theory, if they are not raised, then are they an
nihilated ; and, if annihilated, then are they not saved.
With this text before us, one of three things must be admit-
ed : either Christ used words without meaning, or he taught
that some would never rise from the dead, or else he had respect
to some particular condition or resurrection in the future world.
To adopt the first of these is impous, and to adopt the second is
fatal to Universalism. The third is equally fatal to this dogma,
but contains the truth, for every candid mind must see that the
Saviour, in his reply to the Sadducees, referred to tbe prepara
tion necessary in order to enter that blissful spirit world where
the souls of the righteous go after death, and to the resurrection
of the just, or the righteous dead — the same resurrection to
which Paul aspired, (Phil. 3 : 11,) who was willing to sacrifice
everything the world calls good and great, "if," says he, ''I
might by any means attain to the resurrection of tke dead."
(See Sec. CVI.)
Now Paul was under no fearful apprehension that all would
not be raised, for he has declared his belief in the resurrection
of all men, (Acts 24 : 15) ; but he knew there was danger of
his failing of the resurrection of the just, and it was this, he
labored to secure. Again, there is a portion of the passage in
Luke, which Universalists often press into their service. It is
this : neither can they die any more," " are ike children of
God, being the children of the resurrection." Neither Matthew
or Mark record these saying ; therefore, according to Mr. Whit
temore's logic, they can be of but little importance ; yet this
same man, and others of like faith, find it very convenient to
pervert them, and make them very important in teaching their
errors ! Take the following oft-perverted, yet much-relied-upon
text, by Universalists, to prove their doctrine : " And I, if I be
lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." John

Sec. 91.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE.

237

12 : 32. This is recorded only by John. Matthew, Mark and
Luke have said nothing about it. Is it therefore of but little
importance ? All wUl see the wickedness of adopting such a
method with the scriptures, and how large a portion of the gos
pels must wilt away into little importance under such an inter
pretation. The Saviour is not speaking to the Sadducees upon the sub
ject of happiness after death, but upon the subject of marriage.
The objection in their minds -is not a supposed difficulty as to
moral character in the resurrection, but as to conjugal relations.
He tells them that they err, not knowing the scriptures nor the
power of God ; for in the resurrection they neither marry nor
are given in marriage, but concerning marriage, are as the
angels in heaven. This is true of all in the future state, whether
good or bad ; but the Saviour, as before stated, is speaking only
of the good or worthy. But do men merit the bliss of heaven ?
The word worthy, as here used, is not to be understood in the
sense of merit, but of suitableness, the same sense it bears in
Rev. 3:4: " They shall walk with me in white, for they are
worthy ; " that is, they are suitable or qualified. From the con
text we learn that the audience of the Saviour was a mixed mul
titude of disciples, Pharisees and Sadducees. None of them
were Universalists. The Sadducees denied a future existence,
and the Pharisees believed in a resurrection and endless punish
ment. The Saviour not only meets the objection of the Sad
ducees concerning the resurrection, but he also exposes their
error respecting the immortality of the soul, by proving that
doctrine true from the Pentateuch, the five books of Moses,
which they professed to receive. In doing this, Universalists
will have it that he preached their doctrine most clearlv to his
hearers. If he did, he was understood by them, for it would be
a severe reflection upon the Great Teacher to say that he faded
to make himself understood. But is there any evidence that
they so understood him ? Observe : Universalists have told us
that the great cause of our Saviour's ill treatment by the Phari-

238 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
sees, was his Universalism. Well, now, here are his shrewd op
posers, the Pharisees, believers in endless punishment, who are
present for the express purpose that " they might take hold of
his words." Ver. 20. Do they raise any objections to his
words on this occasion ? None at all ; but express their unqual
ified approbation thus : " Master thou hast well said." Yer.
39. Would these Partialists have spoken thus, if he had
taught them Universalism in this connection ? Never. Christ
exercised his whole ministry among believers in endless punish
ment, but he never came in collision with them upon this point,
or rebuked the doctrine in a single instance. (Sec. CXXXII.)
How unlike the course pursued by Universalist ministers in our
time. What would be thought of a minister of that order who
should remain silent upon the doctrine of endless punishment,
and should use such a qualifying expression as " they which
shall be accounted worthy to obtain," when speaking of the
future state ? With these facts before us, all must see that using
this passage to prove the salvation of all men, is a most palpable
perversion. (See Sec. CXXIII.)
XCII. " And fear not them which kill ihe body, but are not
able to kill the soul ; but rather fear him which is able to
destroy both soul and body in hell." Matt. 10 : 28 ; Luke
12 : 4, 5.
We have in the Guide, p. 92, on this declaration of the
Saviour, a specimen of the treatment those texts receive which
are directly opposed to Universalism. Says the author, " This
passage is, confessedly, difficult of construction." Very diffi
cult for Universalism, we admit. He then favors us with quib
bles, questions, negatives, and Greek criticisms. He tells us
again and again what it does not mean, but leaves us staring
about to learn what it does mean. He informs us that " various
explanations of this passage have been given by Universalists,"
and refers us to a string of authors, whose productions probably
not one in a hundred of his readers will ever see. Failing to

Sec. 92.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE.

239

find in the Guide how the author would construe the text, we
betake ourselves to files of the Trumpet, and are more success
ful. We find it as follows : " Fear less them which can tor
ture you, but have not tkepower lawfully to take life, tkan that
power which is able to destroy you utterly in Gehenna." Mr.
W. then adds : " Jesus did not tell his apostles to fear that God
would destroy them utterly in Gehenna. On the contrary, in
the same connection, he exhorts them to have confidence in God,
and to have no fear that he would forsake them. They might
reasonably be afraid of men, who had power according to the
laws, to destroy them in Gehenna, the place of legal punishment
near Jerusalem : but they were expressly told not to be afraid
of God, in whose sight they were precious. At the time Jesus
uttered these words, the Jews were in subjection to the Romans,
and had not the power themselves lawfully to take life. The
power of burning in Gehenna, or the valley of Hinnom, had
passed out of the hands of the Jews ; hence Jesus directed them
to fear that power less which could only torture them, without
destroying life, than the power which could destroy both body
and life in Gehenna, or the valley of Hinnom." Trumpet, No.
678. Here Mr. W. denies that the fear of God is enjoined,
but says that the expression "fear him " refers to the Roman
power. Mr. Balfour expresses himself as follows : " Who then
is referred to by the word him, whom the disciples were com
manded to fear ? God, we think, is the being ; and is desig
nated by what he is able to do, in the next words." Inq., p.
142. So Mr. W. and Mr. B. are at variance. Who shall
decide? Again, says Mr. B., "If it is said the civil magis
trate is the one referred to, I then ask, can he kill soul and life,
which others could not do? Could he " destroy both soul and
body ? " If so, then God himself could do no more than this.
But, unless it can be shown that destroying both soul and body
in Gehenna, was a punishment inflicted by the civil magistrate
in our Lord's day, it is not at all probable that our Lord referred
to him." Inq., p. 141. Correct, Mr. Balfour. It is a mere

240 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
assumption, destitute of any foundation in history, either sacred
or profane, that the valley of Hinnom was a place for inflicting
punishments, either by Jews or Romans, in our Saviour's time.
A writer in the Trumpet paraphrases the text on Mr. W.'s
principle, thus : " And fear not them (i. e. the Jews) which
can only torture the body, but are not able to take the life ; but
rather fear him (i. e. the Roman power) which is able to torture
your body, and destroy your life in hell (gehennd) ." Trumpet,
No. 948. The doctrine inculcated by Mr. Whittemore, is this :
Fear not God, neither fear the Jews, but greatly fear the Roman
power ? But to destroy the force of John 5 : 28, 29, against
their doctrine, Universalists are under the necessity of represent
ing the Jews as those to^be feared ; and that when their power
should be broken, great favors might be expected of the Boman
power ? (Sec. LXXXI.) Again, did our Lord adopt this blind
method to inculcate the duty of fearing men upon his disci
ples ? In justice, however, to Mr. Whittemore, we state that he
seems to have abandoned his explanation in the Trumpet ; for
in his Guide, he asks, ' ' Does it say that God will destroy both
soul and body in hell? No : it says he is able to do so." So
now God, and not the Romans, is the one referred to. This dis
crepancy between Mr. W. in the Trumpet, and Mr. W. in the
Guide, grows out of the fact, doubtless, that the text is so " dif
ficult of construction." But does not God's ability, here
admitted, teach most conclusively that there is a hell ? Has an
officer authority to put a man into prison, while there is no prison
in existence ? Certainly not. Mr. W. in the Guide, regards
the Saviour as merely asserting the power of God, and not his
determination to punish after the death of the body. The sen
timent of the passage then, is this : " Be not afraid of them that
kUl the body, but after that have no more that they can do ; but
I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear ; fear him which after he
hath killed, hath power to cast into hell ; yea, I say unto you,
fear him, for he wUl never do it. That is, fear him of whom ye
have nothing to fear !! There is nothing to fear ; God only has

Sec. 92.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 241
the power, but he will never use it. Did the Saviour utter such
solemn nonsense as this ? Yet to this is Mr. W. driven in his
war with God's truth.
But it is said by some, that soul in the text, means animal
life. Now all know that animal life dies with the body, which
reduces the passage to this absurdity : " Fear not those who kill
the life, but cannot kill the life ! " Did the Great Teacher mean
this ? Never. Mr. Page, in his commentary, furnishes no less
than five different explanations of this text, some of them as
diverse from each other as light is from darkness, given by W.
E. Manly, J. B. Dods, H. Ballou, S. Cobb, and H. Ballou,
2d. This class of writers seem to be well agreed upon one
point, viz : that the text must be murdered ; but they are far
from being satisfied with each other's manner of doing it. Their
expositions look so absurd to themselves, that they are constantly
endeavoring to mend each other's work, and if possible render
them more plausible. But what is all this work, but an evidence
of their warfare with the plain and evident teachings of the word
of God, to get rid of the doctrine of a future hell ? The passage
is a very plain one, and teaches
1. That the soul is immaterial — that the body may be killed
while the soul shall survive uninjured.
2. That there is such a place as hell,, into which soul and body
may be cast and destroyed.
3. That in the discharge of their duty the disciples were not
to fear men, who could only kill the body ; but they were to
fear God, who is able to cast both soul and body into hell.
The word Gehenna, which in this text is translated heU, has
been a subject of no small amount of labored criticism. Mr.
Balfour has occupied no less than two hundred and forty pages
of his Inquiry in his peculiar way, to show that the word in our
Lord's time was not used to signify a place of future punish
ment. The Rev. Andrew Royce, in a valuable little work
entitled " Universalism a Modern Invention," has taken hold of
the subject with the hand of a master. His manly and conclu-

242 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
sive reasonings contrast very strikingly when compared with the
low criticisms, sophistries, perversions, and appeals to the preju
dices of the irreligious, with which Mr. Balfour's book abounds.
Mr. Royce lays down the following just rule of interpretation :
" Words and phrases are to be understood in their usual and
known signification, ofthe age and country in lohick ihey were
spoken or written, unless the writer or speaker expressly attaches
some other meaning to them," p. 15.
The propriety of this rule is shown, and some of the passages
out of the twelve in whieh the word Gehenna occurs in the New
Testament, are given, and then the history of the word is pre-
' sented as follows :
" Now what was the known and usual signification of Ge
henna among the Jews in the days of Christ ?
" Universalists have told us that Gehenna was, in the days of
our Saviour, the name of a valley near Jerusalem, where the filth
of the city was deposited, where perpetual fires were kept burn
ing, and whore malefactors were executed ; and that when
Christ used the word Gehenna, he had reference to punishment
inflicted in this valley, or to other temporal calamities symbolized
by punishment in this valley. Almost the whole of this state
ment is false. But the truth is this : The eastern section of the
pleasant valley which bounds Jerusalem on the south, was
anciently called the Valley of Hinnom, in the Hebrew tongue,
Ge Hinnom (Josh. 15 : 8). In this valley, more than seven
hundred years before Christ, the idolatrous Jews set up the
image of the god Moloch, a horrid idol-god of the Ammonites,
and to it they sacrificed their children by fire, (2 Chron. 28:
3,) contrary to the express command of God (Lev. 18 : 21).
About six hundred and eighty years before Christ, the good king
Josiah abolished this horrid practice, and defiled the valley of
Hinnom. 2 Kings 23 : 10. Henceforward the filth of the city
was deposited there, ancl fires were kept burning to consume it.
This valley now became a loathsome place, with its dead car
cases perpetually breeding worms ; and its fires continually burn-

Sec. 92.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE.

243

ing, became, in the mind of the Jew, a fit emblem of that place
of future woe into which the wicked are cast after death. After
this valley began to be considered an image of the regions of
woe in another world, in process of time, by an easy transition
very common in language, the Jews began to call those regions
themselves Gehenna — a name derived from Ge Hinnom, the
ancient Hebrew name of the valley. Probably for centuries
before Christ came, the Jews had been using Gehenna 'as the
name of the place of future punishment.
" We assert, then, that Gehenna was familiarly used by the
Jews in the days of our Saviour, as the name of the place of
future punishment — that this was its customary and known sig
nification at that time," pp. 18-20. In proof of this position,
extracts are furnished from the Talmuds and Targums, the works
of Jews, who lived near the time of Christ. Mr. Royce says,
" Indeed, 1 find no evidence that Gehenna was used in any
other sense in the days of our Saviour. I find no evidence that
there was any place on earth called Gehenna, in the days of
Christ. That six or seven hundred years before Christ, there
was a place near Jerusalem, called in the Hebrew of that age
Ge Hinnom, is evident enough ; that the word Gehenna was
derived from the words Ge Hinnom, is also very clear. It is
quite certain that the word Gehenna was used in the days of
Christ, as the name of the world of woe. But I find no evi
dence that there was ever any place on earth called Gehenna."
" But we have other reasons for believing that Christ employed
Gehenna to designate the place of future woe. It evidently, in
all the instances in which he uses it, denotes some kind of pun
ishment. But where is the evidence that men were punished in
the valley of Hinnom in the time of Christ or afterwards ? Men
were in no danger of punishment in any Gehenna on earth, yet
our Saviour threatened wicked men with the condemnation of
Gehenna. Further ; the Gehenna of which Christ spake was
where the 'fire is not quenched.' But were there perpetual
fires in the valley of Hinnom in the days of Christ ? There is

244 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Parti.
certainly no evidence of it. That fires were frequently kindled
in this valley, to devour the filth deposited there after it was
defiled by the order of King Josiah, several hundred years
before Christ, is probable enough ; but there is no evidence that
fires were unceasingly burning in the valley of Hinnom, in the
days of Christ," pp. 23, 25. Mr. Royce is doubtless correct;
for Universalists have never been able to produce evidence that
there was such a place of punishment known by such a name in
the days of Christ, near Jerusalem. All they have ever pro
duced is the unsupported opinions of some modern commenta
tors. The reviewers of Mr. R. , it seems admit that the Targums
and Talmuds are good evidence as to the meaning of Gehenna
at the time in which they were written, but assert that most of
the eminent critics now agree that the Targum of Jonathan Ben
Uzaiel, from whieh most of the extracts furnished by Mr. E.
were made, could not have been completed till some time
between two and four hundred years after Christ. To this Mr.
R. replies, " This is not true. ' Most of the eminent critics'
do not agree in any such thing. Only three or four are named,
and three or four are not most of the eminent critics on this sub
ject, as we proceed to show.
"1. Prideaux says that it is the general opinion, both among
Jews and Christians, that this Targum ' is as ancient as our
Saviour's time, if not more ancient.' 2. The Jewish historians
positively assert it. Prideaux mentions particularly Zacutas,
Gedalias, David Ganz, Abraham Levita, and others. 3. Pri
deaux, with the older critics generally, place it near our Saviour's
time. 4. Calmet, author of a ' Historical and Critical Dic
tionary of the Bible,' places it at the same time. 5. The
celebrated Orientalist and Biblical critic, Gesenius, than whom
none can be a better judge, considers this Targum as ancient as
the time of Christ, 6. Home, in his ' Introduction to the criti
cal study of the Scriptures,' says that this Targum was written
about fifty years before Christ. 7. Wolfius, in his ' Bibliotheca
Hebraica,' as quoted by Home, says that Jonathan flourished a

Sec. 92.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 245
short time before Christ. 8. Parkhurst, the author of Hebrew
and Greek Lexicon, quotes this Targum as evidence of the
meaning of Gehenna, which I presume he would not have done,
had he not supposed it nearly as ancient as our Saviour's time.
0. The editor of the ' Encyclopedia of ReHgious Knowledge/
after consulting, it should seem, the various authorities, places
it about thirty years before Christ. 10. Professor Stuart says,
' The later Hebrew, the Talmudic end the Rabbinic, was not so
late, but that it preceded the time when the New Testament was
written.' It is true that doubts have been expressed by some in
relation to the antiquity of this Targum. Home says, ' From
the sUence of Origen and Jerome concerning this Targum, both
Bauer and Jahn date it much later than is generally admitted.' "
pp. 124, 126. In reply to this, our author introduces an argu
ment from Prideaux, showing most conclusively that the reasons
for such doubts were without weight : and then exposes a false
hood put forth by the editor of the Trumpet, viz : that " ' Ac
cording to the testimony of the most learned men, the earliest of
the Targums brought forward was not written till very many
years after the death of Christ. In regard to the most impor
tant of all — the Targum of Jonathan — the most learned of the
German critics agree that it was not written tiU three or four
hundred years after the death of Christ.' Now this statement
contains more than one falsehood. 1. ' The most learned men '
do not testify that this Targum was not written till very many
years after the death of Christ, as we have just seen. 2. The
most learned of the German critics do not ' agree ' that it was
not written tiU three or four hundred years after the death of
Christ. Gesenius is as learned as any of them, and he places it
before Christ. 3. None of the German critics ' agree ' that it
, was not written until three or four hundred years after the death
of Christ. Some of them, it is true, suppose it mainly a com
pilation of earlier Targums, and not completed till between one
and three hundred years after the death of Christ." pp.
; 130, 131.

246 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Parti.
Concerning the use of the word Gehenna, Justin Martyr, who
wrote about fifty years after the death of John, says, " Gehenna
is the place in which those are punished who lead unrighteous
lives, and disbelieve what God has declared by Christ." Justin
had the advantage of instruction from those who had conversed
with the apostles, and doubtless learned the sense of Gehenna
from that source. " It may be further remarked that it is obvi
ous that Gehenna, in tho language of the Jews of our Saviour's
time, was the name ofthe place of future punishment, from the
fact that there is not the least evidence that ihey had any other
name for this place. The reader should be careful not to con
found Gehenna with Hades. Hades was understood to he the
world of spirits generaUy, in which were both the righteous and
the wicked ; but Gehenna was the place of future punishment,
as Paradise was the place of future bliss. That the Jews be
lieved in a place of future punishment, none deny. By what
name, then, did they call it ? Wherever the word is found in
ancient writings, unless we except the New Testament, it uni
formly stands for the place of future woe. The presumption,
therefore, is certainly very strong that this was its exclusive
meaning. If, then, Universalists deny that this word signified
the place of future punishment among the Jews of our Saviour's
day, it rightfully devolves upon them to show by what name
they did call this place ; or, if they had no name, by what cir
cumlocution they expressed it. Besides, it is incredible if the
Jews of Judea had another name for the world of woe, that it
should not have appeared in the New Testament. If our
Saviour had believed in such a place, he would of course have
spoken of it under the name which it bore with his countrymen.
If he did not believe in such a place, he would have used the
name for the purpose of refuting the doctrine." pp. 130, 133.
The word Gehenna does not occur in Josephus, Philo, or the
Apocrypha. To this Mr. R. replies, "The reason why this
word does not occur in Josephus, shall be given in the words of
Hosea Ballou, 2d. ' He sought to avoid the Hebraisms and

Sec. 92.] universalism not of the bible. 247
peculiar phrases of the Jews, and to attain the classic purity of
the Greek and Roman style.' Gehenna was a word originating
and used only, in the language of Judea of our Saviour's time,
which is the reason why it does not occur in Philo or the Apoc
rypha, all of which were written in Alexandria, and in the
Greek. Mr. Whittemore, with his characteristic candor, says,
' If this word signifies the place of endless misery, how does it
happen that all the apostles preserved so entire a silence in
regard to it? Let Mr. Royce answer this, if bethinks it safe
to attempt it ! ' I think it entirely ' safe ' to say that if Gehenna
is mentioned ten or twelve times in the New Testament, in the
sense of future punishment, the doctrine is established, and not
the less established because it is not mentioned one hundred
times more. I think it ' safe ' also to say that, since Gehenna
is a word of the dialect of Judea of our Saviour's time, in writ
ing to people out of Judea, whether Jews or Gentiles, the
apostles would not have been likely to have often used the word
Gehenna, for to such a people it would have conveyed no defi
nite idea. They could, as they have already done, teach the
doctrine of future punishment without naming the place of such
punishment." pp. 138, 139. Following up his opponents, Mr.
R. says, " Our Vermont reviewer, following Mr. Balfour, con
tends that the passages in the New Testament in which Gehenna
is found, have exclusive reference to temporal calamities. This
he infers from several propositions which he assumes to be true.
These will be first examined. 1. He says, ' This (Gehenna)
is a Hebrew or Old Testament word.' This is not true. This
word does not occur in the Hebrew Old Testament, or in any
translation of it. The words of which it is compounded are
there, but Gehenna is not there. 2. ' Its meaning in the New
Testament must be learned from the Old.' This is not true.
If this word were found in the Old Testament, it does not cer
tainly follow that it has the same meaning in the New. Para
dise is found in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, (Neh.
2:8; Cant. 4 : 13; Ecc. 2 : 5,) and always as the name of

248 universalism not of the bible. [Part I.
a place in another world. As many, and just about the same
arguments may be adduced to prove that Paradise does' not mean
a place of bliss, as that Gehenna does not mean hell. 3. He
adds : ' The writers of the Old Testament use this term to sig
nify, 1st, a valley near Jerusulem ; and, 2d, in a figurative or
emblematic sense, to describe the temporal miseries which God
was to bring on the Jews for their sins.' Neither of these asser
tions is true. The writers of the Old Testamant, as we have
seen, do not use the word at all ; and they never used Valley
of Hinnom, from which this word is derived, in a ' figurative or
emblematical sense.' I know that Mr. Balfour asserts this, but
it is only his assertion, as we shall see. The passages referred
to, as instances of the use of the term Valley of Hinnom in this
figurative sense, are in the 7th and 19th chapters of Jeremiah,
They are the following : ' And they have built the high places
of Tophet, which is in the Valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn
their sons and their daughters in the fire ; which I commanded
them not, neither came it into my heart. Therefore, behold the
days come, saith the Lord, that it shall no more be called Tophet,
nor the Valley of the son of Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaugh
ter ; for they shall bury in Tophet till there be no place.' Jer.
7 : 31, 32. ' They have built also the high places of Baal, to
burn their sons with fire, for burnt offerings unto Baal, wliich I
commanded them not. Therefore, behold the days come, saith
the Lord, that this place shall no more be called Tophet, nor the
Valley ofthe son of Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter, and
I will make void the counsel of Judah and Jerusalem in this
place, and I will cause them to fall by the sword before their
enemies.' Jer. 19 : 5, 6, 7. Are the words Valley ofthe son
of Hinnom used figuratively here? Are they in the least
tumed from their literal meaning ? Every intelligent child
should know better. I should have been pleased if our reviewer
had informed us precisely what figure is used here. It must be
readily discerned by every reader of these passages, that Tophet,
or VaUey of Hinnom, is mentioned by the prophet simply as the

Sec. 92.] universalism not of the bible. 249
place in which the Jews had been guilty of idolatry, and in
which their dead bodies should be buried in multitudes, when
God, for their iniquities, should send them upon their enemies ;
and that, on account of this, it was to be called the Valley of
Slaughter. It was a literal prediction, and was exactly and lit
erally accomplished in the days of Jeremiah. In proof, read
Lamentations. " Thus we perceive that every one of this reviewer's three or
four propositions are totally untme. They are mere naked asser
tions. He does not attempt to prove one of them true. And
yet, precisely such, and no better, is the foundation of all the
various interpretations whieh the Universalists have given of
those passages in which Gehenna is found.
" The absurdity of his argument will be fully seen by laying
it out in full view. ' Hence,' he says, (that is, from the pre
ceding falsehoods,) 'Hence, when Christ used Gehenna, speaking
in the idiom of the Jewish prophets of the Old Testament, he
signified by it, first, punishments in the literal valley of Hinnom ;
or second, temporal judgments coming on the Jews, symbolized
by the valley and everything connected with it.' Accordingly,
the passage whieh reads thus : ' And if thy hand offend thee,
cut it off; it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than
having two hands to go into Gehenna, into the fire that never
shall be quenched/ (Mark 9 : 43,) is interpreted to mean thus :
' It is better for thee to enter into the hfe or enjoyment of the
gospel, or Christ's spiritual kingdom in this world, feeling as if
thou hadst made a sacrifice of interests as dear as a hand, an eye,
or a foot, than remain out of the gospel kingdom in possession of
these interests, and fall under the dreadful judgments coming on
the Jews who reject Christ, which are symbolized by Gehenna ;
for the fire of those divine judgments shall not be quenched or
stayed in its progress, but shall effectually destroy the Jewish
people.' Now strip this argument of all its sophistry, and it
stands thus : Christ's words which plainly say one thing, must
be interpreted to mean another and a totally different thing ;
13

250 universalism not of the bible. [Parti.
because more than five hundred years before Christ, dreadful
calamities were visited upon the Jews for their idolatry, in exact
fulfilment of the predictions of Jeremiah. What can be more
absurd than this ! For, as we have seen, the calamities in which
the Jews were involved when their country was depopulated,
and themselves dragged into captivity, five hundred years before
Christ, or the language of Jeremiah by which these events were
foretold, have no more connection with the language of Christ in
which Gehenna is found, than has the calamity of Noah's flood.
Nor does it appear from the subject or connection, that he had
any more reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, than to the
destruction of Lisbon.
" If the valley of Hinnom, mentioned by Jeremiah, had heen
in his day a place in which dreadful punishments were inflicted ;
if he had actually used it figuratively, to signify temporal mis
eries coming on the Jews as a people ; if Jesus Christ had used
the same words, in a similar connection, and in reference to a
similar subject; there might have been some foundation for
the above argument. But such are not the facts. Jere
miah spoke of Ge Ben Hinnom, our Saviour of Gehenna.
Jeremiah spoke of national sins, and explicitly and lit
erally predicts national punishments. Jesus Christ spoke of
individual sins, and makes no allusion to the time, place, or cir
cumstances of temporal punishment. In short, there is no more
connection between the events indicated in these respective pas
sages, than between any two events whatever." pp. 139-144.
By these extracts from Mr. Royce, the reader will see the
sophistry and perversion of Universalists upon the word Ge
henna. If anything more were necessary to show the absurdity
of the figurative interpretations of those passages where the word
occurs which Universalists contend for, it is found in the fact
that they are not at all agreed among themselves with regard to
their meaning, as we have before stated in this section.
The places where the word occurs in the Bible are as follows :
Matt. 5:22,29,30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15,33; Mark 9 :
43, 45, 47 ; Luke 12 : 5 ; James 3 : 6.

Sec. 93.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 251
Mr. Witherell, who it seems stands high in the order as an
expositor of Universalist doctrines, speaking of Gehenna, says :
"I am aware that it is contended that this word came by
degrees to be used to signify a place of punishment. Well,
because a majority of professing Christians have come, by
degrees, to believe that the word Gehenna signifies a place of
endless punishment, is that any proof that the sacred writers
used it to express such an idea ? No. We are not to judge of
the meaning of words, by what they have come by degrees to
signify ; but we should endeavor to ascertain what idea the
writer meant to convey by them." pp. 20, 21.
Here we have a sample of the false issues so common with
this class of writers ; and in this case it discovers either an unin
formed head or a bad heart, either of which is not very creditable
to those editors and ministers who have so " cordially appro
bated" his work. (Sec. IV.) We fearlessly assert that no
author who is a believer in future punishment, ever put forth
the sentiment, that "Christians have come, by degrees, to
believe that Gehenna signifies a place of endless punishment."
This is a " false fact," created to serve the cause of error. The
truth is this, as has been shown : Gehenna was in use among
the Jews of our Saviour's time, to designate the place of future
punishment, and the Saviour used it in the same sense. This
is what Mr. Royce and others have asserted and proved, and not
that " Christians have come, by degrees," &c.
XCin. "Not of works, lest any man should boast " &c
Eph. 2 : 9, 10.
When Christian ministers have urged the importance of repent
ance, faith, and holiness here, in order to heaven hereafter
Universahsts have denied that these are at all necessary in order
to secure future bliss, and a crafty use is sometimes made of
this text to serve their purpose. The Mowing is an illustra
tion : " Immortal happiness is the free, unpurchased gift of
God, and every person must receive it as such ; for it is ' not of

252 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Parti.
works, lest any man should boast.' " Wiiherell, p. 28. Ac
cording to this writer, the apostle is speaking of salvation in the
immortal state. Will he abide his own construction ? Then is
the immortal salvation conditioned upon faith, as may be seen
by the context, which reads thus : " For by grace are ye saved
through faith ; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God,
Not of works, lest any man should boast." v. 9, 10. If the
salvation of the text is in the immortal state, then is future sal
vation secured " through faith," which contradicts modern
Universalism. But if only present salvation is intended, then
we have but another instance of gross perversion ; for the apostle
is made to say, by this writer, that immortal happiness is not of
works, lest any man should boast, when the passage asserts no
such thing. Christians never assume that either present or
future salvation is merited by their works, They are often
grossly misrepresented by Universalists upon this point. There
is a vast difference between meriting salvation by works, and
using the means which God has ordained to secure the salvation
which he freely gives. The latter, true Christians do while they
acknowledge that it is all of graee.
XCIV. " There was a certain rich man, wkick was clothed
in purple and fine linen," &c. Luke 16 : 19-31.
This portion of Holy Writ has proved a great source of
trouble to modern Universalists, and volumes have been written
by them to put out the light here shed upon the future destiny
of man. With them, this is a parable. To prove this, and that
the cutting off the Jews from gospel privileges, and the exalta
tion of the Gentiles to these privileges is intended, Mr. Bayner
has put forth a book of nine lectures ! It is not the design to
enter into a lengthy refutation of this view, but only to give the
reader a clue to the perversion of this scripture in their hands.
Says Mr. Whittemore, " By the death of the two individuals
is intended the change which was then about to take place in the
circumstances of the Jews and Gentiles. The Jews were soon

See. 94.] universalism not of the bible. 253
to be deprived of their national privileges, because they had not
made a good use of them, and were tp he cast into outer dark
ness, and suffer the most tremendous evils that had ever befallen
any nation. On the other hand, the Gentiles were to experience
a change equally great. They were to be brought to a knowl
edge of God, and of that gospel which was preached, originally,
to Abraham." Notes on P., p. 235.
" In the history, as recorded by the inspiration of God, both
the rich man and Lazarus died. But, if the interpretation of
Universalists be true, only one died — the beggar was already
dead. And when the rich man died, by losing his spiritual
advantages, the beggar by obtaining them, of course came to life.
In the room of placing the rich man in hell, and sending Laz
arus into Abraham's bosom, the Saviour, on the ground of
Universalism, would have placed the beggar in the rich man's
house, adding to his splendor and his sumptuous fare, and then
placed the rich man at the gate, to beg a few crumbs from Laza
rus' table. Such was actually the change whieh took place, if
the death of the rich man was the loss of his spiritual privileges,
and the death of the beggar was the conversion of the Gentiles
to the faith of Abraham." Smith, p. 103. There would be a
shadow of plausibility in the Universalist interpretation, if the
rich man only was represented as dying. But how the exalta
tion of the Gentiles to gospel privileges can be considered a death,
requires a Universalist to understand ; for, on their ground, the "
Gentiles died as well as the Jews.
Again : " There was a certain beggar named Lazarus, (Gen
tiles,) which was laid at his gate full of sores ; and he desired to
be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's (Jews)
table." v. 20, 21. So the Gentiles were begging of the Jews.
Now when we consider the dependent relation the Jews held to
the Romans, we can scarce conceive of anything more absurd
than the idea that the Saviour is representing the Gentiles as
begging of the Jews, and desiring to be fed with crumbs which
fell from their table. What favors have the GentUes asked of

254 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I,
the Jews, either political or religious ? The rich man (Jews)
says, " Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus,
(Gentiles,) that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and
cool my tongue." ' " This, as Universalists teach, signifies the
great desire on the part of the Jews, to be blessed with the gos
pel by the means of the Gentiles. But in what age have they
expressed such a desire ? They have never acknowledged, up
to this hour, that the Gentiles have the faith of Abraham. They
have never solicited instruction from them, nor desired the con
solations which the Gentiles enjoy." Smith, p. 103.
" Between us and you there is a great gulf fixed ; so that they
which would pass from hence to you cannot ; neither can they
pass to us that would come from thence." v. 26.
If the rich man in torments represents the Jews cast off from
gospel privileges, and if Lazarus in Abraham's bosom represents
the Gentiles in possession of them, as Universalists assert, then
it follows that if a Jew " would pass" over and become a
Christian, he cannot, neither can a Christian embrace Judaism
if he "would." But is there any such impassable gulf or
decree that Jews cannot become Christians if they will, or Chris
tians become Jews? This interpretation makes the Saviour
mock the Jews in sending the gospel to them ; and how foolish
was Paul, laboring and weeping over them to convert them to
Christianity. This nonsensical and absurd explanation is con
tradicted by the fact that some have apostatized to Judaism from
Christianity, and also by the fact that thousands of Jews have
become Christians.
The rich man (Jewish nation) had five brethren he was
desirous should be warned, that they might shun the torment he
was then enduring. Query. Were there five other Jewish
nations in danger of being cast off from gospel privileges? Who
were the " five brethren? " Echo returns, who ?
In noticing these points, we are complained of by Universal
ists for making too much of circumstances connected with this
account ; for these, it is said, are not to be brought against thc

SeC. 94.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 255
" main design." But Mr. Ballou, the father of modern Uni
versalism, has noticed the circumstances very minutely, and has
stated their meaning in his peculiar way, (Notes, p. 252-256,)
and Mr. Rayner and others have turned the circumstances against
the sense given to the passage by evangelical Christians, with
all the art they are capable of. Some have gone so far as to
deny its future reference, because of the circumstance of the
rich man and Lazarus represented as having eyes, finger, and
' tongue, and thus placing themselves by the side of atheists, who
reject the God of the Bible, who is pure spirit, because he is said
to have eyes, ears, mouth, arm, &c. Such seem not to under
stand that things spiritual and eternal are represented to us in
this world by visible and material objects. This faulting us for
meddling with the circumstances, arises from the fact that they
are all against them. But the circumstances involve no more
difficulty than their " main design." With them, the Saviour's
main design was to illustrate the admission of the Gentiles to
gospel privileges, and the rejection of the Jews. But where do
they leam this ? Has Heaven given them a special revelation
upon tbis point ? Surely there is nothing in the passage or its
connection, that in the least indicates it. No common reader of
the Bible would receive even a hint of it there. It is unnatural
and false, manufactured to get rid of the solemn import of the
passage. The main design of the Saviour appears to have been to pre
sent the difference in the future world between a wicked rich
man and a righteous poor man. In proof we submit the fol
lowing :
In the context the Saviour was discoursing, not about giving
the gospel to the Gentiles, or rejecting the Jews, but on the sub
ject of avarice. He told the Jews that they could not serve God
and Mammon, rebuked them for their worldliness and self-
righteousness; and "the Pharisees also, who were covetous,
heard all these things, and derided him." Ver. 14. He then
introduced the subject of the rich man and Lazarus, instructing

256 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
them that their state in hades, if they were covetous and served
Mammon rather than God, would be one of torment, notwith
standing their wealth, while the righteous poor would enjoy
bliss. This is natural and easy, and applies with force to the
subject. Another consideration which goes to give it a future
state reference, is the belief of those to whom it was addressed.
Says Mr. Balfour upon this passage, " Our Lord was reasoning
with the Pharisees, who believed the popular opmion, that in
hades there was a place of torment." Inq., p. 83.
This being the fact, how, we ask, must they have understood
him? This is a parable, say Universalists. Admitting this,
what is gained to their cause ? Just nothing ; for parables are
founded on facts and not on fiction. Examine every one of the
Saviour's parables in the New Testament, and it will prove true
in every instance, unless this must be considered an exception.
Take the following :
" The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman
took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was
leavened." Matt. 13:33. Now this is founded not upon fic
tion, but fact. Women, leaven, meal, are all real things, and
not fictitious. And then there was such a practice common as is
here stated, viz., for women to put leaven into meal. If there
were no women, no leaven, no meal, and if women never put
leaven into meal, then this parable would be lame and forceless.
If we should admit that Christ intended to illustrate the giving
of the gospel to the Gentiles, and the rejection of the Jews by
this, what would follow ? It would follow that this, like other
parables of the Saviour, is founded upon acknowledged facts.
Among other facts, the following are recognized, whatever the
scope or design intended, viz., that there are such men as rich
men and beggars, and that some of the former fare sumptuously
and are clothed in purple and fine linen, while some poor beg
gars lie at their gates covered with sores ; that there are such
animals as dogs, such a thing as death, such beings as angels,
and such a place as hell, (hades,) where departed souls are tor-

Sec. 94.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 257
mented. Now if these are not facts, then has the Saviour
founded one parable upon fiction ; and that, too, without disabus
ing the minds of his hearers, who were laboring under the belief
of this fiction. Would a Universalist minister in our day base a
parable upon torments in the future state, without first informing
the people that it was all fiction ? So far from this are they,
that they spend much of their time in efforts against the doc
trine, in holding it up as the greatest of errors. But in no sin
gle instance do we find the Saviour, or any of his apostles, so
employed, notwithstanding they passed their days on earth in the
midst of those who believed and taught the doctrine. Com
pared with moderns they were very inefficient Universalist min
isters ! (Sec. CXXXII.)
The truth is, Christ has shown us here, in terms that few un
godly men can contemplate and be at ease, that there is a world
of woe. He has raised the curtain that intervenes between that
dark' world and this, and exhibited to us how fearful a thing
it is to be lost. He teaches us that our destiny is fixed at death,
and that if sinners wUl not yield to the persuasions and heed the
warnings they have in this world to escape the "place of tor
ment" by the means which God has provided, none others will
be employed, neither would it avail anything in their ease should
one be sent from the dead.
It has been asserted that there is no evidence that the rich
man was bad, or that Lazarus was good. That the rich man
was wicked, and the poor man good, is imphed through the
whole passage. Indeed, what of force there is in this, lies with
all its weight against applying it to Jews and GentUes. The
rich man, with Universalists, is the Jewish people, who are to
be cast down and punished for their wickedness. The rich man
is a type of this wicked nation. Was he good or bad ? No
more need be said. 13*

258 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
XCV. " For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach,
because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all
men, especially of those ihat believe." 1 Tim. 4 : 10.
That the reader may have a fair sample of the perversion of
this text, we present the following extract :
, " And it is no less true than strange, that the apostles were
persecuted for preaching this same doctrine of universal salva
tion. Will the reader take Paul's word for the truth of this ?
Hear him : ' This is a faithful saying and worthy of all accep
tation, for therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because
we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, es
pecially of those that believe.' Now God is the Saviour of no
more than he saves, and hence, if Paul can be credited as to the
cause of his labor and reproach, it was for believing and preach
ing the salvation of all men." Trumpet, No. 805.
Universalists would render this passage subservient to theii
cause in two ways :
1. By assuming that the apostles suffered reproach for preach
ing Universalism ; than which, nothing can be more false.
Whatever was the nature of, or however extensive, the salvation,
it was not for preaching it, that they suffered reproach ; hut it
was for trusting in the living God, as all must see, who will
give a moment's attention to the language. The phrase, "liv
ing God, is applied in the scriptures to the true God, to distin
guish him from the dead gods of the heathen. 1 Thess. 1 :9.
Paul, Timothy, and others, preached him, and exposed the folly
of those who worshipped idols. Acts 17 : 16-30. Their
work was a crusade against idolatry, and for this they suffered
reproach. 2. Universalists assume from this text, that all men will be
holy and happy in the future state. But has Paul said any
such thing in the passage? Let us see. That God is the
Saviour of aU men, we firmly believe.
1. He is the providential Saviour of all men living. Acts
17 : 28.

Sec. 95.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 259
2. He is the gracious Saviour of all men. John 1:9; Tit.
2:11,12. See, also, Sec. XXIX., where Rom. 5 : 18, 19 is examined.
Universalists hold that all men will be saved in the future
state by the resurrection. Speaking of the common salvation
named in this passage, Mr. WiUiamson says : " Well, then, if
man's resurrection from the dead depends upon God alone, and
no human power can effect it, so must the state and condition of
man depend equally upon God, and be equally beyond the reach
of human agency." " The truth is, that man can by his faith and
works do something towards ameliorating his condition here ; but
he cannot procure his resurrection from the dead, and if he can
not procure the thing itself, much less can he procure any modit
fications of it. All that man is, and all that he can be in the
resurrection, he must owe to God alone ; his feeble work cannot
reach one line beyond the grave." After speaking of what is
to be accomplished by the resurrection, he adds : " This is the
salvation which God has prepared for a world, and in this sense
God is the Saviour of all men." Expo, and Def . of U, pp.
167-169. Mr. Whittemore says : " This heavenly image which we lost,
we obtain back again at the resurrection of the dead." " They
will be children of God, bearing a moral hkeness to him. This
will be the state of all who shall be raised from the dead."
Guide, pp. 37 and 44.
Reader, can you beheve that the apostle, in the text under
consideration, meant to say, that God wiU become the Saviour of
all men in the resurrection state, especially in the present life, of
those that believe ? This you must believe, if you receive the
construction Universahsts put upon the apostle's words. They
refer one branch of it to the future state, and the other to the
present life, which is wholly unauthorized. They tell us that
the special salvation pertains to this life, and the common to the
future. Now if we receive it as true that God wUl become the
Saviour of all men in the future state, whUe he is the special

260 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Parti.
Saviour of those that believe in this life, then is the salvation of
this life greater and more glorious than the salvation of heaven ;
for God is the Saviour especially of those that believe, i. e., he
is their Saviour in a higher sense than-he is the Saviour of all
men. None will deny but the Bible represents the salvation of
the heavenly state as infinitely greater than the salvation of be
lievers in this life, however holy they may be. But Universal
ists, by referring one part of this text to the future, and the
other to the present life, have made the heavenly salvation the
lesser, or common, while the greater, or special salvation, is in
this world ! We ask, by what authority do Universalists take
their dissecting knife, and cut this text into two portions; re
ferring a part to the future state, and a part to this world ? The
most superficial thinker upon the subject will see, that it either
wholly refers to this world, or else it wholly refers to the future.
We deny the future state reference of any part of it. The
apostle was speaking of what then existed. He first states that
he and his brethren suffer reproach, for trusting " in the Hving
God." He then states that God IS (not will be, in the res
urrection), the Saviour of all men, especially of those that
believe. It is true, that those who experience this special salvation
through faith, if they continue in the faith, will be saved in the
future world ; for Paul, in view of death, could say, (2 Tim.
4 : 7, 8) : "I have kept the faith ; henceforth there is laid up
for me a crown of righteousness," &c.
Mr. Williamson, speaking of the word "especiaUy," says:
' ' The idea is, that this word limits the salvation of God to be
lievers alone. Now Paul wrote to Timothy saying : ' The
cloak that I left with thee at Troas, bring with thee when thou
comest, and the books, but especially the parchment.' There
is precisely as much reason in saying, that Paul did not want the
cloak and books, because he said ' especially ' the parchment,
as there is in saying, that God is not the Saviour of any but be
hevers, because the text says especially of them that beheve ;

Sec. 95.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 261
and if I tell you that Paul wanted both the cloak and books,
you ought to object at once, and remind me that he said he es
pecially wanted the parchment." Expo, and Def. of ZZ, p.
166. This is what is caUed in logic, a " false issue." It is based
upon the assumption that it is denied that God is the Saviour of
all men ; whereas, no Christian writer, to our knowledge, ever
did so ; but on the contrary it is contended, in opposition to
Universalists, that he is the Saviour of all men, and not that he
will become such in eternity.
It wUl be time enough to use this iUustration when we deny
that God is the Saviour of aU men, and when Universalists shall
have proved that it indicates the salvation of all in the immortal
state. The book and parchment illustration is just no Ulustra-
tion of the ease.
By the quotations it will be seen that Universalists consider
the resurrection of aU men as equivalent to the salvation of all
men. To express their views, then, the text should read :
" Therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust
in the living God, who wUl raise aU men from the dead, espe
cially those that believe ! "
A writer in the Banner (Sept. 4, 1842) made quite a flour
ish over our admission, that God is the Saviour of all men, and
caUed us " an unconscious Universalist." He bases his argu
ment upon the immutability of God, thus : " Now if God is the
Saviour of all men, of course he always will be the Saviour of
all, from the fact that he changes not. We should think that
any man without his logical glasses, could discover from the na
ture of God, that whatever he was, he is, he always will be."
By applying his own logic it will be seen that Mr. J. H. S. is
an unconscious believer in the endless anger of God. " God is
angry with the wicked every day." Ps. 7 : 11. Now, if God
was angry with the wicked when the Psalmist wrote, he is now
angry with the wicked, and " always will be." God's anger
then is endless. Paul, speaking of the vengeance of God,

262 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Parti.
says :• " It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living
God." Heb. 10 : 31. "
Now if it was a fearful thing to fall into the hands of God,
because of his vengeance, it is now, and " always will be " for
" he changes not." But how does endless vengeance comport
with the endless salvation of all men ? (Sec. XVIII.) The
same application might be made to 2 Kings 22 : 13 ; Ps. 5 : 5 ;
11 : 5, and a host of other texts. If the man has proved any
thing by his argument, he has proved Universalism to be false.
One step more. If the unchangableness of God secures the
salvation of all in the immortal state, because he is the Saviour
of all now, then for the same reason the salvation of heaven and
of this world must be exactly the same, not only in nature, but
also in degree ; for according to the argument, what he is to his
creatures as Saviour now, he always will be ; and as there is now
much of sin and misery in existence, while God is the Saviour of
all men, so there always will be, for " he changes not." If
this argument is sound, nothing is gained by any of our race in
exchanging worlds, and so Paul was mistaken when he said,
" to die is gain." No more need be said to show the weight of
such an argument.
We see, then, that using this text to prove the salvation of all
men in the future state, or to prove that the apostles were perse
cuted for preaching Universalism, is a gross perversion of ito
clear and evident teaching.
XCVI. " Then said Jesus unto them, take keed and le-
ware of the leaven (doctrine, ver. 12) of the Pkarisees and of
tke Sadducees." Matt. 16 : 6.
Mr. Whittemore, referring to this text, says : "Jesus warned
the people against the doctrine of the Pharisees, who are well
known to have believed in endless punishment." Guide,
p. 42.
We know that the Pharisees believed in endless punishment ;
and we also know that it is a gross perversion of our Lord's

Sec. 96.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 263
words to say, that in this text, his disciples are warned against
this doctrine. An Atheist might, with just as much propriety,
force these words into his service, by saying : " Jesus warned
the people against tke doctrine of the Pharisees, who are well
known to have believed in the being of God," and thus prove
that the Saviour was an Atheist, and that he taught his disciples
Atheism ! Give us the liberty taken with this text, and we will
take the position that a Christian ought not to believe in the being
and unity of God, a general providence, the immortality of the
soul, a resurrection, or eternal bhss ; and should any call in
question such unbelief, they shall be silenced with, "beware of
the doctrine of the Pharisees," for they held all these doctrines.
Had the Jews been asserting their doctrine of eternal punish
ment, or caUing in question our Saviour's Universalism, there
might be some propriety in considering the warning as against
future punishment; but nothing of the kind appears in the
context.* This warning appears to have been directed against the super
stitious and hypocritical teachings of the Jews about signs. The
Jewish people, it is well known, were desirous of the appearing
of the Messiah ; but by the erroneous doctrines wMch had ob
tained among them, relative to the manner of his coming and
the nature of his reign, they were led to reject him, and still to
look for the signs of his appearing. Hence the Pharisees and
Sadducees insultingly and hypocritically ask him for a sign, ver.
1. Our Saviour, after upbraiding them with dullness of appre
hension, and calling them hypocrites, and a wicked and adulter
ous generation, seeking after a sign, declares, " There shall no
sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas." See
ver. 3 and 4. Christ had already wrought miracles in their
presence sufficient to demonstrate his Messiahship, and but one
* Mr. Thayer, a Universalist minister, in his late work, asserts that end
less punishment was the popular doctrine, both of Jews and Pagans, in the
Saviour's tune, and, also, that the Saviour maintained a position of " entire
silence" toward it. His. of E. Punishment, p. 137.

264 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
more was necessary to fulfill the scriptures, to take away the
scandal of the cross, and to establish his reUgion ; that was
his resurrection from the dead, which was typified in the case of
Jonah. Of such doctrine as this, that led the people to shut their
eyes against aU the evidence of his Messiahship, and still to look
for the coming of their deliverer, Christ would have his disci
ples beware ; but not of the doctrine of future and eternal pun
ishment. We may observe, too, that this warning was against the doc
trine of the Sadducees, as well as Pharisees ; but it is well
known that the Sadducees no more believed in endless punish
ment, than they did in UniversaUsm. They, too, were the ene
mies of our Lord, as well as the Pharisees. In Luke 12 : 1, the
Saviour warns his disciples -against "the leaven of the Phari
sees," which he says is " hypocrisy." But we think his mean
ing in Matt. 16 : 6, is given above ; for, says Paul, (1 Cor. 1 :
22) : " The Jews require a sign."
We assert, That while the Saviour exercised Ms ministry
among believers in endless punishment ; that he never pointed
it out as an error, or warned the people* against it in a single
instance, and that this omission can never be reconciled with
the idea that he was a teacher of Universalism. The text
here examined is the only one we have ever seen produced to
disprove this position, and with what force the reader can judge.
See Sec. CXXXII.
XC VII. " And this I say, that the covenant, that was con
firmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred
and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make
the promise of none effect. Is the law then against the
promises of God? God forbid." Gal. 3 : 17-21.
In answer to an objection raised by himself, that Universalists
keep the threatenings of God concealed, Mr. Williamson quotes
these texts, and says : " I know, as well as you can know, that

Sec. 98.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 265
there are many threatenings in the law, but I tell you that these
are not agamst the promises ; and when you explain them in
such a manner as to make them conflict. with the promises, you
pervert them." Mr. W. then goes on to state, that endless pun
ishment cannot be true, for it is against the promises, taking for
granted what he would do weU to prove, viz., that God has
promised to save the whole-human race in the future state. And
then refering to Rev. 21 : 4, he adds : " Here is the covenant,
it promises with the most solemn certainty, that there shall come
a time when there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor
crying, neither shaU there be any more pain." Ex. and Def.
of U, p. 144.
This writer perverts Gal. 3 : 17-21, by making it teach that
God covenanted with Abraham to make all the human race holy
and happy in eternity, when no such promise was ever made.
(Sec. I.) The apostle in the chapter shows that justification by
faith is promised in the covenant, and that the Gentiles, as well
as the Jews, might become heirs if they would beheve in Christ.
Mr. W. perverts Rev. 21 : 4 by forcing it to teach that there
shall be no more death, sorrow, crying, or pain, for any of the
human famUy ; whereas this is affirmed of the inhabitants of
the New Jerusalem only. Turn to it and read what precedes
and follows. See, also, Sec. LXXXVII, where it is ex
amined. That which requires such gross perversions to sustain it, cannot
be the truth of God.
XCVIII. " Then was Jesus led of the Spirit into tke wil-
derness to be tempted ofthe devil," Sec. Matt. 4 : 1-11 • Lulra
4: 1-13 .-Mark 1:12, 13. '
The doctrine of the existence of the devU enters so far into
the essence of Christianity, that those who deny it generaUy
deny all the peculiar and fundamental doctrines ofthe Bible
Noman „ properly acquainted with the condition of his race
until he sees that " the whole world lieth in the wicked one "

266 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
1 John 5 : 9. See Clarke in loco. Ministers do not execute
their high commission until they turn men " from the power of
Satan to God," Acts 26 : 18. " For this purpose the Son of
God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the
devil. 1 John 3 : 8. Only the existence and works of the
devil can account for the advent and death of the Son of God.
A man's religious sentiment may usually be detected by what
he holds respecting the devil. If he will have it that the devil
means evil propensities, carnal mind, or persecuting Jews, you
may generally class him with the so called liberals, which in
general is but another name for modern infidels. One grand
device of the devil is to beget a disbelief in his own existence,
for he knows that " in vain the net is spread in the sight of any
bird." Prov. 1 : 17. This done he springs his snare, and his
victims " are taken captive by him at his will," boasting all the
while of their superior liberty and light, and crying out, "no
personal devil." To this class of men, and especially those of
them who are obliged to profess a regard for the Bible in order
to teach their errors, the Saviour's temptation has ever proved a
source of trouble. As a theological curiosity, and a specimen
of the treatment of this subject by the visible father of Amer
ican Universalism, we present the following from Mr. Ballou.
He inquires :
" But what means the scripture, which speaks of a devil?
one who was a liar from the beginning, &e. I answer : I have
no objection to believing that there is such a devil as the scrip
tures speak of. He is called the old serpent, and is the same I
have described which beguiled the woman in the beginning ;
and it is the carnal mind, which is enmity against God. Any
person who is wholly dictated by a fleshly mind, may justly be
called a devil, as in the case of Judas and Peter. As our Lord
said to the Jews, also, " Ye are of your father, the devil ; and
the lusts of your father, ye will do." But says the objector,
do you think our Saviour was tempted by the powers of the
flesh, when it was said, he was tempted by the devil ? I ask in

Sec. 98.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE.

267

my turn, for what is this particular circumstance introduced ?
If we cannot prove, from our own experience, that we are
tempted by some other being than our own fleshly appetites,
would it be anything more than a speculative belief, to admit
another tempter? But says the objector, that does not answer
the question. Then let us look at his temptations ; when he
hungered, he was tempted ; by what ? and to what ? Answer,
by hunger, to turn stones into bread. Here was a fleshly appe
tite. When he had a view of all the kingdoms of the earth,
and their worldly glory, he was tempted to avail himself of
them. Here was natural ambition, such as gave rise to the vic
tories of an Alexander. When on the pinnacle of the temple
he was tempted to cast himself down, as it was written concern
ing him, that God would give his angels charge over him, &c.
Here was that passion which gives rise to presumption, and
wishes to avoid duty. But it is said, the devil taketh him ahout,
thus and so ; not literally, however, for there is no mountain in
the world that commands a prospect of but a small part of the
kingdoms ~of the world. The exceeding higk mountain on
which our Redeemer stood, when he saw all the kingdoms of
the world, and the glory of them, was the mountain of human
pride. Remember, when a person is on a mountain, the moun
tain is beneath his feet. So was this mountain of human pride
beneath the feet of our sinless Redeemer." Ballou on Atone
ment, pp. 51, 52.
Here is Universalist theology with all its beauties. The ex
ceeding high mountain is the mountain of human pride, and by
the assistance of the devil (Matt. 4 : 8) the Saviour has got hu
man pride beneath his feet ! ! But what is this devil ? Mr. B.
has just told us that " it is the carnal mind, which is enmity
against God." He has told us, too, that this mountain of hu
man pride was " beneath the feet of our sinless Redeemer."
It comes to this, then ; the sinless Redeemer's carnal mind,
which is enmity against God, placed him in such a position that
human pride was beneath his feet. Abominable! Did the

268 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
Saviour have a carnal mind or enmity to God urging him on in this
direction ? Is it by the carnal mind that victory is gained over
human pride ? Was the holy Saviour inflated with human pride
before his conflict with Satan ? Mr. Ballou flatly contradicts
himself by first saying that the devil is the carnal mind, which
the Saviour must have had in order to be tempted by it, and
then calling the Saviour the " sinless Redeemer." The fact is
clear that there is no possible way to get rid of the idea of a
personal devil in the temptation of Christ, without making the
Saviour a sinner, which is to contradict the Bible. 1 Peter 2 :
22 ; Heb. 7 : 26 ; 1 John 3:5; Rev. 3 : 7.
Let us apply Mr. Ballou's theory to that important passage
found Eph. 6 : 12 : " For we wrestle not agamst flesh and blood,
but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of
the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high
places." This is given by the apostle to prepare his brethren to stand
against " the wiles of the devil." Ver. 5. Says Mr. Ballou,
" Any person, who is wholly dictated by a fleshly mind, maybe
justly called a devil." But the apostle says, in striving against
the devil, " we wrestle not with flesh and blood." So we see
that Mr. B. and the scriptures are at odds again.
Apply the Universalist theory of personification to Matt. 8 :
28-34, where it is stated that the devils besought the Saviour
that, in ease he cast them out, he would suffer them to go into a
herd of swine. " And he said go ; and when they were come
out, they went into the herd of swine," Sec. In this account,
who besought Christ to suffer them to enter into the swine?
Were they evU principles, fleshly minds, carnal natures, or in
sanity ? Did these, or any of them, leave these men and enter
the swine ? Preposterous ! Says Dr. Clarke upon this pas
sage : " Certain doctors in both sciences, divinity and physic,
gravely tell us that these demoniacs were only common madmen,
and that the disease was supposed, by the superstitious Jews, to
be occasioned by demons. But, with due deference to great

Sec. 98.] UNIVEESALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 269
characters, may not a plain man be permitted to ask, by what
figure of speech can it be said that " two diseases besought —
went out — filled a herd of swine — rushed down a precipice,"
Sec. What silly trifling is this ! Some people's creeds will
neither permit God nor the devil to work ; and, in several re
spects, hardly to exist. For he who denies divine inspiration
will scarcely acknowledge diabolical influence." Well might
Dr. Clarke call this " silly trifling ! " Whatever might be
thought of their opmions, such men would certainly command
more respect for themselves were they to come out boldly, as
did their former brother, Abner Kneeland, and cast aside the
whole book of God. That the Universalist denomination is rife
with skeptical views, concerning some of the plainest teach
ings of the Bible, is well known to many. Its advocates have
been for a long time warming and nourishing the serpent Infi
delity into vigorous life. Thus strengthened in the order, he
has grown rampant, and it has been with some degree of diffi
culty that the leaders have prevented a full exhibition of his
ugly proportions to the gaze of those without. A resolution
passed by the Boston Association of Universalists, at Cam-
bridgeport, Nov. 1, 1847, furnished the occasion for their tear
ing the masks from each other's faces. The resolution was
against certain rank Infidel sentiments, which some, more bold
than the rest, had begun to proclaim openly. (Sec. CXVIII.)
The aggrieved brethren subsequently published " A Statement
of Facts," showing most clearly that they had adopted no new
method to dispose of offensive scriptures ; that Mr. Ballou long
before this had been as infidel as they were. As an illustration
of this, Mr. J. W. Hanson, whose name, with others, is ap
pended to the document, and is stUl a minister of the order,
gives the following anecdote.
" The following incident is related by the respectable physi
cian mentioned therein, who is ready to vouch for its substantial
accuracy : In the'year 1814, Father Ballou preached in the old
township of Dunstable, and was entertained by Mr. Hunt, father

270 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
of Eben Hunt, M. D. , now of Danvers. On reaching the house
at the close of the services, an older brother of Eben's, who was
said to be somewhat skeptical, said to Mr. Ballou : ' What do
you make of the account of the devils which were driven into a
herd of swine ? ' ' Ah ! ' said the old gentleman, ' I was
always sorry they put thai story in ! '"
The infidelity here developed needs no comment. Hear Mr.
Hanson again in this same document :
" That the principle which, when logically carried out, results
in Rationalism, is very general in the Universalist body, is ver
itably true. Rev. A. A. Miner was asked, during the recent
session at Cambridgeport, if he believed that Christ cast out
devils from a human body ; he answered : ' Most assuredly I
do.' The reply was, ' You are the first Universalist I ever heard
say so.' Rev. L. R. Page replied, ' And you are the first I
ever heard deny it.' This conversation needs to be explained to
convey a correct idea. There is not a single Universalist
preacher who believes that Christ ever cast out devils or demons
from a human being. They believe that those who were oper
ated upon by the Saviour were insane or epileptic. And yet the
Bible says nothing of the sort. Whenever, therefore, a Uni
versalist discovers the word demon or devil, as he does not
believe in suck, he exercises rationalistic principles, and
calls it insane. Why does he then fault those who apply the
same principle to other subjects ? The Jews believed that ht
eral devils possessed men, and Christ used their precise phrase
ology. The Universalist Commentary may say that Christ cured
men of epileptic fits ; the Bible says he cast out devils." St.
of Facts, Feb. 5, 1848.
Here it is contended, not by an enemy to Universalism, but
by one of its advocates in good standing in the order, and now
editor of the Gospel Banner, in Maine, that the Bible teaches
just what Christians have ever believed concerning the Saviour's
casting out devils, and that Universalist preachers do not believe
it. What is all this but an admission that the Bible and Uni-

"See. 98.] universalism not of the bible. 271
versaUsm stand opposed to each other ? Yet these men, who
thus assert their own supremacy over the Bible, stand up behind
it and preach to the people ! With such license and reckless
ness, what matters it to them whether they take their text from
Sinbad the Sailor or the Bible, other than that they can more
successfully deceive the people by the latter ?
The text in James 1 : 14 is brought against the personality of
the devil. It reads thus : "But every man is tempted, when
he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed." The argument
amounts to this : James says, men, when tempted, are drawn
away by their own lusts ; therefore, there is no personal devil to
tempt men. This is as logical as the following : Floods some
times destroy buildings ; therefore, buildings are never destroyed
by fire ! Tbe objection based upon this text vanishes when it is
understood that no Christian contends that the devil is the only
source of temptation. It by no means follows that because men
are drawn away by their own lusts, that there is no personal
devil who exercises an agency in tempting the fallen race of
Adam. It has been urged that the Saviour called Peter, Satan, (Matt.
16 : 23,) and Judas a devil (John 6 : 70.) Well, suppose that
Judas, by a figure of speech, for his wickedness was called a
devil ; and Peter, for his opposition to the Saviour's prediction
concerning his death, was called Satan : does it follow that there
is no real or personal devil ? The idols of the heathen are
called gods, and the Psalmist says of wicked judges, " Ye are
gods " (Ps. 82 : 6) ; but does it follow that there is no real or
true God ? Says Mr. Hare, " When it is so plain a fact that
there is an infernal devil and spiritual Satan, it can answer no
purpose to quote a hundred texts of scripture to prove that men
or women are sometimes called devils, (i. e., calumniators,) or
satans (i. e., adversaries). The existence of ten thousand
human devils, and earthly satans, brings no evidence that there
is no chief of demons, nor spiritual devil or hellish Satan."
Errors of Soc, p. 54. What would be thought of us, were

272 universalism not of the bible. [Parti
we to set up an argument against the existence of God, based
upon the fact that images and men are called gods in the Bible ?
A graceless work, truly ; but no more so than the work of
Universalists upon the subject under consideration. A cunning
Atheist could say as many smart and witty things against the
Bible account of the being of God, as any Universalist can
against the existence of the devil.
We are sometimes charged with beheving in an " omnipresent
and almighty devil." When Universalists attack this "castle
in the air," we admit that they are sure to demolish it. Chris
tians believe in no such being. In Matt. 4 : 10, 11, the terms
devil and satan are used to designate the same being ; and in
Luke 11 : 15, this Satan, the DevU, Beelzebub, is called the
chief of demons ; hence our Lord attributes to him a kingdom.
Luke 11 : 18. This chief has subordinates, (Matt. 25: 41,)
and these are very numerous, as we are given to understand.
Luke 8 : 30. From these and many other Scriptures which
might be adduced, we are authorized to conceive of Satan as the
head of a vast spiritual dominion ; and thus account for the extent
of the agency he exerts in tempting and seducing the world, and
that, too, without conceiving of him as omnipresent. When Napo
leon made Europe tremble with the terror of his arms, his power
extended far beyond his personal presence, and what was accom
plished by his armies, was attributed to him. So with Satan's
legions ; what they accomplish is attributed to him. How rap
idly spirits move, is not for us to determine. It is possible they
move as quick as thought : at any rate, Satan is represented as
very active, " going to and fro in the earth." Job 1 : 7 ; 1 Pet.
5:8. " Should the impossibility of a finite bemg tempting many
persons, in different places, at one time, leave an apparent diffi
culty on this subject ; it must be noticed, 1. That the devil has
many demons under his direction. 2. That we do not precisely
know what relation a spirit has to plaee. 3. That though the
power of Satan is not infinite, it may be very great. 4. That

SeC 98.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 273
we are not sure that evil spirits may not produce effects which
often remain when those spirits are no longer immediately pres
ent. We know that a moral principle once imbibed often pro
duces effects for a long period after the departure of the person
from whom it has been imbibed." Errors of Soc, p. 57.
It is asked, " why does God permit a subordinate being to
accomplish eo much mischief as is attributed to the devil ? " We
in turn ask, why does God permit so much mischief as is attrib
uted by Universalists to the " principle of evil," or " carnal
mind?" Moral evil exists, and is produced by subordinate
beings ; and if its existence reflects ingloriously upon the Divine
government, it matters but little how it has obtained in the
world, that is, so far as the honor of the Divine administration is
concerned. We learn from the Bible that both men and devils
have an agency in producing it. A hundred unanswerable
questions might be proposed concerning the origin of the devil,
and his work ; and as many, equally unanswerable, might be
propounded concerning the origin and existence of the "princi
ple of evil." What important truth is there in the Bible but
may be destroyed by this process, if admitted to be correct ?
Take the existence of God, which Universalists profess to believe
in common with others, and who does not know that questions
may be proposed upon this subject to almost any extent, such as
no sane man would think of answering. " Fools may ask ques
tions that wise men cannot answer " upon this, as well as other
subjects. Negatives and artful questions concerning things
clearly revealed in the Bible, have formed the stronghold of infi
delity the world over ; and Universalism has reaped a rich har
vest from this soil, in its opposition to truth. The question with
the Christian is not what does skepticism say concerning heaven
or hell, God or the devil, but, WHAT DOES THE BIBLE
SAY?
But it is inquired, " Does piety depend upon the belief of a
devil?" Not UniversaUst piety; but true piety depends much upon
it. Mark it, reader ; when you find a man who will deny the exist-
14

274 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
ence of the devil, with all the evidence the Scriptures afford of the
fact, that man's mind is prepared to deny any other doctrine, no
matter how clearly revealed, if it is not in accordance with his feel
ings. Christian piety includes the duty of believing the truths
and warnings of God's word. It includes the duty of resisting
the devil, that he may flee from us (Jas. 4 : 7) -x it consists in
the exercise of watchfulness, which acquaints us with his devices
(2 Cor. 2 : 11) ; and in holding fast the shield of faith, where
with we shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked
one (Eph. 6 : 16). These are the influences that are upon the
hearts of pious Christians, prompting to watchfulness, prayer,
and zeal in the cause of Christ ; and the best heads and hearts
that ever adorned the world, have been under such influences;
being conscious, by the struggles they had with the powers of
darkness, of the personal existence of the devil. But those who
are blinded by the god of this world, and are under the influ
ence of the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedi
ence, (Eph. 2:2,) who are led captive by the devil at his will,
(2 Tim. 2 : 26,) have no such conflicts, and it is not very strange
that in their pride and self-procured blindness they should deny
his existence, and see in those scriptures which reveal bis being,
the " carnal mind," " principle of evil," or " evil personified,"
or anything or nothing, as a depraved imagination may dictate.
One thought more. It is abundantly admitted by Universal
ists themselves, that the Jews in our Saviour's time, believed in
the existence of personal devils or demons. Mr. Hanson, as we
have seen, has asserted this. Speaking of Christ, Mr. Balfour
says, " he spoke of demons as real beings; of Beelzebub, as the
prince of devils or demons ; and of Satan, or the devil, as an evil
being " (Essays, p. 67) ; and Mr. Hanson asserts that " Christ
used their (the Jews) precise phraseology " respecting them.
Now the question is, was it any part of the Saviour's mission to
point out and correct the errors of the age in which he lived?
Mr. Whittemore shall answer. " Our Saviour, when on earth,
labored hard to root up the plants whieh his Father had not

Sec. 98.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE.

275

planted. He knew that error was injurious to man, and that he
performed an act of kindness and duty in exposing it. It would
be a task far too arduous to mention all the instances recorded
in the New Testament, of Christ and his apostles pointing out
and contending against the errors of the age in which he lived."
Trumpet, No. 750. The Jews believed that devils were real
beings, and not diseases or evil personified, as Universalists
assert. Now if this were false, and if, as Mr. W. asserts, the
Saviour was so careful to point out and contend against the errors
of the age, we might reasonably expect to find some clear and
decided opposition to this error, on the part of Christ and his
apostles. But what is the fact ? We assert, without fear of
contradiction, that not a single instance is to be found in the
Bible where this doctrine is held up as an error ; but on the
other hand, as Mr. Hanson says, Christ used the same phrase
ology that the Jews did respecting it. Why did not the Great
Teacher rebuke and expose this error, if it were one ? Why
seem to favor it, by the use of such language as has deceived the
church for eighteen centuries ? Christ, say Universalists, came
to save men from ignorance ; and yet he left the Jews, among
whom he labored during the years of his incarnation, in the most
profound ignorance respecting the personality of the devil, and
by adopting their " precise phraseology," has entailed this ig
norance upon the church for eighteen hundred years ! How
unlike is this to the course of Universalist teachers in this age,
who are prompt in apprising people that there is no personal
devil, and wonder at and pity the credulity that can receive such
a doctrine ; and then, as if to cap the climax of absurdity, they
claim to be the only true successors of the Saviour in the minis
try ! The same views are applicable to this, that we have taken of
the Saviour's treatment of the doctrine of endless punishment.
(Sec. CXXXII.) To the sincere inquirer after truth, no more
need be said to show the falsity of Universalist views upon this
subject.

276 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Parti.
XCIX. "The wages of sin is death ; but the gift of God is
eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord." Rom. 6 : 23.
The author of the Guide, in constructing an argument upon
Rom. 5 : 18, says, " We find ' the free gift came upon all men
unto justification of life.' This free gift is eternal life. See
Rom. 6 : 23." Thus he uses the last member of this text to
prove Universalism, or that all shall enjoy endless bliss in the
future world. The passage, it will be seen, presents an antithe
sis ; and if the eternal life named in the second member of the
verse means endless bliss, as Mr. Whittemore admits by the use
he has made of it, then the death in the first member is endless
death. Observe, the death here named is contrasted with end
less Ufe, and "as no medium can be found between life and
death, the death incurred by sin could not make eternal life
necessary, unless that death were otherwise eternal. If man
kind are not exposed to eternal death, they have already eternal
life, and God needed not to give it by Jesus Christ ; for this*
would be to give only what they already possess. In other
words, if eternal life is the gift of God by Jesus Christ, then
eternal life was forfeited ; which is the same as to say that the
penalty of eternal death was incurred." Errors of Soc, p. 284,
An effort has been made to turn the last member of this text
against the conditionality of salvation, because eternal life is tho
gift of God. A false issue is often raised upon this subject.
Christians are represented as expecting to merit heaven by their
good works, while Universalists are so evangelical as to receive
it as a gift. This is false. Christians constantly affirm that all
merit is in Christ. They do not, however, believe that eternal
life is bestowed unconditionally ; hence they urge the duty of a
compliance with the conditions, and a use of the means to secure
it. Does this destroy the idea of a gift ? A man is starving ;
a friend offers him bread on the conditions that he will take and
eat. He compUes with these conditions, and is saved from star
vation. Was not that a gift ? And would a man in his senses

Sec. 100.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 277
think he had merited the bread merely, because he had taken
and eaten ? Surely not ; but he would count that man his bene
factor who bestowed upon him the gift. Man, as a moral being,
has power to receive or reject the gifts of God. Are not all our
temporal blessings equally the gifts of God ? Yet these gifta are
sometimes rejected, perverted, and turned into curses. Forgive
ness of sins, eternal life and blessedness, are the gifts of God, to
be received, however, on the conditions of repentance, faith, and
obedience (John 3 : 14-16) ; for while it is declared that Christ
" became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey
him," (Heb. 5 : 9,) it is also declared of him who rejects Christ,
that he " shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on
him." John 3 : 36.
C. "For our light affliction, which is but for a moment,
worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of
glory ; while we look not at the things which are seen, but at
the things which are not seen : for the things which are seen are
temporal; but the things whick are not seen are eternal."
2 Cor. 4 : 17, 18.
This is the language of contrast. The afflictions of the Chris
tian are light when contrasted with the evils oi sin, here and
hereafter. They are but momentary, when contrasted with end
less duration. It is also the language of holy confidence under
sufferings. They " work for us a far more exceeding and eter
nal weight of glory." Observe ; these afflictions do not work
for the Christian mere transient, temporal rewards, but an
ETERNAL WEIGHT OF GLORY. But Universalism con
tradicts this, by asserting that all rewards and punishments are
temporal — that they are received in this world, and end with
this life. But Christians look for their reward in the future,
and not to things seen which are temporal, but to things which
are not seen, but which will be realized in the eternal state.
This too is the language of degree. " A far more exceeding
and eternal weight of glory." The obvious sense is, that our

278 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Parti.
doing and suffering here for Christ will enhance our future glory.
But American Universalism teaches that the most devout and
holy man that ever lived, shall have no higher bliss in the future
than Julian the apostate, or any other polluted scoundrel. "All
shall be equal," is the motto. How utterly at variance is this
with the words of Paul ; yet he is called a Universalist !
CI. "The Son of Man goeth, as it is written of him; but
wo unto that man by tokom tke Son of Man is betrayed! it
had been good for that man if he kad not been born." Matt.
26 : 24.
Dr. Clarke comments as follows upon this passage : "Can
this be said of any sinner, in the common sense in which it is
understood, if there be any redemption from bell's torments?
If a sinner should suffer millions of millions of years in them,
and get out at last to the enjoyment of heaven, then it was well
for him that he had been born ; for still he has an eternity of
blessedness before him. Can the doctrine of the non-eternity of
hell's torments stand in the presence of this saying? Or can
the doctrine of the annihilation of the wicked consist with this
declaration ? It would have been well for that man if he bad
never been born ! Then he must be in a state of conscious
existence, as non-existence is said to be better than that state in
which he is now found." Clarke in loco. We are told in
argument, to get rid of the force of this text, that this was
a common proverb among the Jews. Admitting it to be so, it
does not abate its force when coming from the Saviour. These
words are not merely a common proverb, but a divine truth,
when uttered by him in whose mouth was no guile.
CH. "And if children, then heirs ; heirs of God, and joint
heirs with Christ ; if so be that we suffer with Mm, ihat we
may be also glorified together. For I reckon that the suffer
ings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with
the glory which shall be revealed in us. " Rom. 8 : 17, 18.
This is spoken, not of all men but of Christians who are led
by the Spirit of God, (v. 14,) and who suffer in the cause of

Sec. 103.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 279
Christ. It is declared that the sufferings of this present time
are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be
revealed in us, i. e., as a result of our suffering with him here.
None need mistake the sense of this passage. It has been the
solace of suffering Christians for eighteen centuries. It con
nects our present conduct with our future destiny, which Uni
versalism impiously denies. Of like import is 2 Tim. 2 : 11,
12. " It is a faithful saying ; for if we be dead with him, we
shall also five with him ; if we suffer, we shall also reign with
him ; if we deny him, he will also deny us." Here is a condi
tional promise of reigning with Christ, and being owned by him
at last. Such must be " dead with him," i. e., die to sin. Such
must own him before the world, and be willing to suffer for his
sake, if they would be owned of Christ ; for " if we deny him,
he will also deny us."
CIII. "The soul that sinneth, it shall die." Ex. 18 : 4.
This text and some others of hke import are produced by Uni
versalists to prove the doctrine of no-escape from merited pun
ishment. Such scriptures were evidently designed to set before
the sinner the penalty of the law, and to show him what he is
to expect in case he continues impenitent ; but were never
designed to teach that there is no remission of punishment in
case of penitence. This may be illustrated by civil government.
Go to the statute book, and we shall find that the law expressly
declares, " He that committeth murder or treason, shall die for
it;" and yet in that same book there is a discretionary and
gracious power lodged with the executive to pardon, which always
means the remission of the penalty of the law. So in Heaven's
statute book it is declared, " The soul that sinneth it shall die,"
" God will by no means clear the guilty," See., and yet in the
same book there is a merciful provision, called the gospel, pre
sented to our view, in which Jesus Christ is " set forth to be a
propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteous
ness for the remission of sins that are PAST, through the

280 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
forbearance of God ; to declare, I say, his righteousness : that
he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in
Jesus." Rom. 4 : 25, 26. God says, "When I say to the
wicked thou shalt surely die ; if he turn from his sins, and do
that which is lawful and right ; if the wicked restore the pledge,
give again that he had robbed, Sec, none of his sins that he
hath committed shall be mentioned unto him." Ez. 33 : 14-16.
Observe, none of his sins that he HATH committed shall be
mentioned unto him. Now what is meant by this declaration, if
it is not that on condition of penitence and reformation, the sin
ner shall be exempted from deserved punishment for past sins?
(Sec. LXX.)
" That salvation is of grace, that the whole gospel system is
of grace, is everywhere taught in the Bible. But if the sinner
actually endures the whole penalty of the law, he owes nothing
to justice, and therefore cannot be indebted to grace. For it
should be recollected that the gospel is emphatically called grace,
because it is mercy shown to sinners — it is favor conferred upon
the undeserving and the ungodly. But those who by dint of
suffering have bome the whole penalty of God's law, and thus
discharged all its claims, cannot say, ' by grace I am saved,'
but ' by suffering I am delivered ; ' and now strict justice
demands that I should be admitted into heaven. Their song,
therefore, will not be the song of redeeming grace, for they are
under no obligations to grace. Does the criminal praise the
lenity and clemency of that government which has inflicted upon
him the whole demerit of his crime ? Does he ever think he
owes his enlargement to the mercy of that government ? Neither
can a sinner who has suffered the curse of the law to its full
extent, ascribe his deliverance to mercy. There is not a parti
cle of mercy in it. If men had seriously set themselves to work
to devise a system directly opposite to the Bible, it is clear they
could not have hit upon one more suited to their purpose than
this." Dr. Fisk. That aU punishment is not disciplinary,
may be seen Sec. CIV.

Sec. 104.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE.

281

CIV. "Though he cause grief, yet he will have compassion
according to the multitude of his mercies ; for he doth not
afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of men." Lam. 3 :
32, 33.
The Jews are chastised by being cast off as a nation, for their
departures from God. The Prophet predicts that God would
yet have compassion, and deUver them from Babylon and restore
them to their own land; for, "Though he cause grief," &c.
From this it is assumed that all punishment is amendatory, and
that endless punishment is false. Guide, p. 42.
That God uses disciplinary punishments, is enforced from
every Christian pulpit. These chastisements are inflicted both
upon the righteous and the wicked, with a design to bring the
latter to repentance, and preserve the former in the way of duty,
and improve them in hohness. " WhUe administering this dis
cipline, God appears as a father correcting his children for their
good, mingling the assurance of his love with every stroke, and
showing himself ready to forgive their iniquities when they sub
mit ; but threatening heavier punishments if these prove inef
fectual. That these chastisements are also called punishments
in the Scriptures, we do not deny ; but that they are different,
both in the degree and design of them from capital punishments,
or punishments, properly so called, we affirm. Even in this
world, when his creatures have proved incorrigible, God has made
this difference in the character of his punishments. When he
destroyed the antedUuvians, Pharaoh and his host, the inhabi
tants of Sodom, &c, he did not inflict a disciplinary punish
ment, that is, a punishment designed for their good ; for he took
them away in Ms wrath from the place of repentance, and from
the means of reformation." Merritt. The Bible represents
man as sinning against God ; but Universalism represents him
as sinning against himself only.
Says Mr. Williamson, " God brought us into existence of his
own good pleasure, and without our knowledge or consent ; and
14*

282 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
he is bound, by the principles of his own nature, to do us jus
tice ; and he has no right, in the nature of things, to do an
injury. The right to punish for sin, has its foundation in the
fact that sin is an evil and bitter thing, and its practice produc
tive of evU to man." Exp. cf Def, p. 66. Mr. W. informs
us that he speaks this with reverence ; but really, we should not
have discovered it in the sentiment. " The right " (!) of God
to punish sin, is based upon the fact that it is productive of evil
to man ; and such punishment looks continually at the good of
the sufferer. But if this be so, then the law was made exclu
sively in reference to the happiness of man, irrespective of the
Lawgiver and the dignity of his government, which presents an
anomaly not to be charged upon a divine and perfect administra
tion. In accordance with this, there are no wastes to be
repaired, no insulted dignity to be vindicated, no injurious influ
ence to be counteracted, except so far as it relates to the sinner
himself. Man is diseased, and the penalty of the law or pun
ishment is the remedy ; and yet this remedy is called a curse,
and furthermore, Christ came to redeem man from this curse, or
remedy ! " Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the
law." Gal. 3 : 13. Now what is the curse of the law but its
penalty? Says Mr. Skinner, " A just punishment is as essen
tial for our welfare as anything that love can do — a remission
of such a punishment would be a curse instead of a mercy."
U. III. Sr Def, p. 250. If this is correct, then Christ has
redeemed us from that which is as essential for our welfare as
anything that love can do ! Or, in other words, he came not to
bless us, but to curse us by redeeming us from the curse. Such
is the theology of Universalism. "The law curses men, but
the curse blesses them ! " The Bible speaks of certain charac
ters " who shall be punished with everlasting destruction." 2
Thess. 1 : 9. With what is the sinner here threatened? Why,
shocking to relate, it is that which is as essential to his welfare
as anything that love can do ! " Much more, then, being non
justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through

Sec. 104.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 283
him." Rom. 5 : 9. Wrath of course means punishment. We
are instructed, then, that Christ saves us from a merciful remedy
for our spiritual disease ! " Jesus which delivered us from the
wrath to come." 1 Thess. 1 : 10. That is, he has delivered
us from a manifestation of the love and mercy of God ! God
sends strong delusions upon those " who believe not the truth,
but obey unrighteousness," and for what purpose ? Is it to
bless and save them ? Inspiration declares that the design of such
infliction is not the good of the sufferer, but " THAT THEY
ALL MIGHT BE DAMNED." (2 Thess. 2 : 10-12,) and
this damnation is incurred for not loving " the truth, that they
might be saved," (v. 10,) and thus damnation stands opposed
to salvation, instead of being a means to secure it, as Universal
ism asserts. Now if all punishment looks to the good of the
sufferer, and is not a curse but a blessing, then God promises
the blessing of damnation upon those " who believe not the
truth, but have pleasure in unrighteousness ! " So it seems that
the damnation which stands opposed to salvation, must be here
after numbered among the "exceeding great and precious
promises " of which the Scriptures speak !!
The assumption that all punishment is designed for the good
of the sufferer, is completely overthrown by this passage alone.
Look at the case of Pharaoh and his host, and the ungodly
Sodomites already named, also Ananias and Sapphira. Acts 5 :
1-10. These wicked people were hurried into eternity in con
sequence of their sins. Was this designed to reform them ? As
well might we say that a man was hung to reform him. These,
and similar inflictions, have taken plaee from time to time in the
history of the world, to vindicate the government of God, to let
the world know that he is not insensible to passing events, and
as a warning to the living. It is asserted that the Jews were
punished for their sins when their city was destroyed by the
Romans. But was this only designed to reform the sufferers ?
Was this as essential for their welfare as anything that love could
do ? Was the Saviour so unwiUing that they should be blessed

284 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
with such love and mercy, as to weep in view of it ? Luke 19 :
41. Was the death of eleven hundred thousand Jews in the
siege of Jerusalem, designed only to reform those who suffered
it ? There is but one way for Universalists to meet this, and
that is to bring forward their doctrine that death ends sin, and
that aU shall be as the angels of God in the future ; and thus
death reformed the Jews into this state. But how will this har
monize with the idea that no man escapes any deserved punish
ment? Is it replied that dying was their punishment? But
how could that be, if it ended their sins, and introduced them to
heaven ? And then, do not good men die as well as bad ? And
then again, why this partialism in the case of the Jews, as seen
in the fact that thousands were sent off to heaven during the
siege, while to thousands of others, no more guilty, the gate of
heaven was shut, and they were left to suffer their hell in this
world for scores of years ? What justice, love, or mercy, is there
in this ? And yet this is Universalist theology. Is it replied
that this was a national punishment, and designed to reform the
Jews as a nation ? But why, according to Universalist notions,
should there have been a national punishment at all upon that
people for rejecting the Messiah nearly forty years after he left
the earth ? According to this dogma, every man is punished for
his individual sins as soon as he commits them. (Sec. XLIX.)
Nations are composed of individuals, and if every individual is
punished to the full extent, then the whole nation is punished to
the full extent. Every Jew, then, suffered immediately all the
punishment that was due him for rejecting Christ, and thus the
whole nation had been punished. And yet God inflicts a pun
ishment upon this very people, involving individual suffering for
the very crime for which they had aU been punished to the full
extent, nearly forty years before ! This is a logical result of
Universalist teachings, and stands directly opposed both to the
mercy and justice of God. We deny that the punishment upon
the Jewish nation was designed to reform it ; and all know that
if it was, it has proved a total failure for eighteen hundred years.

Sec. 104.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 285
The passage in Luke 13 : 24-28, Universalists generally refer to
the Jerusalem catastrophe. Now whether this is referable to the
future state or to Jerusalem, it matters but little in this argu
ment, for in either case it stamps with falsehood the notion that
all punishment is designed to reform the sufferer. Here we beg
leave to introduce Mr. Whittemore as a witness. He remarks
upon this scripture thus : " ' Strive to enter in,' that is, do not
wait, but seek now to become my disciples ; for the time when
you wUl have the opportunity of seeking is short ; many will
seek to enter into my kingdom when it is too late, and therefore
will not be able : they will seek when they see the calamities
that are coming upon them ; but then I shaU have risen up and
shut the door, and their time for gaining admittance will be
passed. Now all this is Uterally true ; for when Jerusalem was
destroyed, the Jews ceased to enjoy Gospel privileges, and thus
the door of the kingdom was closed against them." Guide,
p. 148.
Mr. W. is right, unwittingly right, that is, so far as the prin
ciple of the divine administration is concerned. Now look at
the phght into which Universalism is thrown by this. The Jews
are punished in this instance for rejecting the gospel kingdom,
and this punishment is designed to reform them ; and yet by
this very punishment they are put beyond the possibility of re
form; for says Mr. W., " When Jerusalem was destroyed, the
Jews ceased to enjoy gospel privileges, and thus the door of the
kingdom was .closed agamst them," and so closed, that even
should they seek to enter in they would not be able ! How ser
pentine is error. We are instructed in this passage, that when
sinners are punished in consequence of having spumed the offers
of mercy, and neglected the day of visitation, God does not in
tend their reformation and happmess. He wiU then say, it is too
late, " I know you not," " depart from me all ye workers of
iniquity." Of like import is Prov. 1 : 24-28. It is false,
then, that all punishment is designed for the good of the suffer
er. Again : "The sinner is represented as bemg punished ac-

286 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
cording to his works, not according to his wants. Every man is
represented as receiving ' according to that he haih done in the
body,' and not according to ihat which is necessary to save him.
Christ says, ' Behold I come quickly, and' my reward is with me
to give unto every man according as his works shall be,' not ac
cording to what is necessary to bring him to repentance.
Again, the sinner is said to be cursed, to be punished, to endure
wrath, wrath wiihout mixture, indignation, fiery indignation,
to perish, to be destroyed, &e. Now if all these mean no more
than what is for the sinner's good — no more than what is es
sential for his best interest — no more than what unmingled mercy
deals out, as the most tender physician administers a bitter med
icine to a patient, there were never greater misnomers. Then
are wrath and love the same ; then between vengeance and mercy
there is no difference ; then is punishment the means of salva
tion from sin, the cause of punishment, and an effect proves a
remedy for its own cause ; then is a curse a blessing, and death
leads to life ! " Lee.
If all punishment is designed to reform the sufferer, then it is
the will of God that all should reform when he inflicts it ; and
to adopt the Universalist views, concerning the attributes of God
and the absolute character of his will, it would follow that all do
reform when punished ; for who has not heard their argument
upon, " Who will have all men to be saved." Upon this it is
said that the wisdom and power of God are equal to his will, and
therefore all will be saved in the future.
Now this argument is equally valid to prove that all men are
saved from sin now, for none can doubt but God wills it, espe
cially if he punishes them only to reform them. But scripture and
matter of fact contradict this. We are informed, that " evil men
and seducers wax worse and worse, deceiving and being de
ceived." 2 Tim. 3 : 13. Now this class of wicked persons, as
Universalism asserts, were punished all their sins deserved on
the commission of every sin, and yet so far were they from
being reformed that they waxed worse and worse. Look at

Sec. 104.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 287
drunkenness and other vices of our age, and how often do we wit
ness an illustration of this. See Isa. 1:5; Jere. 5:3; Rev.
16 : 9. We introduce the insufficiency of punishment to reform,
in order to consider it in connection with mercy. When we as
sert that if there is no remission of punishment in the gospel
plan, then there is no mercy, we are told that the mercy of God
is seen, not in withholding, but in inflicting the punishment, and
that to withhold punishment would be a curse instead of a mercy.
In contrasting human government with the government of God,
Mr. Skinner says of the latter : " God has all wisdom and
power, and can do aU his pleasure. He is never like earthly
governments, reduced to the necessity of choosing between two
evils. Hence, if one is doomed to endless pain, it is because
God desired it. It is no removal of the difficulty to say, he has
threatened endless misery ; and if the sinner wUl incur the pen
alty, we are not to charge the blame upon God, or accuse him of
vindictive feelings in executing his threatening, for he foresaw
and was able to avoid this result ; he might with perfect ease
and honor to himself, have so arranged his government as to se
cure the obedience and happiness of all. Consequently if there
is infinite evil in the penalty, it is because God desired it, and
had infinite malignity towards the sinner." U. RI. and Def,
p. 195.
This argument is made by Mr. S. to prove that endless pun
ishment is unjust and cruel, and that all punishment is amenda
tory. The reasoning is sophistical, and, furthermore, if it does
anything it completely overturns the disciphniary punishment,
for which Mr. S. is contending. Let us apply it. " God has
all wisdom and power, and can do all his pleasure. He is never
like earthly governments, reduced to the necessity of choosing
between two evils. Hence, if any one is doomed to suffer in -
this world, it is because God desired it. It is no removal of the
difficulty to say, he has threatened punishment in this world, and
if the sinner wiU incur the penalty, we are not to charge the
blame upon God, or accuse bim of vindictive feelings in execu-

288 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
ting his threatenings, for he foresaw and was able to avoid the
result ; he might with perfect ease and infinite honor to himself,
have so arranged his government as to secure the obedience and
happiness of all in this world without punishment. Consequent
ly, if there is sin and punishment in the world, it is because God
desired it, and exercised malignity towards the sinner." It will
amount to nothing to say, that this suffering is but a means to
secure the good of the sinner, for Mr. S. has told us that God
"is never reduced to the necessity of choosing between two
evils," and of course is not under the necessity of punishing
men for their good, for he could have so arranged his govern
ment as to secure that good without it. This mode of argument
is adopted by the whole tribe of Universalists, and yet it lies
with all its force against their cherished notion of disciplinary
punishment. It stands opposed to matter of fact, viz. : the pres
ent sufferings of our race ; therefore, must be false. On this
method in argument, see Sec. CXIV.
The conclusion from this argument is, that God punishes sin
ners unnecessarily in this world, which is, to say the least of it,
unmerciful, and yet Mr. S. talks largely in his book about the
mercy of God in punishing the sinner ! The truth is, Univer-
saUsm drives mercy completely out of the divine administration.
Mr. Skinner, as do Universalists generally, resolves all the ac
tions of men into the sovereignty of God. He says: "The
wUl of God is absolute. The will of kings is absolute ; and
God is the king of kings and lord of lords. He does all things
after the counsel of his own will. Of course when he made
man and gave him the power which he possesses, he did every
thing according to his own will. It will avaU nothing to say,
man is a moral agent ; for why should God give him an agency
which would defeat his own wUl? This would be planning
against himself. Nothing is more evident than that an expected
result of a voluntary act, proves that it was desired." U. IU.
and Def, p. 174.
Here we learn the fatalism of Universalism, " whatever it, is

Sec. 104.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 289
right ; " everything is according to the wUl of God. (Sec.
LXXXV.) Speaking of the mercy of God to man, Mr. S.
adopts the foUowing definition : " Mercy has been defined to be
that benevolence, mildness, or tenderness of heart, which dis
poses a person to overlook injuries, or treat an offender better
than he deserves." p. 202.
In the same book he asserts as follows: "Justice will have
all its demands ; every man shall suffer to the full extent of his
deserts. There is no remission of punishment, either on ac
count of the Saviour's death, or the sinner's penitence." p. 249.
Mr. S., by these views concerning the will of God and pun
ishment, represents all the leading writers in the order. We could
give the same in substance from the works of a dozen or more
in our possession. Now with these doctrines, where can there
possibly be any mercy in the system? Mercy, says Mr. S.,
" is to treat an offender better than he deserves." Then he
says : " Every man shall suffer to ihefuU extent of his deserts."
No mercy, then, aceording to Mr. S.'s own showing. We have
seen that punishment often fails to reform, and that some under
its infliction wax worse and worse. Is there mercy in continuing
to punish such, when God not only knows it is so, but wiUed it
should be so ? Observe : "An expected result of a voluntary
act, proves that it was desired." There can be no mercy in
such a procedure. But why should the sinner be punished at
all for wrong doing ? He has not been guUty of wrong doing
unless it is wrong to do the wiU of Gcd. Mercy, we are told,
is seen in punishing the sinner to reclaim him. Reclaim him
from what? Why from being and doing just as God wills he
should be and do ! So distant is this from being merciful, that
it is downright cruelty. By this strange system the Deity is
arrayed against himself. He wills the sin, and wiUs the reforma
tion of the sinner, and inflicts stripes to effect it. The sinner
waxes worse and worse under the stripes, till rotten ripe in pol
lution he falls into the grave, and all this in accordance with the
wUl of God ! With these views of Universalists before him, the

290 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Parti.
reader can judge with what propriety those scriptures are pre
sented to prove Universalism, which speaks of the mercy of
God. From what has been presented, we think it sufficiently
clear that all punishment is not designed to reform the sufferer.
We should be careful to distinguish between God's judicial pun
ishments and his paternal chastisements. The sinner has not
sinned against himself, but against God. To be sure, he has
brought upon himself misery, ancl is without hope. God's
law is vindicated in his final punishment, if he spurns the offers
of mercy and dies in his sins. It is equally vindicated through
Christ, if he repent of his sins, believe and obey the gospel, and
is thus saved from the punishment of past sins. Rom. 4 : 25,
26. The penalty by which that law is vindicated, however, is
not designed for the final benefit of the offender. God has in
deed appointed its proclamation a priori, for the benefit of the
governed, by the prevention of crime. In this sense we have
no objection to calling it reformatory, as its proclamation oper
ates as a warning to sinners. But it is not inflicted, a posteriori
for the final benefit of those who disregard the divine authority.
It avails nothing for Universalists to present an array of scrip
tures to prove that God sometimes inflicts reformatory punish
ment, and that some have been benefitted by such punishment.
This is admitted.
The point at issue is this : Universalists assert that all pun
ishment is for the good of the punished. This we deny, and
have given some of our reasons for so doing. With what force'
the reader must judge. Many more might be added, had we
space to spare. See Jere. 16:13; 13:14; 1 Sam. 6:19.
Were these inflictions designed to reform the sufferers?
CV. " That he ly the grace of God should taste death for
every man." " He died for all." " Who gave himself a ran
som for all." Heb. 2 : 9 ; 2 Cor. 5:15; 1 Tim. 2 : 6.
These, and other texts of like import, are in frequent use in
Universalist writings to prove their doctrine. By their use the

Sec. 105.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 291
construction put upon them is this : "Christ tasted death that
he might save every man in the future state." "He died for
all, and gave himseU* a ransom for all, to secure the salvation of
all men in the future world." We say this is the construction,
because they would not think of quoting them to prove that all
are saved in this world. It is in the future state that all are to
be saved.
Christ's vicarious atonement is discarded by the order general
ly. Says Mr. Skinner : " The whole system of vicarious atone
ment is false." U. Ri. and Def, p. 120. So say they all,
from Father Ballou down to the dimmest satellite. Indeed, there
is not a leading writer among them who admits that Christ's
death was at all necessary to save men in the immortal state ;
and yet they continue to use these scriptures ( Guide, p. 34) in
this way, because there is universal language employed, and the
people can be deceived by it. On the contrary, Mr. Ballou
says : " That Christ came into this world to save us in another,
is contrary to all the representations found in the scriptures."
Lee, p. 14.
Mr. Whittemore says : "The truth is, we do not read one
word in the Bible about saving men from punishment in the fu
ture state. The evils from which Jesus came to save men are
in this world, and for this reason he came into this world to save
them." Guide, p. 254.
And yet in this same Guide, Mr. W. uses the above named
scriptures to substantiate the doctrine of the salvation of all in
the future world, because Christ gave himself a ransom, and
died for all in this world ! Much is said by this class of writers
about Christ's saving all men. But is there any such thing as
Universal salvation by Christ, aceording to their own positions?
What, according to these men, was the great object of Christ's
mission. Mr. WUliamson says : "The witness does not go into
court to make truth. He goes there, to testify to what is already
true. So Jesus, in our view, came not to make anything true
that was not so before ; but he was the faithful and true witness!

292 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Parti.
who came to make known the truth, as it was in the beginning,
is now, and ever shall be, world without end. He came to re
veal the character and purpose of God." Exp. of U., p. 16.
Says Mr. Skinner : " Jesus bore witness to God's rich pro
visions of grace ; to that eternal life which he had prepared for
the world. This was the great purpose of his mission." But
when did he prepare this for the world? " When he created he
prepared and secured salvation for his children." U. III. and
Def, pp. 264, 265.
Here is Universalist theology. Christ never came to save
men in the future world, for they were never lost, or in danger
of being lost there, for their salvation was prepared and secured
when God created them. Christ's death and mission has nothing
to do with procuring, modifying, or in any way affecting the
happiness of our race in heaven. All would have been thus
saved if Christ had never visited our world, for this was all
made sure when God created man, and " Christ came not to
make anything true that was not so before." The bliss then of
the future state is, to say the least of it, a Christless thing.
According to this view, Christ is not the author of eternal sal
vation (Heb. 5 : 9) to any ; and the holy ones in heaven (Eev.
7 : 10) are in no way indebted to Christ for their glorified state.
It will be seen that Universalism denies that Christ is the
Saviour of a single soul in heaven. Yet these same writers,
who put forth these sentiments, produce John 4 : 42, " Christ
the Saviour of the world," to prove that all will be saved in the
future state ! (Sec XXIV, also Sec. XXI.)
We are informed that the great object of Christ's mission was
to testify to what was already true ; to teach the resurrection
and remove ignorance and sin from men in this world. Men
are ignorant of the character and purposes of God. The Saviour
came to enlighten them, to bear witness to the truth. Well,
what is the truth ? Why, Universalism. Nothing else, surely-
Christ came to remove the ignorance of Partialism from the
world, and to eonvice them by his resurrection that aU would he

Sec. 105.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE.

293

raised from the dead to a blissful state. But universal salvation
in this sense has not been secured by Christ, for millions have
died, and millions are now living, who have never heard of him,
and there are millions more who have had the Bible, containing
the history of his mission, who could never learn UniversaUsm
from it. And as for sin, all know that men are not universally
saved from it here, and, furthermore, according to leading Uni
versalists, Christ never did, nor never will, save a single individ
ual entirely from sin; for, says Mr. Skinner, "None can be
fully saved from all moral evil here." U 111. and Def, p. 261.
Now if none are saved from all moral evil here, and if Christ
came to save none in the future, as Mr. Ballou and others as
sert, then he saves none from all sin any where. What wretched
work these crafty yet blind guides make with salvation. UNI
VERSAL SALVATION ! ! Salvation from what? Not from
sin in this world, as we have seen. Is it from ignorance ? 'No ;
for darkness covers the earth, and gross darkness the people.
Is it from future suffering ? No ; for none have ever been ex
posed to this. Is it from punishment in this world ? No ; for
eveiy one must suffer the full penalty. Is it from sin in the
world to come ? No ; for there is no condition for man there,
but " that in which he is as the angels of God in heaven." Is
it from a future heU ? There is no such place, say these men.
Is it from the grave ? No ; for the popular doctrine with Uni
versalists now is, that the body wiU never be raised. Is it from
nonexistence ? Men were never in danger of this, for this was
guarded against at the creation, as Mr. Skinner asserts. Says
one writer : " I know of no salvation for them if their system
is true, unless it be a salvation of all persevering Universalists
from believing the gospel. Such a system may, with much more
propriety, be denominated universal damnation, than universal
salvation. It universaUy punishes all, and universally saves
none." Russell.

294 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Parti.
CVI. " If by any means Imight attain to tke resurrection
of tke dead." Phil. 3 : 11.
This text stands directly opposed to Universalist views. Paul
lived and labored that he might secure a blissful resurrection,
and thus connects his present conduct with his future destiny.
The only writer we have noticed who has attempted to destroy
the force of this passage, is Mr. Harris. After quoting John
5 : 24, he says : " This refers wholly to the spiritual change or
resurrection wrought in believers, by the power of the gospel in
this life ; " and he will have it that the text under consideration
refers to the same resurrection. Future Life, p. 178.
We are to believe, then, that the holy apostle Paul, who had
been favored with such a wonderful conversion, and had heen
raised up with others to sit together in heavenly places in Christ
Jesus, (Eph. 2 : 6,) had not as yet experienced a spiritual res
urrection by the power of the gospel in this life, but was labor
ing to attain to it ! What an exhorbitant demand Universalism
makes upon the credulity of its votaries !
Dr. Clarke remarks thus : " The resurrection of the dead."
That is, the resurrection of those who, having died in the Lord,
rise to glory and honor : and hence St. Paul uses a peculiar
word, which occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. This
glorious resurrection, and perhaps peculiarly glorious in the case
of martyrs, is that to which St. Paul aspired. The word
avazaoig signifies the resurrection in general, both of the just
and of the unjust ; e^nvagaaig may signify that of the blessed
only." See Sec. XCI.
CVH. " But if ye being evil, know how to give good gifts
unto your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father
give good things to them that ask him ? " Matt. 7 : 11.
This passage is sometimes used to show that God, who is much
better than earthly parents, will not inflict endless punishment.
The sophistry lies in representing God as a father only, and as

Sec. 107.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 295
being influenced by the same motives and feelings that frail,
erring, earthly fathers are. All divine truth is alike immutable.
God is not only declared to be our father by creation, (Mai. 2 :
10,) but it is revealed with equal clearness that " the Lord is
our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, ths Lord is our king."
Isa 32 : 22. God stands in both the parental and regal relation
to his creatures. But the great effort of Universalism is to de
stroy the latter relation, and to exalt the former to human imbe
cility ! (Sec. XV.)
Observe : This bestowment of good things is not upon all
men, but upon " them that ask him." The Saviour in this and
the four preceding verses, is showing the willingness of God to
bestow certain blessings in answer to prayer, a doctrine which,
if we may credit some of their leading authors, Universalists
have but little faith in. lt is not believed ly them that he is a
prayer answering God.
Speaking of prayer, Mr. Skinner says : " The change which
our devotions are intended to make is upon ourselves, not upon
the Almighty. Their chief efficacy is derived from the good
dispositions which they raise and cherish in the human soul."
U.Ill. and Def , p. 332.
Again: " The whole effect of prayer and every other re-
religious duty, must be upon ourselves, and not upon the
supreme and independent Creator." " It should be considered
a great privilege, as weU as a great duty. Not, let it be re
peated, with the view that it will effect any sort of change in the
Supreme Being, in his disposition, in his will, or in his pur
poses." U. Manual, pp. 27, 39.
In keeping with these views, Mr. Ballou says : " The neces
sity and utility of religion, 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." Exp of U
p. 28. J ''

296 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Parti.
All must see that such a view makes prayer utterly useless,
so far as the divine being is concerned. He answers no prayer,
for prayer effects no change at all in his conduct towards us,
but is, in its effect, wholly confined to ourselves. How com
pletely is the Saviour contradicted by these sentiments. Christ
says that our heavenly Father gives good things to them that ask
him. Not so, say these men ; the man who asks gives the good
things to himself !
Universalist views being correct, Elijah must have found him
self in a sad condition in his contest with the prophets of Baal.
He builds his altar, puts on the wood, and the bullock cut in
pieces, and pours on his barrels of water. Now, for the demon
stration to confound Baal's prophets, and to show that there is a
God in Israel. Elijah prays thus : " Lord God of Abraham,
Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day that thou art God
in Israel, and that I am thy servant. Hear me, 0 Lord, hear
me ; that this people may know that thou art the Lord God."
1 Kings 18 : 36, 37. God answered the prayer; the fire came
down, consumed the materials, and licked up the water in the
trench, and the people cried, " The Lord he is the God! the
Lord he is the God!"
This is false, says Universalism, for " the whole effect of
prayer must be upon ourselves," and God was no more moved
by Elijah's prayer, than Baal was moved by the prayers of his
blind worshipers.
Christ uses the parable of the unjust judge (Luke 18 : 1-8)
to illustrate and enforce the duty of prayer. The judge is not
disposed at first to grant the widow her request, but she con
tinues to importune, and he changes his purpose and bestows the
favor she asks. A bad illustration, says UniversaUsm, for the
" whole effect of prayer must be upon ourselves." A correct
illustration would be this : the woman is improved somewhat by
her own effort, while the judge is as unmoved by her entreaties
as a stone, neither changing his purpose or granting her request.
This illustrates the Universalist view of prayer, as all will see.

Sec. 107.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 297
And thus this dogma, as ever, is arrayed against Christ. So we
might go on through the Bible and show the antagonism of Uni
versalism to its teachings concerning prayer.
" The divine favor can neither Jbe gained nor hst," says
Mr. Ballou. Universalist ministers stand up before the people
and profess to ask favors of God. What is meant by it ? Are
they sincere ? Do they beheve he will grant favors, or is it only
to be seen of men ? With such views, what a farce is a Univer-
saUst prayer ! The Bible teaches that God bestows blessings in
answer to prayer. Universalism teaches that prayer is a self-
stimulating and re-active process of man ; or in other words,
that men bless themselves by praying. Quite a difference.
That the natural tendency of pure sentiment, offered with
sincere and reverential feelings, is salutary to some extent upon
both those who pray and those who listen, we readily admit.
But the position, that this is all of prayer, ia highly infidel in its
character, contradicting the Bible and the experience of ood
men in all ages of the church. With such views before us,
from their leading men, we are not surprised to hear Mr. Smith,
who was a popular preacher of the order for twelve years, assert
as follows :
' ' No minister of the sect, whom I ever knew, maintained
family prayer. I have known many to ridicule the custom, but
no one to observe it. I have often been in famUies of the
principal advocates of Universalism, and passed the night.
They have been at my house. I found no family devotions at
their dwellings. They expressed no surprise at not finding an
altar at my fireside."
Persons have lived in the families of some of their leading
ministers for months, and never heard the voice of prayer in
their houses. When their brethren in the ministry called to
pass the night, they abounded with witty anecdotes about the
PartiaUste, but never prayed.
Now how has it been with Universalists? Have they consid
ered these sinful neglects? No. They have boasted of them
15

298 UNIVERSALISM NOT dF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
as virtues. Their prayers were secret, such as Christ enjoined ;
they were not like the old Pharisees, praying, joining church,
fasting, and all that, to be seen of men. One would have sup
posed that persons, who had said so much about praying to be
seen of men, would have had no public prayers at all, and thus
evinced consistency. But these men, notwithstanding aU they
have said about praying to be seen of men, are seen standing
praying in their pulpits from time to time ; but this has doubtless
been much against their inclination, and would have been aban
doned before now, if public opinion would have borne them out
in it. A few years since, Robert Smith, a Universalist preacher,
an editor in Hartford, Conn., gave out in public that he should
pray no more when he conducted public service. He contended
that such prayer was wrong ; that offering prayer in connection
with a sermon, was a tribute to Orthodoxy that he was unwilling
to pay. He offered a reward of one thousand dollars to any man
who would prove that the Saviour ever made a pubhc prayer.
Mr. Grosh, of Utica, an editor and minister in the order, says
he preached several months without public prayers.
Since quite a number of their ministers have renounced the
doctrine, and Mr. Smith's book has been so extensively circulated,
showing the blighting influence of Universalism, the leaders
have found it necessary to change their course somewhat. - Poli
cy dictates that the denomination should appear more pious.
Prayer books have been published, and a part of their ministers,
and a few of their people, have been induced to set up some
thing Uke family worship. It seems, however, that Mr. Cobb
had been in the habit of ' ' lifting up his voice in thanksgiving
and praise " in his family, and after Mr. Smith's exposure, he
published this to the world in his paper, which called forth a
rebuke from Mr. Drew, editor of the Banner, as follows :
"We do not suppose this is a very unusual thing amongst
Universalist ministers ; but all do not choose to publish it.
Some, it may be, have so literally practised upon the precept
of Jesus requiring secret prayer, as to have kept their practice

SeC. 107.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE.

299

so much of a secret that the world has not known it." Banner,
Jan. 16, 1841.
Mr. Drew, it seems, was one of those modest persons, who
have ever been very secret about their prayers ! Being greatly
devoted to the interest of the order, however, and the leaders
judging it expedient to appear more pious, " before men," he
cheerfully sacrifices his modesty, commences repeating the Lord's
prayer on the Sabbath in his house, and tacitly sanctions his
Bro. Cobb's Phariseeism, by publishing to the world his own
prayers, as foUows :
" Every Sabbath day, when we are at home, and at an hour
when we are not officiating in the church, we gather our family
of little ones around the domestic hearth-stone, read the sacred
scriptures in course, each reading a portion, say the Lord's
prayer together, and then gather around the organ, and with
heart and voice, raise our united voices together, in praise to him
who is the God and Father of all the families of the earth."
Banner, Feb. 4, 1843.
How long Mr. D. continued this we are not informed. Here
is Phariseeism, with a witness ! After all the ridicule they have
heaped upon others, there is no class of men who make a more
ostentatious display of their religious doings than do these same
Universalists. A few years since great efforts were made to get up prayer
meetings in the denomination ; but with their views of prayer,
these doubtless appeared so farcical to themselves, as well as to
others, that in most cases they have been abandoned, and in
some instances praise meetings (!) have taken their place, the
exercises consisting chiefly in praising UniversaUsm and de
nouncing evangelical truth. Indeed, if God, as Universalism
asserts, is, from his own nature, necessarily impelled to acts of
love towards all his creatures, whatever their character, where
can be the necessity of prayer ? We might as well pray for
him to be omnipotent, or omniscient, as for him to be gracious.
Universalism is a prayerless reUgion, and its influence in this re-

300 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
spect is seen in every community where it exists. On praying
for all men, see Sec. LXXXII.
CVIII. " For our conversation is inkeaven ; from whence
also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ; who
shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto
his glorious body." Phil. 3 : 20, 21.
This passage stands directly opposed to the notion that the
body is never to be raised, and must, if possible, be destroyed
in some way. The last effort we have met with to do this, is
found in Harris's " Future Life." He says, " The apostle does
not say that Christ would change "vile bodies," but "vile
body," which was the church ; for the apostle has told us that
the church is the body of Christ." p. 192.
Christ's body then, the church, is the " vile body" meant by
the apostle, and when Christ comes from heaven he is to change
his own body and make it like his own body ! ! Well, who he-
long to this church? All men, of course, if Universalism is
the truth, and Mr. BaUou, in a sermon on Eph. 5 : 25-27, has
asserted, " that all men belong to the church of Christ." Se
lect Ser., p. 133.
But when is Christ to come and change his vile body? Mr.
Harris, on the same page, states that it was to be changed at the
coming of Christ in his kingdom ; and on page 190 he quotes
Bush, to show that his ' ' second coming commenced with that
new order of things, which is, in the main, to be dated from the
destruction of Jerusalem — which is to be considered as continu
ing through the whole period of the dispensation."
Admitting Mr. Ballou's position, that the whole human race
compose the church, this interpretation of the text amounts to
the idea, that the whole human race are to be changed and made
like Christ's glorious body, under the dispensation which com
menced with the destruction of Jerusalem. So the millions of
our race who had died and were exalted to bliss, prior to the de
struction of Jerusalem, are to be changed with the rest of thc

Sec. 109.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 301
vile body subsequent to that event ! ! Paul must mean the
church, because he says our vile body, and not vile bodies.
What paltry quibbling this. The honest minded reader will see
at a glance the character this work gives Universalism and its
advocates. CIX. "Abraham called upon the name of ihe Lord, the
everlasting God." Gen. 21 : 33.
The Hebrew olam, and Greek aion, aionios, have been dis
cussed so much that they have become, to some extent, natural
ized to the mind of the common English reader, especially so,
to those acquainted with the controversy these words have elicit
ed. Most have witnessed, too, with what an air of triumph the
fact is stated, by Universalists, that the word everlasting is ap
plied to things of limited duration, as, the priesthood of Aaron,
the lulls, and the possession of the land of Canaan by the Is
raelites. The priesthood has passed away, the hills are not end
less, and the seed of Abraham have long since ceased to possess
the land of Canaan ; therefore, the word everlasting does not
mean endless. Our limits forbid an extensive article upon this
subject. A few hints only will be given, just to furnish the
reader a clue to the sophistries employed to destroy the true
meaning of language.
If everlasting in its true or original sense does not mean end
less, because it is sometimes apphed to that which ceases to exist,
then by the same process in argument it cannot mean less than
endless, because it is applied to the existence of God, which is
absolutely endless, as all admit. We see, then, that the sense
of the word is not fixed by the subject. The subject only de
termines whether it is used in a proper or an accommodated
sense, in that particular instance. No point has been more
clearly shown, by those able men who have controverted Univer
salist views upon this subject, than this, viz., that the proper
meaning of the Greek noun aion, and its corresponding adject-

302 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
ive aionios, is endless. Dr. Clarke, on the text at the head of
this section, remarks as follows :
" The Septuagint renders the words Theos aionios, the ever
existing God. From this application of both Words, we learn
olam and aion originally signified eternal, or duration without
end. Aion, according to Aristotle, and a higher authority need
not be sought, is compounded of aei, always an on, being.
Hence we see that no words can more forcibly express the grand
characteristics of eternity than these. It is that duration which
is always existing, still running on, but never runs out. In
all languages, words have, in process of time, deviated from
their original acceptations, and have become accommodated to
particular purposes, and limited to particular meanings. This
has happened both to the Hebrew olam, and the Greek aion;
they have been both used to express a limited time, but in gen
eral a time the limits of which are unknown ; and thus a pointed
reference to the original ideal meaning is still kept up. Those
who bring any of these terms, in an accommodated sense, to
favor a particular doctrine, must depend upon the good graces of
their opponents for permission to use them in this way. Por as
the real grammatical meaning of both words is eternal, and all
other meanings only accommodated ones, sound criticism in all
matters of dispute, concerning the import of. a word or term,
must have recourse to the grammatical meaning, and to the ear
liest and best writers of the language, and will determine all ac
commodated meanings by this alone. Now the first and best
writers in both these languages, apply olam and aion to express
eternal, in the proper meaning of that word ; and this is their
proper meaning in the Old and New Testament, when applied
to God, his attributes, his operations, taken in connection with
the ends for which he performs them, for whatsoever he doeth it
shall be forever. The word is with the same strict propriety
applied to the duration of the rewards and punishments in a future
state, and the argument that pretends to prove, and it is only
pretence, that in the future punishment of the wicked the worm

Sec. 109.] universalism not of the bible. 303
shaU die, and the fire sfraU be quenched, will apply as forcibly to
the state of happy spirits, and as fully prove that a point in
eternity shall arrive, when the repose of the righteous .shall be
interrupted, and the glorification of the children of God have an
eternal end."
In keeping with Dr. Clarke's views are the words ofthe Saviour,
Matt. 25 : 46 : " These shall go away into everlasting punishment,
but the righteous into life eternal." The word aionion is here
rendered everlasting in the first member of the text, and eternal
in the second. Now, if in the first member it is used in a Um-
ited sense, then it must be in the second, which limits the bliss
of the righteous. Mr. Whittemore seeing this, has resorted to
a most wretched perversion, which is, that the "eternal life"
means the spiritual life of the believer in this world, and does
not refer to the future state. To be righteous in a religious
sense, which is the sense here, is to possess spiritual life, as all
must admit. The Saviour, then, is made to utter the following :
" The spiritually alive in this world, shall go into spiritual
life in, this world! " Such senseless tautology is not to be
charged upon the divine Saviour. None but a man who had a
bad cause to sustain, would thus pervert the words of Christ.
The Saviour in this passage instructs us that the bliss of the
righteous, and the punishment of the wicked will be equal in
duration. For Dr. Clarke's remarks upon this text, and Dr. Hunting
don's rebuke to Universalists for trifling with language expres
sive of endless duration, see Sec. XLI.
Mark 3 : 29 : " But he that blasphemeth against the Holy
Ghost, hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal dam
nation. " Here forgiveness and damnation are set over against
each other. Hence, if a man is never forgiven, he must be
damned endlessly, and thus the unforgiven are in danger of eter
nal damnation. Another evangelist (Luke 12 : 10) says of this
blasphemy, " it shall not be forgiven." Now an aionon pun
ishment for a sin that hath never forgiveness, and that shall not

304 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Parti.
le forgiven, must of necessity be endless in duration. There is
no avoiding this.
It is often said by Universalists, that the term endless is
nowhere applied to punishment in the Bible. But why this
stress upon the word endless ; why prefer this word to everlast
ing, eternal, forever and ever, which are the strongest terms used
in reference to a future state ? The obvious reason is, because
the Bible employs them to express the duration of the suffer
ings of the wicked.* The term endless is nowhere in the scrip
tures applied to the punishment of the wicked, and the same
may be said of the happiness of heaven. The word is used by
the apostle in reference to Christ's priesthood, (Heb. 7 : 16) :
" Who is made, not after the law of carnal commandment, but
after the power of an endless life." But it is not said that any
shall have this Ufe. But suppose endless, the word of their
choice, was to be found in the Bible connected with the punish
ment of the wicked, would it stand before their criticisms with
the license they take ? By no means ; for they could pervert it
with the same ease that they now do the term everlasting, for
the term endless, too, is used in a limited sense. Timothy is
cautioned against " endless genealogies." 1 Tim. 1 :4.
It discovers either great ignorance or depravity to make such
a demand for the term endless in connection with punishment,
when, if it were found, its true sense would no more be admit-
ed by UniversaUsts, than the true sense of everlasting is now
admitted by them. And if the term endless is necessary to
prove endless punishment, is it not equally so to prove endless
salvation ? We have only to apply their own rules in argument
to the bliss of heaven, to deprive it of its endless duration. Is
it said that such scriptures as, "There shall be no more death,"
A
* Our opponents admit that the doctrine of endless punishment was pop
ular with the Jews in the time of Christ. But what word or words were in
use among them, to express the duration of punishment, if those under
consideration were not used for that purpose ? Universalists would confer
a favor by giving information upon this point.

" Sec. 109.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 305
(Rev. 21 : 4,) " Neither can they die any more," (Luke 20,
36,) prove endless bliss ? We reply, that these no more prove
endless bliss, than, " Shall not see Ufe," (John 3 : 36,) " I
will love them no more," (Hosea 9 : 15,) " Will show them no
favor," (Isa. 27 : 11,) " Shall not be forgiven," (Luke 12 :
10,) disprove it. Mr. Morse, a Universalist minister, as quoted
by Mr. Lee, p. 192, says, " The word aionios is equivalent to
long, lasting, or everlasting." The design of this was to make
the impression, that the word is as correctly rendered by long as
by everlasting, which is false. The absurdity of this rendering
will be seen by applying it to John 3 : 15, " Whosoever believeth
in him shall not perish, but have eternal life." No Univer
salist will contend that this eternal life, which is conditioned on
believing, is future bUss, for our belief or unbelief can neither
gain nor forfeit that, according to their system.
Now if " eternal life, " in this text, may with propriety be
rendered " long life," then it speaks this : " Whosoever believ
eth in Christ shall not perish, but have long life in this world ! "
But is it true that a beUef in Christ secures long life in this
world ? So far is this from the truth that thousands have short
ened their days by believing in Christ. Stephen believed in
Christ. Did he have long life in this world ? We might intro
duce a host of texts to show up this assumption. No more
need be said upon this point.
Sometimes, when it serves their turn, Universahsts will have
it that aionios may be properly rendered by age-lasting ; hence,
we read in their books of age-lasting correction, &c. Let us
apply this to 2 Cor. 4 : 18 : "We look not at things which are
seen, but at things whieh are not seen : for the things which are
seen are temporal : but the things which are not seen are eter
nal," i. e., age-lasting. Things which are only age-lasting are
of hmited duration, and therefore must be temporary. The
passage, then, is reduced to the following nonsense : "We look
not at the things which are seen, for they are temporal; but we
look at the things wliich are not seen, for they are temporary ! "
16*

306 ¦ UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
Dfi the apostle mean this ? Nothing is more obvious than that
he meant endless duration by the term under consideration. The
scriptures denote the brevity of human life by such expressions
as " grass," " weaver's shuttle," "shadow," "vapor," "few
days," &c. But when they speak of punishment, they never
assert that its duration is as the grass, weaver's shuttle, shadow,
vapor, or a few days ; but, on the contrary, we find the strong
terms, everlasting, eternal, and forever, are applied to it. As
we have seen, some who deny future punishment have asserted
that aionios is equivalent to long, age-lasting. They assert, too,
that none escape the punishment due for their sins. To show
this in its true light, let us suppose a case. A man dies in the
act of wilful murder. Now, if there is no future punishment,
when and where does he suffer long, or age-lasting punishment
for that last sin ? Is " eternal damnation," " everlasting punish
ment," inflicted in the brief space of human life, which is as the
shadow or vapor ? Is it inflicted in a few years, months, days,
or it may be a few seconds after the" sinful act, or even, as Mr.
Whittemore will have it, (Sec. XLIX,) while sin is being com
mitted ? No more need be said to show the violent wresting of
the scriptures upon this point.
Speaking of the terms in question, Prof. Stuart inquires:
" If, then, the words aion wad. aionios are applied sixty times
(which is the fact) in the New Testament, to designate the con
tinuance of the future happiness of the righteous ; and some
twelve times to designate the continuance of the future misery
of the wicked ; by what principles of interpreting language does
it become possible for us to avoid the conclusion that aion and
aionios have the same sense in both cases ? " Again he says,
" The result seems to me to be plain, and philologically and
exegeticaUy certain. It is this : either the declarations of the
scriptures do not establish the facts, that God, and his glory, and
praise, and happiness are endless ¦ nor that the happiness ofthe
righteous in a future world is endless ; or else they establish
the fact, that the punishment of the wicked is endless. The

Sec. 110.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 307
whole stand or fall together. There can, from the very nature
of antithesis, be no room for rational doubt here, in what man
ner we should interpret the declarations of the sacred writers.
We MUST EITHER ADMIT THE ENDLESS MISERY OF HELL, OR GIVE
UP THE ENDLESS HAPPINESS OF HEAVEN." Exeg. EsSOyS, pp.
56, 62.
Blank Atheism, or no future life whatever for any of our
race, is a clear and logical result of Universahst arguments upon
future punishment.
CX. " The earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for
the manifestations of," See. Rom. 8 : 19-23.
The following, with the exception of the application of Mr.
Whittemore's rule at the close, has been kindly furnished for
this work by Rev. Charles Munger.
"Does this passage teach the final salvation of all men?
This is the question now at issue. The answer depends wholly
upon ' the creature,' and its deliverance. What the creature is,
and what its deUverance, must be determined by the essential
conditions of the entire passage and the context. Taken in the
order of the apostle, they seem to be these :
" 1. The creature waiteth in earnest expectation for the man-
ifestions of the sons of God. Ver. 19.
"2. It was made subject to vanity, not wilUngly, but in hope.
Ver. 20.
"3. It shall be deUvered from the bondage of corruption into
the glorious liberty of the children of God. Ver. 21.
" 4. The creature is not the same as the sons of God, but a
thing or class distinct. The last statement is important. If the
creature is the same as the sons of God, then the passage refers
only to these, and of course has nothing to do with Universal
ism. Jf it is not the same, then this fact is a very important
condition or feature, which must be regarded in the interpreta
tion. The distinction, as we have just seen, is absolutely essen
tial to the claims of UniversaUsm. It is perfectly apparent,

308 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
also, from the stracture of the passage, and the distinction of
terms ; thus : the creature itself also shall be delivered into the
liberty of the children of God. Ver. 21.
" The whole creation groaneth, and not only they, (it, for
the antecedent is neuter,) but ourselves also which have the
fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan waiting for the
adoption. Ver. 22, 23.
" The supposition that the passage teaches Universalism rests
upon the three following assumptions.
"1. That the passage is not figurative.
" 2. That the creation includes every human being.
"3. That its deliverance is from sin into conscious enjoyment
of holiness and happiness eternal.
"The first statement, though exceedingly important, they never
argue, but assume. The second they usually argue thus : The
same creature which was made subject to vanity, shall be deliv
ered. True, the creature is the same in both verses 20 and 21,
but to assume that it means the human race in ver. 20, and
therefore it does in ver. 21, is a mode of reasoning not very
conclusive, though quite characteristic. But, secondly : ' Dr.
McKnight decides that the creature in the passage signifies every
human creature.' Guide, p. 47. Very well, Grotius, Mich-
aelis, Luther, Tholuck, Rosenmuller, Bloomfield, Doddridge,
Benson, Knapp, Robinson, Hodge, with many other ' learned
friends,' decide that it means no such thing, but on the contrary
¦ the visible creation.' Thirdly, it is argued ' that the creature,'
ver. 21, is equivalent to ' thc whole creation,' ver. 22, and that
this last expression signifies every human being in Mark 16 : 15,
and therefore it does here.' Let us' examine first the fact, and
then the logic. The passage referred to is this : ' Go ye into all
the world and preach the gospel to every creature.' Does this
expression here include, Universalists themselves being judges,
the mUlions of human beings who were dead, and, according to
their views, in heaven, if not elsewhere, when it was spoken ?
Does the term, every creature, in this commission, include ab-

Sec. 110.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 309
solutely every individual of the entire race ? Evidently not.
Universahsts interpret the commission to refer to the age then
present. Thus the ' important fact ' upon which they rest then-
cause, is not a fact, and the argument is invalid. But suppose
it were a fact that the expression in this single instance signified
every human being, does it follow logically that it certainly does
in Rom. 8 : 19-23 ? Paul says, that in his day ' the gospel was
preached to every creature which is under heaven.' Col. 1 : 23.
Here the same expression is used, both in Greek and English ;
but it includes only a smaU part of the human race. And shall
we say, therefore it does in Rom. 8 : 19-23? This argument
from a single use is certainly as good in one ease as another.
Again: In Col. 1 : 15, the same expression comprehends ' all
things created/ and therefore by the same rule it does in Rom.
8 : 19-23. The logic which thus proves and disproves the same
thing must be false, and the conclusion based upon it is no bet
ter. The supposition that the term ' creature ' signifies every
human being, then, is without any valid proof, the arguments on
which it depends being invahd. That it is untrue, is proved by
the essential conditions of the passage, as above mentioned.
Take that one, for instance, which is not only essential to the
identity of the passage, but, as before shown, absolutely neces
sary to the claims of Universalism, viz.: That ' the creature ' is
distinct from ' the sons of God.' If it is distinct, then the erea-
ture is not the entire race absolutely, for the sons of God are a
part of the race, and distinct from ' the creature.' If it is not
a distinct class, then the passage refers only to the sons of God,
and has nothing to do with Universalism. What is affirmed of
' the creature ' is not true, in fact, of every human being, and
therefore the creature cannot have this interpretation. The Uni
versalist depends upon the literal construction of this language.
We cannot admit the figurative without destroying his scheme.
But it is not literally tme that every human being awaiteth in
earnest expectation for the manifestations of the sons of God —
was made subject to vanity, not wUlingly, but in hope. It is not

310 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
true literally that every human being has an idea even of the adop
tion — the redemption of our body — and therefore they cannot
in patience wait for it. Thus the position that ' the creature ' is
every human being, must be abandoned because it is without
proof, and also contrary to essential conditions of the passage.
" There is but ono hope left for Universalism in this passage,
and that is a ' forlorn hope ' indeed. Does the advocate of tho
doctrine attempt to reconstruct his scheme upon the basis that
' the creature ' includes all that portion of the human race not
comprehended in the class called the sons of God, i. e., the
wicked ? Then it will be a difficult task to show, that what is
affirmed of the creature is true of the wicked, and still more
difficult to sustain the main position with the evidence which the
importance of the case demands. Hard as the task is, it must
be done and done well, or the passage must be given up. For
unless the apostle intended to teach that the wicked, all the
wicked, shall be delivered from sin into the glorious liberty of
the sons of God, he did not teach Universalism in this text,
This is precisely the thing that must be proved. This is Uni
versalism, and Paul did so teach, say its advocates, in this pas
sage. But that he did not is further evident,
" 1. From the design he had in view in introducing the pres
ent sufferings and future glory of the sons of God. It was sim
ply this : To comfort them in their afflictions and to prevent their
apostasy from the faith and practice of the gospel. He employs
these powerful motives. 1st. If we are children, then heirs ; if
we suffer with him we shall also be glorified together. Ver. 17.
2d. The sufferings of this present time are not worthy to he
compared with the glory to be revealed, not in all, but ' in us.'
Here he presents the future glory of the saints with its limita
tions and conditions, ' if children, ' and ' if we suffer with him.'
Then he writes thus, (if the term creature includes the wicked):
The wicked also earnestly expect this "glory, and they were made
subject to vanity, sin, and death ; not willingly — not by
their faults ; and in fact they also shaU inherit the glorious lib-

Sec. 110.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 311
erty of the children of God. Ver. 19-21. Thus his entire
argument is rendered null, and the motives void by the subse
quent announcement, that it will be the same in the end with
those who deny Christ as with those who confess him, even unto
death. Had he designed to-induce apostasy from the restraints
of the gospel, and give full license to sin, this was the doctrine
to do it. But as such was not his design, such was not his
doctrine. " 2. That Paul did not teach here, that the wicked shall be
co-heirs with the saints, is evident from the following explicit
statements in the context. Compare the context with the doc
trine of the text, as explained by Universalists :
" Context. ' If any man have not the spirit of Christ, he is
none of his.' Ver. 4.
" Text. ' All are his, whether they have his spirit or not.'
" Con. ' If children, then heirs.' Ver. 17.
" Text. ' All are heirs.'
" Con. If we suffer with him, we shall also be glorified to
gether. Ter. 17. Compare 2 Tim. 2 : 12 : ' If we suffer we
shall also reign with him ; if we deny him, he wiU also deny
us.' " Text. We shall all be glorified with Christ, whether we suf
fer with him or deny him. Thus Paul is made to contradict
himself. "Look once more at the context and compare Paul's testimo
ny there with this interpretation of the text, and see how his
language and this doctrine neutralize each other :
"Paul. The carnal mind is not subject to the law of God.
Ver. 7.
" Univer. True it is not, but it shall be, in every case, with
out exception.
" Paul. If any man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none
of his. Ver. 9.
" Univer. If any man have not the spirit of Christ he need
not fear, for he shall have it.

312 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
" Paul. If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die. Ver. 13.
"'.^Univer. True, ye shall die, but ye shall live afterwards, for
whether flesh or spirit be your choice here, eternal life is your
certain portion hereafter.
" Paul. As many as are led by the spirit of God, they are the
sons of God. Ver. 14.
" Univer. AU are the sons of God ; and if not, they shall
be. "Paul. The spirit beareth witness with our spirits, that we
are the children of God, and if children, then heirs — hens of
God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. Ver. 16, 17.
" Univer. Rom. 8 : 19-23, and, in fact, the whole Bible
beareth witness that we, even we, ' who are filled with all un
righteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, malicious
ness, envy, murder, deceit, malignity, backbiters, haters of God,
covenant breakers, implacable, unmerciful,' (Rom. 1 : 29,) are
co-heirs with the saints, and shall be delivered into the glorious
liberty of the children of God.
' ' Thus we have compared the doctrines of the context with
the text as explained by Universahsts, and we can now see how
false the apostle was to his own statements, and how he utterly
destroyed the logical decency, as well as moral effect, of his dis
course, upon the supposition, that in the text he teaches thatthe
wicked shall be delivered from sin into the glorious liberty of
the children of God. Neither can we avoid these contradictions
and absurdities in any possible way, but by denying that he
taught Universalism in this passage, or, indeed, any other; for
the result is the same if he has taught it anywhere. The argu
ment with the Universalist is now closed. We have shown that
every position which he has taken, or can take, from which to
deduce his doctrine, is false. We have shown that the term
creature does not mean the entire race of man, nor yet the
wicked portion of it. But it must mean one or the other of
these, or the passage cannot possibly teach Universalism. The
true import is very apparent from a comparison of the positions

Sec. 110.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE.

313

already estabhshed. We have seen that the creature must be
something made subject to vanity. It must be then the material
earth, or its inhabitants. We have shown that it is not man, in
whole, or in part. It must, therefore, be the earth and irrational
creatures, or one of them. There may be a distinction between
' the creature ' and ' the whole creation,' or every creature ; the
former designating a part, the earth ; the latter, the whole, the
earth and irrational creatures. If so, the promise of redemp
tion is restricted to the ' creature,' the earth. It is not said that
the whole creation shaU be deUvered, but only 'the creature.'
That the earth is to be delivered from the curse, and wUl share
the glory of the children of God, according to its nature and,as
it did before the fall, is certainly not denied, but frequently inti
mated in the scriptures. ' It is certainly in harmony with the
design of the apostle, in a bold figurative expression, to give an
idea of the future glory of the saints by representing it as so
transcendently excellent as to excite the earnest desire of the
entire creation, animate and inanimate.'
" Neither is the method singular, for ' the scriptures frequent
ly speak of the creation as a sentient being, rejoicing in God's
favor, or trembling at his anger, speaking abroad his praises,
&c, as Paul here represents it as longing for the great consum
mation of all things. Again : It is agreeable to scripture to
speak of the earth as cursed for man's sake ; as made subject to
vanity, not on its own account, but by the act of God in pun
ishment of the sins of men. Finally, it is according to the
word of God to represent the creation as participating in the
blessings and glories of the Messiah's reign. Isa. 31 : 1 ;
29 : 17 ; 32 : 15, 16 ; 2 Pet. 3 : 7-13 ; Heb. 12 : 26, 27.'
Hodge." One thought more. Mr. Whittemore has adopted a rule in
argument, (Sec. CXV,) which, if correct, we have a right to
avaU ourselves of. Let us apply it here. Does the passage say
that all our race shall he delivered from the bondage of corrup
tion in the immortal state ? Does it say that all men shall have

314 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Parti.
the " liberty of the children of God " in eternity? Does it say
that there is no punishment after ihe resurrection of the dead ?
" As nothing of the kind is said, we presume nothing like it is
meant." Guide, p. 72.
This mighty battering ram, of Mr. Whittemore's constructing
when turned upon Universalism, beats down the whole citadel,
walls, tower and all, for it can be brought to bear with destruct
ive force upon every text produced to sustain that doctrine.
CXI. "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before
God; and the books were opened," Sec. Rev. 20 : 12-15.
Mr. Whittemore sees Jerusalem's destruction in this passage.
Guide, p. 240. But by what stretch of language it can be made
to appear that the dead, small and great, stood before God, and
that the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and that death
and hell delivered up their dead, and that every man of them
were judged according to their works at Jersalem's destruction,
we have yet to learn. The phrase " the dead" in 1 Cor. 15:
35, includes all the dead, say Universalists. If this phrase must
mean all the dead, then it is to be so understood in this passage.
The connection determines this to be the sense here. But were
all the dead at Jerusalem to be judged when the Bomans
besieged that city ? Furthermore, there is no valid evidence
that this book was written before that event. Says Home,
" We conclude, therefore, with Dr. Mills, Le Clerc, Basnage,
Dr. Lardner, Bishop Tomline, Dr. Woodhouse, and other emi
nent critics, in placing the Apocalypse in the year 96 or 97.
Introd., Part 2, p. 382.
We might take up every point in the passage, and show the
violent wresting by such a construction as is given by the Guide,
but will leave it with the good sense of the reader, after giving
Dr. Chauncey's view of the text. He paraphrases the 12th
verse thus : " I then beheld in my vision the dead raised, both
high and low, young and old ; and they stood before the throne
of God, and were judged in a most fair and equal manner,

Sec. 112.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 315
according to their works, whether they had been good or evil.
And that this retribution might be absolutely universal, taking
in the whole race of men, the dead, without distinction or limi
tation were raised again to life, whether they died and were
buried in the sea, or whether they died on the land, and were
buried in the grave; all in the invisible state ofthe dead were
brought to life, and judged according to their works." Salva
tion of all Men, p. 376. Dr. Chauncey was a Universalist,
according to Mr. Whittemore's definition, (Guide, p. 16,) but
it never once entered his mind that Jerusalem's destruction was
the theme of Inspiration here.
CXII. "Lord, are there few that be saved?" he. Luke
13 : 23-30. Upon this passage, we take the liberty to copy the
following from Ressell's Letters.
"Now if Christ had been a Universalist preacher, here was
a happy opportunity to assaU the popular error upon the subject
of the future destiny of the wicked, and to set at least one per
son right. But did Christ preach to him Universalism ? Far
from it. Look at the case. It is evident he did not teach Uni
versalism, "1. From the question whieh was proposed to him by one of
his hearers. Did you ever know an instance in which one of
the hearers of a Universalist preacher, ever applied to his minis
ter to get his opinion as to how many would finaUy be saved ?
Why the very fact that he is a Universalist answers the question.
If Christ taught the doctrine that all men were equally and
immortally happy upon entering the eternal world, his hearers
would have all known this to have been one of the peculiarities
of his faith, and they would as soon have asked him how many
gods there were, as whether few would be saved.
"2. If up to this time Christ had taught Universalism ambig
uously and with reservation, now that the question is fairly
submitted to him, and seeing he must have come from heaven —
not to save men from perdition, for they were never exposed to

316 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
future sufferings — but to teach Universalism, it would seem all
ambiguity and reservation must be laid aside, and we shall have
and unqualified declaration that all men will be saved. Go to
any Universalist preacher with the question whether few or many
are to be saved, and he will answer it at once, and in such lan
guage, too, as cannot honestly be misunderstood.
"3. But the manner in which Christ answered this question,
clearly shows that the Son of God regarded the man who asked
the question, as in danger of losing his own soul. Hear the
answer of Christ. Let it ring in your ears with all its awful
solemnity, and sink down into your heart. ' Strive to enter in
at the strait gate ; for many, I say unto you, wUl seek to enter
in, and shall not be able. When once the master of the house
is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand
without and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto
us ; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know not whence
ye are : Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunken
in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. But he
shall say, I tell you I know not whence ye are ; depart from me,
ye workers of iniquity. There shall be weeping and gnashing of
teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the
prophets, in the kingdom of God, and yourselves thrust out,
And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from
the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom
of God.'
" Mr. Whittemore in his Guide, in which he says, 'every
threatening is explained,' has given this text the ingenious 'go
by.' He quotes 7 : 13, 14, attempts an explanation, refers to
Luke 13 : 24 as a parallel text, and passes along. But your
preachers and authors who have attempted an explanation of this
text, tell us that the inquirer did not seek information as to the
number who would enjoy salvation in the world to come, but
how many there are saved now in this world ; that is, he wished
to know whether there were few or many rio-hteous persons in
this world. A grave question, traly ! The answer of Christ

Sec. 112.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 317
is referred to the famous destruction of Jerusalem. It was then
and there the door was shut to the Jews, and opened to the Gen
tiles ; it was then and there that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and
all the prophets, were seen in the kingdom of God, while they
themselves were thrust out, &c. To all this I object,
" 1. If the inquirer wished to know the state of morals and
religion, it is not a little singular that he should have gone to
Christ to have ascertained the stato of society around him. He
had been brought up in society, and had daily opportunities of
observing the characters of his fellow men. He knew men were
to be judged by their fruits, and he could have formed a very
satisfactory conclusion as to what portion of society were then
pious, without going to Christ with the question. It is an un
natural question to be asked under the circumstances.
" 2. In the answer of our Lord, nothing is said adapted to
teach the inquirer that Jerusalem was to be destroyed at all,
much less that the master of the house was to rise up at that
time and shut the door of the kingdom of heaven. If this was
the Ulusion, the inquirer cannot be supposed to have understood
it "3. As a matter of fact, it is not true that Christ, the master
of the house, shut the door of grace or glory against the Jews,
either at, or any time since the destruction of Jerusalem. The
Jews and Gentiles, since the crucifixion, stand on a dead level
as to religious rights and privUeges. Christ has broken down
the middle-wall of partition, and his gospel was before the
destruction of Jerusalem, and has been ever since, ' the power
of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, to the JEW
first, and also to the Gentiles.' Rom. 1 : 16.
" 4. The persons said to be excluded here from the kingdom of
God, are not the Jews as a nation, but ' aU the workers of ini
quity.' Does all in the vocabulary of Universalism mean all?
" 5. If the kingdom of God (v. 28) denotes the gospel king
dom, which Universalist expositors tell us was fully set up at the
destruction of Jerusalem, then it is not true that Abraham,

318 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Parti.
Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, were ever in the king
dom of God at the destruction of Jerusalem ; nor can it be tme
that they wUl ever be in that kingdom. How, then, can it be
true that any of those who heard Christ on this occasion, did see
those Old Testament saints in that kingdom ? Besides, the most
if not all present on this occasion to hear Christ, were in eter
nity before Jerusalem was destroyed. How, then, could they
see Abraham and all the prophets entering into the gospel king
dom in this world ? These are mysteries. The more I examine
your explanations, the more supremely ridiculous and contradict
ory they seem to me. The truth is never thus inconsistent and
contradictory." CXIIL " No murderer hath eternal life abiding in him."
1 Jqhn 3 : 15.
In reply to the idea that suicide cannot be punished unless
there be punishment in the future state, Mr. Whittemore says,
" It supposes the sin of suicide to consist in the overt act, after
whieh the sinner cannot be punished. On the contrary, the sin
consists in the intention to do the deed ; and every person not
morally blind, can see punishment enough for this in that horrid
state of mind which could induce the intention. This state of
mind may have existed for a long time prior ; it may have been
continually growing worse." Trumpet, No. 676. The sin
lies in the intention, and the punishment for that intention con
sists in that state of mind which induced it, and " and may have
existed a long time prior." Orrin other words, God punishes
for sin before it is committed, and as a man must be counted
innocent till he commits sin, God by this method is charged with
punishing the innocent, and thus neither mercy or justice have a
place in his administration ! Such is the theology of Univer
saUsm. (Sec. LX.)
Various devices have been sought out to show how suicide is
punished without future retribution; but Mr. A. B. Grosh, a

Sec. 113.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 319
great man in the order, solves the whole difficulty by showing,
in his way, that suicide is no crime. To the question, "How
do you reconcile cases of suicide with your doctrine of all-suffi
cient punishment in this life ? " he answers thus :
" I suppose that the scriptures regard it as 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 can there find on record against
murder, is inflicted on the criminal in the very act of transgres
sion ; viz.: by man bis 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 says, ' no man ever yet hated his own flesh ; ' conse
quently 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,
or even named as a criminal one. It seems entirely omitted in
the various and frequent lists of actions forbidden to be prac
tised. "3. In conclusion, believing the object of punishment 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 receiving all that is necessary.
As this cannot be done, no more than I can prove the negative
of the proposition ; and, above all, as the Bible is silent on the
subject ; I think it best becomes us not to dogmatize upon it."
Mag. $ Adv., vol. 8, p. 358.
Some infidels have advocated the right of man to commit
suicide when he pleases, inasmuch as he has no agency in bring-

320 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part I.
ing himself into the world. Is the doctrine set forth by Mr.
Grosh any better ? He labors to prove that suicide is no sin,
and of course needs no punishment ; and Mr. Whittemore will
have it that sin is punished beforehand ! We leave these views
with the reader, as specimens of the work of two leaders in the
order, a work every way worthy of the cause it is designed to
sustain. More disciples would avail themselves of the liberty of
cutting their way to their fancied heaven through their own
throats, were it not for weakness of faith. (Sec. CXXXVHI.)

Sec. 114.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 321

PART II.
MISCELLANEOUS ARGUMENTS.
CXIV. The arguments built upon the perfections of God
against the truth, are perhaps as deceptive as any. God, say
Universahsts, possesses unbounded goodness, and of course will
seek the greatest good of his creatures ; and his infinite wisdom
and almighty power can accomplish all his goodness dictates : as
endless punishment cannot be for the good of his creatures, the
doctrine is false. Now this specious argument, so often em
ployed, lies with all its weight against matter of fact, viz : the
present sufferings of the human race. It avails nothing to say
that their present sufferings shall result in their good ; for, rea
soning from the attributes of God, as Universalists are wont to do,
we might ask, is a being possessed of infinite wisdom, power and
goodness, under the necessity of first making the human race
suffer six thousand years before he can make them perfectly
happy ? All will see that, if our knowledge of God's attributes
is to be the basis of doctrine, then no human suffering could
ever have existed ; for none can doubt but Omnipotence could
have created men, at first, as happy as any ever will be, and have'
kept them so. But matter of fact teaches us that he has not
done it ; therefore all such reasoning must be false. Suppose a
being, adopting the Universalist mode of argument, to have ex
isted prior to the creation of man. It is announced to him that
God is about to create a race of beings called men, and that they
are to exist in a sinful, suffering state for six thousand years, or
more, and then he is to make them all holy and happy ; that
some of the race shall live and endure this thirty, fifty, one hun
dred, and some even nine hundred and sixty-nine years (Gen.
16

322 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part U.
5 : 27) ; that they shall suffer from wars, slavery, famine, pov
erty, disease, intemperance, partialism, and innumerable other
evils ; that even tender infants, before they know right from
wrong, shall often suffer the most extreme agonies for weeks and
months together ; but that this suffering is all disciplinary, and
necessary for the ultimate happiness of the race. How would
such a being meet this ? He would reply, I cannot believe a
doctrine which reflects so ingloriously upon my Heavenly Father,
and is so at war with his attributes ; for,
1. His power and wisdom are infinite, therefore he can do
His pleasure, and none can hinder.
2. His goodness is unbounded, which of course will admit of
no unnecessary suffering on the part of his creatures, but will
make him delight in their perfect and undisturbed happiness.
3. Having such power and wisdom, such suffering is unneces
sary, for he can create and keep them just as happy as he can
possibly make them after they have suffered six thousand years;
therefore such a suffering race will never exist.
Such reasoning, as plausible as it may appear, would have
been false, for such a suffering race is now in existence ; and as
it is compatible with the attributes of God for the human race to
suffer six thousand years without our seeing a reason why, it may
be so for some of them to suffer endlessly. We might extend
our remarks and illustrations had we space, but enough has been
said to give the reader a clue to the sophistries of these men
upon this subject. (See. CIV.)
Their appeals to human sympathy are equally deceptive and
fallacious. Say they, " You are possessed of more goodness
than your God, for you would not punish one of your children
endlessly. " To such it is replied, You are possessed of more
goodness than your God, for when your child is suffering hy
disease, or otherwise, had you the ability, you would relieve it in
a moment. God has such ability, but he does not relieve it;
the innocent chUd suffers on. So you see how much better yon
are than your God. Again ; you cast about you, and witness

Sec. 115.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 323
the untold agonies of the human race, suffering from various
causes ; and while you contemplate these, your heart is moved
with compassion, and had you the ability, you would put a stop
to these evils at once and forever, and spread peace, joy.gand
permanent happiness throughout the universe. God possesses
such ability, yet the suffering continues. So you see how much
better you are than your God. By this mode of argument many
are deceived ; making human sympathy a rule by which to judge
of God's moral government, is most preposterous ; and for finite
man to make his views of the divine perfections, which he can
never fully understand, the basis of doctrines, is always to
plunge himself into tho vortex of error. Infinity can never be
fully comprehended by a finite mind ; and, as in reasoning upon
other subjects, we cannot arrive at just conclusions, unless we
understand the premises, so with this. God has revealed to us
that he is almighty, holy, wise, just and good, but we can never
so understand these infinite perfections, as to be able to learn
from them, aside from what the Scriptures reveal, what is, and
what is not consistent with them. If Universalism is taught in
the Bible, it is true, whether we can see a reason in the divine
attributes for it or not ; and so with endless punishment. But
for finite and depraved man to rise up, and tell us from the
divine attributes what must and what must not take place, is as
unseemly as it would be for a child of three years to be found
dictating and expounding the laws of an empire.
The same deceptive course is pursued concerning the wUl of
God. (See Sec. LXXXV.)
CXV. " We call upon the writers who adduce these passages
in support of the doctrine of endless misery, to bring forward
some text like this : The wicked shall perish in tke immortal
state ; into smoke shall they consume away in the immortal
state; the transgressors shaU be destroyed beyond the grave ;
the end of the wicked shaU be cut off in eternity." Guide,
p. 67.

324 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part II.
This, by its author, is adopted as a rule by which to set aside
scriptures brought against his doctrine, and we find him apply
ing it as follows : " Prov. 14 : 32. ' The wLked is driven
away in his wickedness; but the righteous hath hope in his
death.' In order to express the common doctrine which is in
ferred from this passage, it should read, ' the wicked is driven
into endless punishment in the future world ; ' but as nothing of
that kind is said, so we presume nothing like it is meant." On
Eccl. 12: 14, he asks, "Is it said, 'God shall bring every
work into judgment ' in the future, immortal existence ? No
such statement is made." Again ; Ps. 49 : 14, 15, " Is there
one word intimated in regard to punishment after the resurrec
tion of the dead? Not a syllable." With such a rule, who
can wonder that Mr. Whittemore is always victorious in contro
versy !
Suppose we make the same demand, and call upon Univer
sahsts to produce texts like these : all men shall be as the angels
of God in the immortal state ; all men shall be holy and happy
beyond the grave ; all men shall be saved in eternity ; and then
assert that, because none of these expressions are appended to
any texts they bring to support their doctrine, that nothing like
them is meant ? In this way not only is future punishment
destroyed, but future bliss ; and thus the world is left without
any hope of a future life.
In No. 1005 of the Trumpet is the following scrap, thrown
in by the editor :
"Last week's 'Recorder' has an article entitled 'Unpar
donable Sin.' We will give the editor of the ' Recorder' fifty
dollars, if he will find such an expression in the scriptures."
Doubtless this passed for a very weighty argument, with many
of the readers of that print. We are told, too, in their writings,
that the phrase " eternal death " is not found in the Bible ;
and from the frequency of this statement by some of their divines,
we conclude they deem it of great importance in sustaining their
system. We admit that the exact phrase " eternal death," is

Sec. 115.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 325
not in the Bible, but the phrases " eternal damnation," " ever
lasting destruction," and " everlasting punishment," are in the
Bible ; and we conclude that eternal death is antithetically ex
pressed in Rom. 6:23; also, that the doctrine expressed by
this phrase, is clearly taught in other parts of the scriptures.
The argument ofthe Universalists is this : the expressions " un
pardonable sin," and "eternal death," are not in the Bible;
therefore the doctrines they are used to express are not in the
Bible. Is this sound ? Let us see, by applying this rule in
argument to some of the expressions in use by Universalists, and
see how it works. In their writings we find the following :
"future state," " immortal state," " immortal existence,"
' ' all will be holy and happy," ". Deity," &c. All wiU see that
we could very safely offer "fifty dollars," to any one who wiU
find either of these expressions in the Bible. The argument
stands thus, then : these expressions are not in the Bible ; there
fore the doctrines they are used to express are not in the Bible.
Thus, by the magic wand of its own advocates, is Universalism
swept by the board, and the existence of God, too. All discern
ing men will see that there is no argument in this : but the
advocates of this dogma use it because they know that unthink
ing men may be duped by it.
But supposing the phrase "eternal death" was found forty
times in the Bible, would Universahsts allow it a future-state
reference ? Not they. The same sophistry which deprives the
phrase " eternal life " of its future-state reference, could, just
as easily, be employed on the phrase " eternal death." It dis
covers great wickedness to harp so much upon the absence of the
phrase " eternal death," to prove their doctrine, denying, as they
do, the future-state, reference of the phrase which is its counter
part. (Sec. LXVIII.)
We have been told, for the hundredth time, that St. Paul
never used the word hell in his preaching. The following is a
specimen :
"It is a singular fact that St. Paul, from all that appears in

326 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part II.
the whole history of his thirty years' preaching, did not once use
the term hell, to a solitary individual, saint or sinner. To be
sure, he made use of certain other expressions, which are usually
considered, in our day, as relating to endless punishment ; hut
if hell, as commonly understood, is the place of punishment, it
is a singular and wonderful fact that Paul the Apostle, and the
chiefest of all the apostles, never once uttered it to an individual !
Query. What would be thought of a minister in our day, who
should preach thirty years, and never once threaten his impeni
tent hearers with the punishment of hell ? Answer me that.
What would be thought of him ? " U. against P., p. 265.
Here the reader has one of Mr. Fernald's facts, with all ita
comely proportions. This is a very fair specimen of the honesty
and logic of Universalist divines. Notice the crafty attempt to
make the impression on the minds of the unthinking, that we
have a history of all Paul's preaching for thirty years, whereas
we have not so much as he probably preached on one occasion,
when he continued his discourse till midnight. We are aware
of the difference that exists between "the whole history," and
the history of the whole of a thing. But did this man mean that
this distinction should be noticed ? Why does he ask, " what
would be thought of a minister in our day, who should preach
thirty years," &c Then mark his italics. All wUl see the
deceptive design.* But Paul " did not once use the term hell,
to a soUtary individual." This man, however, admits that he
used " certain other expressions which are usually considered, in
our day, as relating to endless punishment." Yes, and not only
in our day have they been so considered, but by the brightest
ornaments of the Christian church, from the time of the apostles
to the present. But admitting that we have a history of the
whole of Paul's thirty years' preaching, are there not some other
singular and wonderful facts connected with it ? The most of

* We see the same kind of deception relative to the Saviour's three years
ministry, in Thayer's recent work on Endless Punishment, p. 117.

Sec. 115.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 327
those vivid descriptions given by Paul in his writings, of judg
ment and punishment, are by Universalists referred to Jerusa
lem's destruction ; yet in no single instance do we find the
expression, Jerusalem, or destruction of Jerusalem, in connec
tion with such descriptions. This is true, too, of all the rest of
the epistles where such descriptions are found. Aside from a
few short passages in the Gospels, no one would ever learn from
the New Testament, that the destruction of Jerusalem by the
Romans, was even so much as thought of by primitive Chris
tians. Now we ask, is it not a singular and wonderful fact, that
Paul the Apostle, and the chiefest among the apostles, and all
the rest of the apostles, too, while they were preaching and
writing about the destruction of Jerusalem so much, they never
uttered the phrase " destruction of Jerusalem," to a single indi
vidual ! Now if Paul could teach the punishment of the Jews
at Jerusalem without naming the place, then he could teach the
punishment of sinners in hell without naming the place. Query.
What would be thought of a Universalist minister in our day,
who should preach thirty years, and never once use the phrase,
" destruction of Jerusalem ? " Answer me that. What would
be thought of him ?
The following is from Mr. S. R. Smith :
" The doctrine of the future punishment of the wicked, that
is, after death, is in no instance unequivocaUy asserted in the
Bible. It is merely inferred from a few passages, which cer
tainly admit of a different construction. Surely, if true, it is too
important to rest merely upon conjectnre. Scrip. Doc, p. 29.
This is from a Sunday School hook, and by such a method do
they deceive the young. The argument stands thus : The exact
phraseology that S. R. Smith here employs respecting future
punishment, is not in the Bible; therefore, there is no future
punishment taught in the Bible ! Let the Universalist, if he
can, place his finger upon the passage in the Bible where it
says, " all men shall be saved after death." This he cannot
do. We assert, then, that " the doctrine of the final salvation

328 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part II.
of aU men, that is, after death, is in no instance unequivocally
asserted in the Bible. It is merely inferred from a few pas
sages, which certainly admit of a different construction. Surely,
if true, it is too important to rest merely upon conjecture."
Universalism, then, is a fable.
AU who write and speak of doctrines, are in the habit of
using language, the exact form of which is not found in the Bi
ble ; and none are more in the habit of this than Universalists
themselves. But of us they demand the precise phraseology of
the Bible, or else, forsooth, the doctrine is false ! One instance
more. Mr. Skinner, speaking of the judgment says, " Not an
instance can be found, in all the Scriptures, where it is declared
to be in eternity." U III. $ Def, p. 229. Paul says that
the judgment is after death (Sec. XX.) : but then, as the exact
expression " in eternity" it not appended, there can be no judg
ment in eternity ! We beg leave to inquire where, in all the
Bible, is it declared that " salvation is in eternity ?"
Do not these men see the forceless character of such argu
ments ? It would be a severo reflection upon their intellects to
say they do not. Why, then, do they use them ? Because the
depraved and ignorant can be deceived by them.
CXVI. " Ministers uniformly speak of the wicked as having
gone to hell, and the virtuous to heaven. Why then call them
back from their respective places to judgment 1" U. IU. §
Def, p. 235.
Reasons could be given for a judgment, were it necessary.
But suppose we cannot tell why God will have a general judg
ment, does that disprove it ? It is not for us, as receivers of a
revelation, to call in question the Divine procedure, as there
may be a reason in the mind of him whose thoughts are far
above our thoughts for such an event, even though we cannot
see it. It becomes us to inquire, what say the Scriptures ? and
not to be cavilling. (Sec. CXXXIX.) The Bible evidently
teaches that good men enter bUss at death, (Phil. 1 : 21-23,)

Sec. 117.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 329
and that wicked men enter into misery. Luke 16 : 23. It also
teaches a general judgment after death. Rom. 14 : 10 ; Heb.
9 : 28, 29. It is the very genius of Infidelity to call in ques
tion God's revealed truth. Is there nothing -difficult of solution
in Universalist views ? Why does evil exist ? Could not the
Almighty with equal ease have created man with a constitution
incapable of sin and suffering ? Or could he not, by his Al
mighty fiat, put an end to these at the present moment?
Questions of this character to any extent, might be asked by
skeptics. The judgment is in this world, say Universalists, and takes
place immediately. " Now is the judgment of this world," is a
text ever at hand to prove that there is no future judgment, be
cause all are judged now. (Sec. LI.) Christ uttered these
words nearly forty years before Jerusalem was destroyed. Says
Mr. Whittemore, "At the destruction of the Jewish nation,
there was a general judgment among the nations of the earth."
Guide, p. 187. Now if the Jews and all others then Uving
were judged forty years before Jerusalem was destroyed, what
call was there for a general judgment when that event took
place? (Sec. CIV.) When Universalists shall have harmo
nized these portions of their theology to the satisfaction of the
candid, they may, with a better grace, call in question what God
has revealed concerning a general judgment in the future world.
CXVn. In an effort to show that Universalism is not a new
doctrine, a writer in the Universahst Companion for 1844, says,
" But after all that has been said about new things, what has
self-styled orthodoxy itself to boast of in this respect ? To hear
its believers talk, one would think that the doctrines they pro
fess have been in existence thousands of years. But what saith
history on this subject ? If we except the Greek and Roman
churches, all existing denominations are of comparative recent
origin, having mostly arisen since the era of the Reformation."
p. 35. He then goes on with some parade to show when the
16*

330 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part II.
Lutherans, Episcopalians, Baptists, Methodists and Presbyteri
ans, originated as denominations. He commences with the
origin of doctrines, and then shuffles off on to the origin of de
nominations ! A false issue in argument may deceive the
people, but the cause of truth never requires it. Christians
have never condemned UniversaUsm because the denomination
embracing it is a new one, but because the doctrines are new,
being such as were not taught by Christ, his apostles, or the
primitive fathers. (Sec. CXXXII.) He has reiterated, too, the
old historical falsehood so common in the order,' viz.: that Ter
tullian was the first who openly asserted the doctrine of endless
punishment in the Christian church. (See Sec. CXXXIII.)
CXVIII. Universahsts have boasted much of the spread of
their doctrine in Germany. This Universalism, of which they
have said so many good things, has at length visited them in
New England, producing not a little trouble in their camp.
This Universalism, or Rationalism as it is called, is so open, and
its atheistical character so visible, that it was not so well suited
to the order in New England, especially just at a time when its
leaders were laboring hard to impress the world with the false
hood that Universalism is bona fide Christianity. That this has
obtained extensively in the body, is asserted by Mr. G. Sever
ance, a minister in the order. He says, " within a few years,
Rationalism has become very much diffused in American htera
ture. It has found its way into many of our (Universalist)
societies." C. Freeman, July 18, 1851.
Creeds, Universalists could have no patience with, and true
liberaUty had its abode with them only. Believe or disbelieve
what you wUl, only believe in the " main point," viz.: that all
wiU ultimately be saved, and you are a Universalist. This has
been the profession. But a few years since, expediency de
manded that a creed be manufactured for those among them who
had become too bold in propagating the good German Univer-

Sec. 118.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 331
salism ; so at the " Boston Association," held at Lynn, Nov.
1847, the following was introduced :
" Resolved, That this Association express its solemn convic
tion, ihat in order for one to be regarded as a Christian min
ister, with respect to faith, he must believe in the Bible account
of the life, teachings, miracles, death and resurrection of the
Lord Jesus Christ."
After some manoeuvering, fearing lest the resolution would
not be adopted, its friends succeeded in carrying an adjournment
to meet in four weeks, in Cambridgeport, when the resolution
was adopted by the Association. Those among the aggrieved
by its adoption, were J. M. Spear, C. Spear, D. H. Plumb, W.
M. Fernald, J. W. Hanson, J. Prince, B. H. Clarke, and W.
G. Cambridge. These have published a " Statement of Facts,"
in which they complain of great illiberality. Mr. Plumb says :
" I stand now just where I stood six years ago, when I obtained
letters of fellowship, and was ordained. No questions were
asked me then in regard to behef. I believed in universal
salvation then, and I do now. This was regarded as the only
real essential of a Universahst. The manner in which he was
induced to believe it — how it would be brought about — what
would intervene between the present and its final accomplish
ment, were all regarded as questions of secondary importance,
and were never to my knowledge put."
In this document they complain that they were wronged, in
asmuch as they had introduced no new principle of interpreta
tion, but had only employed one which had always been in the
order ; and examples are given from leading Universalists. (See
one furnished by. J. W. Hanson, in Sec. XCVIII.)
In all this these men are correct, and as Universalist
ministers, they surely had cause of complaint. The theory has
ever been propagated by Rationalistic principles, from BaUou on
the Atonement, to the last author. Its very life depends upon
murdering the Bible. Says Mr. Cambridge, in the sheet
named, "Universalists have harped continually in relation to
using the sacred gift of reason in the investigation of truth 

332 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part II.
the teachings of the Bible, &c. But how is it now ? They do
not say in so many words that reason is carnal, but their actions
show that they are driven to the disagreeable necessity of eating
their own words."
But what was the design of this resolution ? Mr. Prince
inquires, " Does it cut off any from the ministry? Some who
voted for it, say that they regard it only as an expression of
opinion, not as a measure virtually to exclude any one in par
ticular from the fellowship of the order, or as an attempt to drive
any one away from the Universalist ministry. Had they viewed
it otherwise, they say they should not have voted for it."
The action amounted to this, then : men who were declared
by the resolution not to be Christian ministers, were permitted
to remain in good and regular standing in the Universalist min
istry ! But what was the real design of the resolution ? Mr.
Prince shall tell, who is now a minister in the sect, as are the
most of them whose names are attached to the document. Re
says, " I express it as my solemn conviction, that the whole
movement, which has resulted, (after the mountain labor, and
' flourish of trumpets ' in the announcement,) in the generation
of a ' Resolve,' was an endeavor to erect a screen between the
Universalist denomination and the other sects, to hide from their
eyes the fact, which has been daily growing more and more
apparent to the gaze of the world, that the Universalist body is
to a considerable degree tinctured with Rationalistic ideas of the
Bible, of miracles, and of the subject of inspiration in general.
And I have no doubt it was thought that a movement of the
kind would have a tendency to overawe the minds of some of
the younger brethren, who have recently ventured to give free
utterance to their convictions, in the pulpit. But, as far as the
movement is intended to disguise the fact of the existence and
operating influence of the spirit of Rationalism in the sect, it
wUl signally fail. The screen is too thin — it has too many
loop-holes — and the other sects will either peep through or look
over it, with a half-suppressed titter, if indeed they are able to
preserve anything Uke an approach to gravity ! "

Sec. 118.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 333
Doubtless Mr. Prince is. correct in his view of the subject.
This " statement of facts " has so raised the screen, that without
difficulty the outsiders have a fair view of the serpents that nes
tle over in the dark swamp of Universalism. They present a
view of Universalist ministers as they are, and not as they are
seen in the pulpit. As they have raised the screen, let us look
again. Mr. Femald, in the same sheet, reports Mr. Ballou,
senior, as saying to him, " That we could not, with our reason,
believe in miracles as above the workings of nature ; that it was
lest not to say much about it ; that if any were so imprudent as
to broach it now, they would have to bear all the brunt of the
battle, and those who come after would reap all the good. On
relating the impression I received from this conversation to a
talented clergyman, he remarked that he agreed with the venera
ble gentleman ; that he did not call him weak or fearful, for
not promulgating these views ; but on the contrary this was a
a proof of his wisdom ; that he probably had not seen the time
when the world could bear these views, and so had not pro
claimed tbem."
Again Mr. F. says, " One of the most popular clergyman in
the denomination, not sixty miles from Boston, assured me, in
his study last spring, that he did not believe that Christ was ever
raised bodily from the dead." Mr. Fernald contemplated
preaching to a society, and was about to send word to them by a
minister of the order as follows : " Please tell the people that I
am a Rationalist ; that I do not believe in the miracles as above
nature — many of them I do not believe in at all — not even
the bodily resurrection of Christ. ' Fernald,' said he, 'don't
send any such word. Go tell them that you are a Christian, and
there are not ten men in the society that will care what you
believe.' Such was the advice and remarks of this highly es
teemed clergyman." Mr. F. asserts that those entertaining
these views are not the obscure and uninfluential alone, but that
they " are among the first in the order — the most talented, the
most influential and popular." Here we see the gross infidelity

334 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part IT,
and black hypocrisy of Universalism. Much more of the same
sort might be presented from this revelation of depravity, did our
limits admit.
In the Trumpet of Aug. 25, 1855, a disciple writes to the
editor, and appears to be in a famishing condition for Universal
ism as preached by " Father Ballou," and says : " I have heard
a young man who is in formal fellowship with the Universalist
denomination, declare in the pulpit, that he did not believe that
God rested on the seventh day after the creation, as related in
Genesis. That he did not believe that Christ existed at all
before he was born in Palestine, or that there was anything mi
raculous in his birth, more than in the birth of any other indi
vidual." Now in what respect does this young man differ from Ballou?
He is a Uttle more imprudent or honest in proclaiming his
thoughts from the pulpit, that is all. Sentiments equally infidel
are found in Ballou's writings in abundance. (Sec. XCVIII.)
Will he be disfellowshipped for these rank infidel sentiments 1
More prudent they would like to see the young man, but are not
such bigots as to disfellowship a minister of theirs for so small
an affair !
CXIX. " No instance of persecution can be pointed out, in
all the history of the church, which can be justly attributed to
those who believe that God will at last have mercy upon all."
Guide, p. 261.
If Mr. Whittemore meant to say that no individual of his faith
has ever persecuted, his statement is false. Instances not a few
could be given, where Universahsts have treated members of their
own famihes most brutally for embracing religion among other
sects. If he meant to say that Universalists as a body have
never persecuted, it is no more than can be said of several other
sects, who believe in endless punishment. The Methodists, and
some of the Baptist sects have never persecuted. But does this
prove that they never would, if hitched on to the corrupting car

Sec. 119.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 335
of state ? By no means. And is a mere belief in Universalism
so potent to remove depravity, that no persecution might be ex
pected from its votaries did circumstances favor it ? Their verbal
persecution, the low slang and bitterness with which they have
followed Christians, clearly indicate to what they would resort,
had they the power, to destroy " Partialism." It will be time
enough for Universalism to boast of its pacific character when it
shall have once had the rod of power in its own hands without
using it.
We are often cited to the bloody deeds of Papal Rome and
the persecutions under the Episcopalians and Puritans. These,
it is said, were perpetrated by beUevers in endless punishment,
and not by Universalists ; and the conclusion is, that Universal
ism must be the chUd of heaven. But cannot Atheism prove
itself in a very good condition in the same way ? The sects
named as persecuting were Christians and not Atheists ; there
fore, Atheism must be the true theory ! Not a few of those
who have instigated persecutions no more believed in endless
punishment than Mr. W. does ; but in consequence of the un
holy connection of church and state, as found in some parts of
Christendom, they have persecuted those who differed from the
reUgion of the state, for worldly purposes, regardless of their
own religious views concerning the future condition of man.
How does it happen that we, as a nation, have a constitution
protecting us in our religious rights ? Are we indebted to Uni
versalism for this ? Indeed, Mr. W.'s idolized form of Univer
salism is less than forty years old, (Sec. CXXXIII,) and it is
weU known that when the people of the United States adopted
the constitution, there were but few to be found calling them
selves Restorationists, and that all, or nearly so, of the different
sects were receivers of the doctrine of eternal punishment. Yet
from such a people is transmitted to us a constitution securing
reUgious liberty to all, Universahsts not excepted. Away then
with such a miserable sophism as stands at the head of this
section.

336 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part II.
CXX. When we speak of the anger, hatred and vengeance
of God, (Ps. 7 : 11 ; 11 : 5 ; Rom. 12 : 19,) we are informed
that we are not at liberty to attribute human passions to him.
We admit that we, are not to attribute anger and hate to God in
the same sense that man is excited by these passions. But in
revealing himself to us God has sometimes used a figure called
anthropopathy, by which he attributes human passions to him
self, as being the most appropriate ideas of his ways to us, of
which we can have any conception, especially when discon
nected with everything weak and sinful found with these passions
in man. If we do not impute to him something like human
passions, and thus follow his own example, we give up revealed
truth for philosophical ignorance. Universalists seem not to be
aware that compassion, mercy, pity, desire, and love are all hu
man passions, which they readily attribute to God, and that we
may err as greatly in our views of these, as in our views of the
other class. They hesitate not to infer from the promptings of
these passions in man how they must be exercised in God to
wards his creatures, and thus they make them the same in God
that they are in man. When we imitate God by speaking of his
indignation, fury, wrath, anger, and vengeance, we are charged
with making God a vindictive tyrant. Might we not with equal
propriety charge our opponents with representing God as a weak
old man in his dotage, or as some cracked-brain swain, ready to
melt away with love ? What we ask of Universalists is, that
they desist from this mode of reasoning upon the sterner pas
sions which God has attributed to himself, or else that they show
their consistency by extending the same mode of reasoning to
the milder one. If they do this their false appeals to human
sympathy and parental affection will become powerless. God s
anger, love, ancl immutable justice all harmonize. See Sections
XV. and XXXVII.
CXXI. In the propagation of their doctrine, Universahsts
make the largest professions of liberality and love for the truth.

Sec. 122.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE.

337

They are willing to " hear both sides ; " and Christians are often
asked, why they are unwilling to hear Universalists preach, to
read their books, and hsten to their sermons ? In answer we
say, 1. Christians are to " have no fellowship with the unfruit
ful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." Eph. 5 :
11. 2. The reason why they are unwilling that men should hear
Universahsts, and read their books, is, not because they fear the
truth, but because they fear their sophistries and perversions.
They are so, for the same reasons that they are unwilling their
friends should hear avowed Infidels lecture, and read their
works. They know that such is the opposition of unrenewed
minds to God's truth, and their inclination to error, that it is no
uncommon thing for men to be exceedingly skeptical respecting
the plainest scripture truths, yet, at the same time, manifest an
astonishing credulity in receiving almost any absurdity which is
offered in opposition to them. This is tme of Infidels generally,
and it is strikingly true of modern Universalists.
One cunningly devised falsehood in favor of inclination, and
to palliate sin, wUl, upon a certain class of minds, have more
weight than ten honest and solid arguments rebuking sin and
craning men up to their duty to their God. Universalism is a
powerful appeal in favor of depravity, and against God's penal
ties. It says to irreligious men, " Just what you desire the
future state to be, it shall be, irrespective of your conduct here."
The young, some of whom have but a limited knowledge of the
Bible, are often captivated by arguments, as forceless in reality
as a feather ; just because the doctrine is in harmony with their
feelings, and gives them the largest indulgence they could ask in
sinful pleasure.
CXXII. " Preach your own doctrine and let others alone,"
is a saying quite too common among Christians. If by it, how
ever, is meant that a minister should not evince a pugnacious

338 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part IT.
spirit, that he should not be a lover of controversy, that ho
should not magnify minor differences between evangelical Chris
tians, — if this is what is meant, we have no objection to it. But
if by it is meant, that a man who is set for the defence of the
gospel should only teach his own doctrine, and never expose de
structive error, we demur. So did not the Lord Jesus Christ,
so did not Paul. Suppose a very alarming disease prevalent in
your town, and the skillful physician is applying a remedy with
great success. While he is doing this, a quack comes along
with large professions of skill, administers a medicine which is
exactly the reverse of the successful one, and is proving fatal to
all who take it, and some of your own dear friends are by it sent
down to the grave. The faithful and successful physician ana
lyzes the spurious medicine, comes out fearlessly, and shows the
public its destructive properties, and what it is doing. Would
you oppose his course, under these circumstances, and cry out,
" Administer your own medicine and let other medicines alone ? "
No, certainly you would not. The world is diseased by sin ; the
gospel is the remedy. Universalism is a spurious gospel. By
the showing of its own advocates, it is opposed, in every essential
point, to evangehcal Christianity. (Sec. CXXXV.) If an
error, as we believe it is, it is a most fatal error. Its advocates
are administering their opiates, and many sinners are put to
sleep in their sins, and may never be aroused till they wake up
in hell. And has the minister clone all his duty, when he has
merely preached his own sentiments ? Before Heaven, we think
not. Perhaps there are but few ways in which they have deceived
Christians more, than by their professed love of opposition, for
the benefit they derive from it. That they would be pleased
with opponents unacquainted with their theory in its modern
shape, (Sec. CXXV,) and who have not the ability to expose
their serpentine windings, we doubt not. But however much
they may bluster at the time, they know full well that an able
exposure of their system, and the dishonest means by which it

Seo. 122.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 339
is supported, done in a right spirit, is always an injury to their
cause.* Hear what A. C. Thomas says upon this subject :
" I do not coincide in opinion with those who declare, that
opposition tends to the advancement of Universalism. On the
contrary, I am satisfied that, had it not been for opposition, Uni
versalism would be, at this day, the predominent religious pro
fession in the United States." Trumpet, No. 1056.
This is from one of the most pugnacious among them, and
one who is weU acquainted with the effects of opposition upon
the order.
In exposing UniversaUsm, wisdom is necessary, as well as in
the discharge of every other ministerial duty. When there are
but few of this order in a place, and they have no regular
preaching, it might be unwise to give them so much importance
as a formal course of lectures would seem to. But where there
is an organization, and a minister leading souls to destruction, we
do not believe it is wisdom, or duty, for a Christian minister to
look calmly on and do nothing. After suitable preparation, let
him call the attention of the people to a course of lectures, and
fearlessly, in the spirit of Christ, expose the infidel character of
the system, and all the dishonorable methods by which it is
supported ; and also its destructive influence upon the cause of
true piety.
Or if there is wanting that kind of ability and taste, of which
many able ministers are destitute, for an exposure of this char
acter from the pulpit, let them keep their people informed by the
circulation of suitable books and tracts upon the subject. The
Universalist papers are fiUed with doctrinal matter, and they are,
with an industry worthy of a better, cause, pushing their doc-

* The same argument which forbids an effort against the system, because
of the spasmodic zeal it awakens, lies with all its strength against revivals ;
for nothingrenders Universalists more desperate than the ontpouring of God's
spirit among the people. But shall we not labor for, and welcome revivals,
lest they should start np and do something out of the ordinary course ?
Let the people have light, eitherfrom the pulpit or the press, or both.

340 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part II.
trinal books and tracts into almost every place. (Sec. CXL.)
The people must have light, and especially the church. In the
absence of this, we shall occasionally find a morbid sympathy
springing up in some minds in favor of this dogma, or they may
be captivated by it through our neglect. Let Christian minis
ters do their duty in this respect, and there need not be any fear
of the result. Every minister will of course choose his own
method of doing this work, but let it by all means be done.
Wavering minds will be established in the truth, and Christians
will clearly see the antichristian character of Universalism.
Corroborative of Mr. Thomas's view is the decline of Univer
salism in Maine. There is no State in the Union where there
has been so much decided and open opposition to this error by
lectures, discussions, and publications, as in this State. What
has been the result ? We cannot give their number of church
members, as they are not in their statistics. Church organiza
tion, in which they engaged with so much zeal a few years since,
was an uphill business, and we hear but little about it now.
There are a few localities where there is some show of prosperi
ty, growing mainly out of the wealth connected with it ; but
Universalism, as a whole, is greatly on the decline in Maine.
This is evident from the decrease in the ministry.
The statistics of the order are before us in the Universalist
Companion. In 1844, there were seventy-seven preachers in the
State. In 1855, there are fifty-seven. So there is not only no
gain for eleven years, but actually a decrease during that time
of twenty ministers.
The following description is given of the cause in Maine by
the Corresponding Secretary of the Maine Convention of Uni
versalists. He says :
" Many societies are without preaching, where were apparently
promising congregations. Indeed there is no part of the State,
where we may not meet with meeting houses, dedicated to the
preaching of doctrines of the Reconciliation, which now stand
unoccupied, seeming to say to us in saddened tones, ' Is it

Sec. 123.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 341
nothing to you all ye that pass by ? ' " Banner, July 16,
1854. CXXIII. Universalists bring our Lord's conversation with
the Sadducees, (Matt. 22 : 30 ; Mark 12 : 25 ; Luke 20 : 34-
36,) in proof of the salvation of all in the future state. We
admit that the immortal resurrection is here revealed, but deny
that the salvation of all is here taught. See Sec. XCI., where
Universahst assumptions are exposed. To illustrate their work
upon numerous other passages, we will just show the reader how
a twistical Universalist could deprive this of its future state
reference, if he found it for his interest to do so. In doing this
we have only to apply the same mode of argument and defini
tion of terms to this passage, that Universalist divines do to
others where the same expressions are found.
1. " This world," and " that world." Luke 20 : 34, 35.
By "this world" is meant this aye, that is, the Jewish age;
and by " that world " is meant that age, that is, the Christian
age, after the destruction of Jerusalem. Guide to U See also
Sec. IV.
2. "Resurrection" (anastasis). This is the same word
which occurs in John 5 : 29 and Luke 14 : 14. " It does not
necessarily signify restoration to life after natural death." Notes
on Par., p. 165. As the resurrection of the just took place
when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, (Sec. LIV,)
and as all that were " in the graves " were raised at the same
time, some to damnation and others to life, (John 5 : 29 ; "Sec.
LXXXI,) and as the same word occurs in the conversation with
the Sadducees, it must refer to the same event.
3. " From ihe dead." This refers to Jews and Chris
tians at the Jerusalem calamity, for they must have been in
some sense dead, or they could not have come forth from their
graves at that event. (Sec. LXXXI.) It is clear then that no
¦reference is made to the future state of man.
4. " Neither can they die any more." Our ablest divines,

342 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part H.
such as Mr. Whittemore and Mr. J. B. Dods, have shown most
conclusively, (Guide, pp. 164, 223,) that John 8 : 21, and
Rev. 21:8, have particular reference to the national death of
the Jews when Jerusalem was destroyed. The true sense is
this : The Jews having died a national death, can die no
more as a nation. All must see that the future state is not in
tended. 5. " They are equal unto the angels." Our greatest men
have made it as clear as a sunbeam, that the " mighty angels,"
2 Thess. 1:7, " and all the koly angels," Matt. 25 : 31, (Sec,
XLI,) mean the polluted heathen, or the Roman armies. Notes
on Par., p. 103. Surely it cannot be necessary to go into the
future world to become equal to such angels !
6. " They are as the angels of God in heaven." Matt,
22 : 30. Does the word heaven carry it into the future state ?
By no means, for another of our great men says: "It is be
lieved that there is no one place in which the word is used in the
Bible, where it obviously means life, or happiness, or the place
of these after death. " (Sec. LIII.) Tbis, then, makes nothing
against our position.
7. " Neither marry or are given in marriage." As we
have shown beyond dispute, that this resurrection took place
when Jerusalem was destroyed at the end of the Jewish age, all
must see that it must have been impossible to have entered into
the conjugal relation in such a season of consternation. This
saying was literally fulfilled at that time.
8. " And are children of God, being children of the resur
rection." We have shown again and again that all men are now
the children of God ; hence, the Saviour never meant to say
that the immortal resurrection would make them children. Dr.
Campbell has shown, that agreeable to the original import of the
word anastasis, (resurrection,) " rising from a seat is properly
termed anastasis ; so is awakening out of sleep, or promotion
from an inferior condition." Notes on Par., p. 161. Since,
then, there are so many resurrections in this world, we are not

Sec. 124.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 343
obliged to confine this expression to Jerusalem's destruction, and
as all are the chUdren of God here, it is not referable to the im
mortal resurrection. The true sense, as here employed, is obvi
ously this : To denote the process by which men are raised from
non-existence to manhood, and thus they are children of God,
being children of the resurrection. Do we not often inquire,
where such and such a man was raised? Another and sufficient
reason why this passage has no reference whatever to the future
state, is, it will not stand the test of Mr. Whittemore's infallible
rule. (Sec. CXV.) Let us apply it. Does it say that all
men shall be as the angels of God in the immortal state 1 Does
it say that all men shall be holy and happy in eternity ? Does
it say that this resurrection is after death? " As nothing of
the kind is said, we presume nothing Uke it is meant."
Here we have that which is as truthful and conclusive as most
Universahst expositions. With their license we can deprive all
their proof texts of their future-state reference, and tumble the
most of them into Jerusalem. Apply their interpretations to
the expressions, "resurrection," "die," "death," " Christ's
at his coming," " the end," and " kingdom of God," which
occur in 1 Cor. 15, and that can with equal ease be deprived of
its future reference, and thrown into the destruction of Jerusa
lem. Can that be the truth of heaven which relies for its sup
port upon such a method with the Bible ?
CXXIV. It has been asserted that evangelical Christians
hold that a belief in endless punishment constitutes a Christian.
This is false. They constantly assert the possibility of holding
the truth in unrighteousness. What we contend for is this, that
the doctrine is taught in the Bible ; that it is a fundamental one
in the Christian scheme ; that it is one of those weighty motives,
which God designs should be brought to bear upon sinners to
arouse them to seek for that work of grace, without which they
cannot be Christians, believe what they will. When the doc
trine of endless punishment is given up, other important doc-

344 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part II.
trines are usually abandoned, and all the motives for a prayer
ful, godly life soon go by the board. The usual result of dis
carding this doctrine is, other gross errors and irreligion.

" 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."

These words of Cowper find an illustration in the Universal
ism of America. The same disposition which prompts a man to
disbelieve eternal punishment, will prompt him to a disbelief of
every other Christian doctrine which his reason cannot fully com
pass, or which is not in accordance with his feelings. These are
the reasons why we contend for the doctrine, and not that simply
believing it constitutes a Christian. Depravity is the same,
whether found in connection with orthodox or heterodox views.
The question is, which is calculated to bring a sinner to Christ
for a removal of that depravity, that doctrine which says that
God's favor cannot be gained or lost (Sec. CVH.) ; that, so far
as the future is concerned, the saint and sinner are on a perfect
level (Sec. XC.) ; or that which threatens sorrow here and a
•positive evil in the world to come, in case of continuing to dis
obey the gospel ? We assert that the latter is the reformatory
doctrine, because it is taught in the Bible, and the salvation of
sinners by the labors of its advocates illustrate it. Ingenious
men may give an air of plausibility to some points connected
with the Universalist theory, but they can point to none re
formed and made pious as a result of teaching it. Their re
formed men are generally at a distance, in some other town.
Should the Maine Liquor Law be extensively adopted, it will
doubtless render hundreds more respectable who vociferate for
Universalism, by cutting off their spiritual supplies. But
such reforms must be credited to the law, and not to their
gospel.

Sec. 126.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 345
CXXV. There are many very able ministers who well un
derstand the truths of the Bible, and know that Universalism is
false, who are, nevertheless, somewhat ignorant of the crafty
methods resorted to for its defence. The difference between these
and Universalist teachers, is this : The latter exert all their in
genuity to destroy the obvious meaning of certain portions of
the scriptures ; while the business of the former is, to enforce
the truth as they find it in the Bible, and, under God, to make
men pious. The objects to be secured by the two are very dif
ferent ; and it is not to be considered a disparagement to a good
minister of Christ, if he is to some extent unacquainted with the
wUes of such men. Such uninformed persons, however, should
be cautious how they engage in controversy with men whose sole
business is to shuffle the word of God, as truth might suffer by
their inability to defend it, or to expose the sophistries arrayed
against it. One part of their craft is, to represent an opponent
as a giant in the ranks of the opposition ; and if he is a D. D.,
all the better, if he is only ignorant of their tactics, or has not
the power timely to command his own resources. If such dis
cussions are ever necessary, none should join issue, but such as
have studied the last edition of Universalism, so that they can
say with Paul, "We are not ignorant of his (their) devices."
See Sec. CXXII.
CXXVI. A while since, a mighty effort was put forth to
make the world believe that John Wesley was a Universalist.
A story has been told in which it is stated that he said he " fully
believed Universalism but had not made known the fact to tho
world, thinking the time was not yet ripe for the promulgation of
the sentiment." A writer in the " Newark Eagle," who signed
himself "Verity," said, "He (Mr. Wesley) did not answer a
work written by Sir George Stonehouse. He and others had
promised to do it. But he excused himself by saying it would
occupy so much of his time that he could not acquit his con-
17

346 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part II.
science before God. That this is a mere subterfuge, is self-
evident." So says Mr. " Verity." The first story fixes the charge of
hypocrisy upon Wesley, and the second of lying. Whittemore,
in his history, names Wesley in connection with Stonehouse, but
not as a Universalist then or at any subsequent period. But, on
the contrary, he represents him as saying to Stonehouse, " Bet
ter you had died, George, before you had written that book."
p. 237.
Taking into the account Wesley's profession and labors till
the day of his death, the whole effort amounts to this : John
Wesley was a good Universalist, a base hypocrite, and a con
founded liar ! A brilliant trinity of attributes, well harmonized,
created by the advocates of Universalism for the benefit of the
craft ; but vain is the attempt to tack them on to John Wesley.
The world knows too much of him for that. John Wesley a
Universalist !
It is a very common thing for the leaders in the order to assort
that their doctrine prevails extensively in other sects. Mr. Boy-
den, in a sermon before the U. S. Convention, says : " I am
fully persuaded if the secrets of all hearts were laid open, we
should find thousands who are supposed to be men in orthodoxy,
so called, but really are babes in Universalism." Banner,
Nov. 2, 1844.
That is, many who profess to be strong orthodox, are in reality
Universalists. A writer in the Universalist Companion, for 1852, says:
"Even among orthodox sects, many members, and not a few
clergymen, secretly hold our views."
Brown, in his History of Universalism, p. 337, gives the fol
lowing : " A Calvinistic clergyman declared, ' I am a believer
in Universalism ; I do believe all will be saved ; but it will not
do to preach it.' Why, sir? ' I cannot get supported hand
somely and comfortably if I was publicly to avow this doc
trine.' "

Sec. 126.] universalism not of the bible. 347
Mr. Brown will have it that there are many more Universal
ists of this class in the ministry of Christian churches. Mr.
Whittemore, in his Modern History of UniversaUsm, furnishes
us quite a list of these concealed Universalists. Among them
he names (p. 383) J. Huntington, D. D., of Coventry, Conn.,
who, as he states, wrote a book in the prime of his life, called
" Calvinism Improved," teaching Universalism. The manuscript
he kept by him during his life, and made provision in his will
for its publication after his death. Brown's Hist, of Univ., p.
339. Here then is a Universalist, with a manuscript by him for
years, containing his real sentiments, and yet all the while sus
taining the relation of pastor to a Congregationalist church, and
receiving his salary from those who think him a believer and
teacher of orthodox views. In this transaction we have a clear
evidence of his belief in Universalism, and also an illustration
of its blighting, withering influence upon the moral feelings of
its recipients. Then look at the case just presented from
Brown's History, of a man who was a Universalist, but preached
among the Calvinists to get a comfortable support ! And we are
informed that there are many such Universahsts in other sects.
What gross hypocrisy !
Could an enemy have given Universalism a worse character
than is here given it by its friends ? And shall we be charged
with slander, if we say the doctrine is demoralizing. 0, Uni
versalism ! " Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee." In
view of the hypocrisy of Universalists upon this subject, a
thought occurs, viz.: No believer m a future judgment and end
less punishment will ever be found professing to be a Univer
salist all his days, or publishing anonymous books advocating the
doctrine. With such a belief he would feel that such wicked
reservation and deception would meet him in the judgment, and
send his. soul to an endless hell. Such deception upon such a
subject, in ccnnection with such a belief, cannot possibly exist.
Reader, which think you is the truth of God, that which admits
of such deception upon this subject, or that which absolutely for
bids it ?

348 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE bible. [Part H.
One thought more. All are aware that their editors have
seized with great avidity upon the defections in the membership
and ministry of Christian churches, given them the highest col
oring possible, and published them to the world as the fruits of
Partialism. But what authority have they for this, since there are
so many of their own faith, both in the membership and minis
try of these same churches ? It would be a very natural con
clusion that such unprincipled men are just the men to commit
other deeds of wickedness.
But why are the eyes of these gentlemen constantly turned
to the Christian church for the influence of their sentiments ?
We beg of them to look for a moment in a less honorable direc
tion. Look at the ungodly throng of profane, drunken, gam
bling, Sabbath breaking men, to be found more or less in every
place where Universalism obtains. Some of these rally for its
support, and others do nothing but illustrate it. They pay no
support to its ministers, and seldom listen to its preaching. It
is enough for them to know that Universalist societies are formed,
houses built, and that men are abroad calling themselves gospel
ministers, teaching that " God is not angry with the wicked
every day," and the impossibility of sinning enough to incur any
more punishment than shall be for .the sinner's good. With
such influences upon them they are wise enough not to pay
money to ministers for a bill of indulgence, when they can have
it gratis. We beg of these men to look in this direction and witness the
influence of their glad tidings to depravity upon this class of
persons. We think the influence upon these will be found to be
no better than it is on those in the Christian churches, of which
they boast. It may be said that such aro not Universalists.
But they are not shaken off in this way. Speak to one of them
about his duty to God and the danger of his soul, and. he will
draw forth his bill of indulgence with as much confidence as any
poor Papist of Luther's time ever did. He is not to be fright
ened, for God is too good to send his creatures to hell. And

Sec. 128.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 349
although in morals he is waxing worse and worse, and his phys
ical nature is fast sinking by his vices, yet his cherished faith
tells him he is only ripening for glory !
CXXVH. Twistical. As this word is used a few times in
this work, the reader shall have its history. A few years since
Messrs. Drew and Whittemore got into a quarrel through their
respective papers, about the character of the notorious J. B.
Dods, in which the former said of the latter, (Banner, March
11, 1843) : " We have for a long time, as have also most of
our brother editors and preachers, been aware that Bro. Whit-
temore, when his mind has become warped by prejudice against
friends, as well as foes, is one of the most unfair and twistical
writers connected with our cause. But we were never called to
experience so complete and final proof of his disregard of com
mon fairness and fraternal courtesy as we find in his last paper.
We will just say that in only fifty lines of his editorial remarks,
embracing the close of his first column on his third page, we
counted and marked no less than thirteen errors, which, if in
tended, are, to speak plainly, falsehoods ; or, if not intended,
are mistakes of too serious a nature to be committed by a man
who professes to understand his subject."
Observe : This is not from an enemy to UniversaUsm, but
from one of the fraternity. Now this same Mr. Whittemore has
written a book called " The Guide to Universalism," a book of
great popularity in the order, in whieh he professes to explain all
the principal texts which are thought to oppose Universalism.
From our knowledge of his writings, we think Mr. Drew ex
ceedingly happy in his effort at coining a word. It is highly
expressive, especially in its application to Universalist divines,
and should find a place in the next edition of Webster's Dic
tionary, for that purpose if no other.
CXXVHI. State prisons have been visited, and it is said
the most of the prisoners, when questioned, were found to be

350 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part H
beUevers in endless punishment ; and tho conclusion is, that this
doctrine is productive of vice, while Universalism is highly con
ducive to virtue. Now suppose an Atheist were to visit these
same prisons, and ask each convict if he believed in the being of
God ; doubtless the answer in almost every case would be in the
affirmative. Then, according to the reasoning of Universal
ists, we should come to the grave conclusion, that a belief
in God is detrimental to morals, while Atheism is favorable to
virtue !
A statement has been extensively circulated, in Universalist
prints, that the " Legislature of Ohio selected at one time a
Methodist chaplain for the prison, on account of there being
more Methodists than any other class among the prisoners." It
is also stated that the prisoners were consulted in the choice.
The evident design is to make the impression, that the convicts
named were Methodists when they entered prison. This needs
no refutation. Admitting what is said concerning the choice of
a chaplain to be true, it is only a mark of the wisdom of both the
Legislature and the convicts to choose an evangelical man in
stead of a Universalist. What good could Universalism do
them ? What good results from it to wicked men out of prison ?
Does it reform them ? Never. If modern Universalism is
true, evangelical teaching could do them no essential injury ;
but, on the other hand, if evangelical sentiments are true, Uni
versalist teaching might do them an irreparable harm. Since,
then, Universalism cannot boast of infallibility, that system may
be false and ours true ; this being the case, no wise man would
reject evangelical Christianity, and throw himself upon Univer
salism, for that would be running an unnecessary risk. Let
evangelical religion be embraced with all the heart, and such are
safe, whether Universalism be true or false. Shrewd prisoners,
away from the exciting influence outside the prison walls, and
having time for reflection, with their Bibles before them, may see
the worthless character of Universalism, and find the best of
reasons for choosing a Christian minister to instract them. As

Sec. 128.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 351
it respects those who once professed religion, they were brought
to the prison, not by evangelical principles, but by acting in op
position to tkem, as they will all testify. The just retributions
of eternity were, at that time, removed from their minds. Their
crimes are in no way chargable to evangelical sentiments. But
the truth is, many Universalists do find their way into the state
prisons, though if inquired of might not admit a belief of it,
for it is no uncommon thing for the most zealous supporters of
the dogma to reply in the negative, when questioned upon this
subject, assigning as a reason that they "are not good enough
to be Universalists." Now these exalted views of Universal
ism, and this extreme modesty, may sometimes obtain in the
state prison as well as elsewhere.
But Universalists are often found in the state prison. Rev.
J. B. Finley, who was sometime chaplain of the Ohio prison, and
perhaps the very man who was chosen at the time named, in
his " Prison Life," speaking of the convicts, says :
" Among the number was an old man, whom I knew many
years ago ; and he was then a villain, which he is up to this day.
He professes to beUeve in God, in a future state, and in heaven ;
but affirms that all men as soon as they die go directly to the
world of everlasting happiness. In other words this old veteran
among scoundrels is' a notorious Universalist." p. 133.
" Universalism has been the means of bringing many of my
miserable charge to their present ruin ; and I feel caUed upon
to give it my most severe rebuke, from this Golgotha, where the
skulls of its slain victims are so profusely strown." p. 27.
Speaking of hardened Infidels in the prison, he says, that he
found the " most of them had gone to infidelity through the con
venient door-way of Universalism." p. 31.
For aught we know, not a few of those in the prisons, who
profess to believe future punishment, are Universalists at heart,
for if believers in the doctrine can play the hypocrite in Chris
tian churches, (Sec. CXXVI,) they can do the same in the
state prison, especially if they wish to aid a minister of the order

352 UNIVEESALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part H.
in making a report against " Partialism." We have no confi
dence in these prison reports from Universalist ministers. They
make them to serve their errors, and their bUl of indulgence
gives them all the latitude they wish in the work.
CXXIX. The great numbers that have been converted from
the Partialist ministry, as it is called, to Universalism, is an im
portant item with editors of the order, to be kept before the
people. But do they ever inform their readers of the vast dis
proportion that exists between their ministry and aU others put
together ? No ; for this would destroy aU their capital. Ac
cording Dr. Baird's Report of Religion in America, before the
Evangelical Alliance in Paris, Aug. 5, 1855, which was pre
pared with great care and accuracy, the Protestant evangelical
ministry in the United States, number as follows :
Episcopal, 1,714; Congregationalist, 1,848 settled, and 479
without charge. Different orders of Baptists, 8,525 ; Presby
terian, all orders, 5,889. Different denominations of MetU
dists, travelling and local ministry, 22,198; Lutherans, 980 ;
Mennonists, 250 ; Moravians, 28. Cast these figures and we
have an aggregate of 42,111. Add to this 822 licentiates
among the Presbyterians, as reported by Dr. Baird, and the pro
fessors in colleges and seminaries, many of whom are ordained
mmisters, and also the ministry of the orthodox Quakers, num
bers unknown, and there cannot be less than 43,000 ministers
in the evangelical churches in the United States. But for our
purpose, and not to overrate numbers, we will caU the number
40,000. According to the Universalist statistics for 1855, they have in
the United States 646 preachers, 39 of which are marked as
" formerly belonging to the Partialists." Now the question is,
if 39 have been converted to Universalism out of 40,000 be
Uevers in evangelical doctrines, how many must be converted
from 646 Universahsts to evangelical views to make it equal?
Figures wul show that if one only can be found who has left the

Sec. 130.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 353
Universalist ministry, and is now a minister in an evangelical
church, that one is more in proportion than the thirty-nine, of
which Universahsts boast. Can one be found ? Why then do
they not, like honest men, state the vast disproportion here set
forth? The reader can easily judge why. See Sec. CXXXIV.
and CXXXVn.
CXXX. " Would it be merciful in God to suffer endless
punishment ? that is, would it be merciful to the sufferer ? Can
that be just which is not merciful ? Do not cruelty and injustice
go hand in hand? "
" We freely admit that the infliction of endless punishment
upon sinners, is not a merciful act, but is directly opposed to the
exercise of mercy. The claims of justice and mercy never con
flict with each other ; and hence, though we admit that endless
punishment is not merciful, we deny, at the same time, that it is
any violation of mercy. Justice and mercy are distinct princi
ples, and may be exercised conjointly, or one may be exercised
without any manifestation of the other, and yet without violating
either. When God chastises his children, as in the case of all
corrective and sanctified afflictions, justice and mercy are both
displayed ; justice, because the punishment is what we deserve,
and mercy because it is sanctified to our good. When God for
gives sinners without punishment, as in the case of the Nine
vites, mercy is displayed without any manifestation of justice in
the case, yet justice is not violated. When God cuts off the
sinner, as in the case ofthe old world, the Sodomites, and many
others which might be mentioned, he displays his justice without
any manifestation of mercy, yet there is nothing unmerciful in it,
since mercy claims nothing in these cases, they being no longer
subjects of mercy.
" The idea that Universalists make so prominent, that every act
of the divine administration must be an act of mercy, to save
his government from impeachment, has no foundation in the
Bible. The scriptures make a clear distmction between mercy
17*

854 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part H
and justice, between grace and wrath, and between blessings and
curses. An act of mercy never flows from simple justice, but is
an offspring of goodness, while wrath never proceeds from
mercy, but is insulted justice taking vengeance upon the guilty.
The Bible does not pretend that mercy and justice are equally
displayed in the case of every subject of the divine government ;
1 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and
whom he will he hardeneth.' Rom. 9 : 18. ' For he shall have
judgment without mercy that hath showed no mercy.' James
2:13. " These scriptures, together with many more which might be
produced, show that every act of the divine administration, is
not an act of mercy.
" But it is asked : ' Can that be just which is not merciful ? '
This has been already answered above, but we will answer it
again by saying, Yes, an act may be just without being merciful.
We have just quoted a text which says certain characters shall
have judgment without mercv. Now, judgment without
mercy cannot be merciful, yet it must be just. There are many
cases in which an action may be just and not be merciful. It
may be that justice requires that the murderer shall bo hanged ;
but it is not an act of mercy even to a murderer to hang him. A
rich man may lend money to a pioor man, and justice may require
the poor man to pay it again, but mercy does not require it,
since the rich man is better off without it than he is with it.
' He that despised Moses' law died without mercy.' Heb. 10 :
28. Was there not justice without mercy ? But it is asked,
' Do not cruelty and injustice go hand in hand ? ' Not neces
sarily ; an act may be cruel without being unjust ; or an act
may be unjust without being cruel. It would be unjust for a
poor man to cheat a rich man out of a bushel com, but it would
not be cruel. On the other hand it might be very cruel for a
rich man to take a poor man's last bushel of corn to satisfy a
just debt, but it would not be unjust.
" In all this, it should be bome in mind, that the injustice of

Sec. 131.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 355
endless punishment is taken for granted, without any effort to
prove it. If it could be proved that endless punishment would
be unjust, then it might be proved that it would bo unmerciful ;
or if it could be proved that it would be unmerciful, that is,
contrary to the claims of mercy, then it might be proved that
under the circumstances of the gospel, that it would be unjust :
but until one of these points is proved, independently of the
other, no advance is made in the argument. It amounts to this :
Endless punishment is unjust because it is unmerciful ; and it is
unmerciful because it is unjust. Such arguments cannot con
vince those who have minds to think for themselves. If indeed
it may be called argument, it is argumentum ad ignorantiam, ad
captandum vulgus. An argument founded on the ignorance of
fact to ensnare the vulgar." Sword of Truth.
CXXXI. " Universalism will do to live by, but it will not
do to die by." There could be no greater mistake. The only
thing to be determined is this : is it true or false ? If false, it
will do neither for life or death. Religious error is never con
ducive to a sound morality, whUe religious truth is. Universal
ism is false ; it is an evil tree, and therefore cannot bring forth
good fruit. It is hoped that the senseless saying, " It will do
to live by, but not to die by," will never again be uttered by
any lover of truth. We need the same religion in life that we
do in the dying hour. As it respects the boasted support of
Universalism in death, it is all a delusion. A mere willingness
to die is no sure evidence of Christian truth or character.
Heathen devotees are willing to die ; and Infidels, regardless of
the future, have sometimes been wUling to die. Men with con
sciences " seared with a hot iron," and hearts steeped in crime,
have also evinced a willingness to die. Some Universalists have
so long resisted God's spirit and rejected his truth, that they are
left to " believe a lie," (2 Thess 2 : 10-12,) and some die
whUe under this delusion.
Others among them who have made less progress in their war-

356 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part II.
fare with God, have been aroused to a sense of their danger on
the very verge of eternity, finding it to be a fearful truth, that
Universalism " will not do to die by." When a poor sinner is
thus awakened, it calls into requisition all the skill his Univer
salist attendants are capable of to keep it from the public ear,
and also to prevent intercourse with Christians. Many such
have been smuggled out of the world without a Christian to
counsel them, or to offer a prayer in their behalf. It is known
that a powerful influence often goes out from the death-bed
scene, in opposition to their sentiments ; hence unnecessary re
strictions are often imposed to prevent Christians from visiting
the sick and dying, and warnings have been hushed which would
have carried conviction through whole neighborhoods. There is
no end to the deceptions used to produce the impression that
Universalism yields tme support in death.
CXXXII. Was the belief of endless punishment common
both among Jews and Gentiles in our Saviour's time ?
Universalists shall speak for themselves, as their testimony
will not be doubted upon this point.
" The Pharisees, it is well known, believed in the endless
punishment of human souls." Lectures by W. N Fernald, p.
79. " It is generally admitted that the Jews, in our Saviour's
day, maintained the Pagan notion of immortal happiness for the
righteous, and undying pain for the sinner." Letter in the
Trumpet of Feb. 3, 1838, by W. C. Hanscom, a Universalist
minister. ' ' That the Pharisees believed in a punishment after
death, we do not deny." Whittemore's Notes on the Parables,
p. 62. "Jews and heathen believed in endless punishment."
Balfour's Essays, p. 326.
The following will show how extensively it prevailed among
the Jews when our Saviour, the greatest of teachers, sojourned
among them. Mr. Balfour, in his Inquiry, p. 260, where he
attempts to show that the Jews obtained their views of endless
punishment from the heathen, says : " The introduction of this

Sec. 132.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 357
and other heathen opinions among the Jews was gradual, but in
the days of our Lord had become general, with perhaps the ex
ception of the sect of Sadducees." This sect composed but a
small part of the Jewish nation.
Were Christ and Ms apostles Universalists? Were they
believers in no future and eternal punishment ?
Most assuredly they were, if Universalism is true. If they
were not, then it is false. No time need be spent to prove this.
Christ and his apostles, then, being Universalists, spent their time
and preached among those entirely opposed to this doctrine, and
behevers in endless punishment.
Was it any part of the work of Christ and his apostles to
point out and rebuke the errors of the age in which he lived ?
Mr. Whittemore shall answer :
" Our Saviour when on earth labored hard to root up the
plants which his Father had not planted. He knew that error
was injurious to man, and that he performed an act of kindness
and duty in exposing it. How careful was he to point out the
errors which men had imbibed. ' Te have heard,' said he, ' that
it hath been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But
I say unto you, resist not evil, &c. Te have heard that it hath
been said, thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy.
But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse
you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which
despitefuUy use you and persecute you.' He detailed some of
the errors of the Scribes and Pharisees, relative to swearing by
the gold of the temple, and the gilt upon the altar ; and called
them blind guides. He was careful also to point out the errors
of their conduct, as well as of their opinions. The apostles fol
lowed our Saviour in their practice. ' Paul and Barnabas had
no small dissension and disputation with ' ' certain men which
came down from Judea,' and taught the brethren that they
could not be saved, except they were circumcised after the man
ner of Moses. They endeavored to root up a plant which God
had not planted. It would be a task far too arduous to mention

358 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part II.
all the instances recorded in the New Testament, of Christ and
his apostles pointing out and contending against the errors of the
age in which he lived." Trumpet, No. 750.
Here it is admitted, yea, contended for, by Mr. W., that the
Saviour was careful to point out the errors which men had im
bibed, and that so numerous are the instances where Christ and
his apostles have pointed out and contended against the errors of
the age in which they lived, that it would be a task far too
arduous to mention all that are recorded in the New Testament.
Do Universalists of our time deem endless punishment the
chief of errors, and do they vigorously and incessantly oppose
it? Mr. Drew, one of the great men of the order, shall answer :
Speaking ofthe doctrine in question, he says (Banner, Feb.
2, 1841) : " We believe it to be the greatest error of our times
— one fraught with ihe worst results lo society." "Put all
tke other errors ofthe world into one, and this would not equal
in magnitude that to which we refer." " Is it any longer a
wonder to your mind, reader, that we as Universalists should
employ so much of our time in preaching and writing against
that grand error? Nay, but we must doit." In keeping
with these extracts, are their pulpits and presses generally. This
is but a sample of what might fill volumes, indicative of the
views, feelings, and labors of these men.
Have we any account whatever that Christ and Ms apostles
treated tke doctrine of endless puniskment as an error, by re
buking it, showing its fatal effects, and cautioning the people
against it ?
Now here is the Great Teacher, who has come from heaven to
teach Universalism, and called and commissioned his apostles to
engage in the same work. Mr. Whittemore says of him that he
was careful to point out tke errors which men had imbibed;
and so numerous are the instances where Christ and his apostles
have contended against the errors of their age, that it would le
a task far too arduous to mention all that are recorded in the

Sec. 132.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 359
New Testament. They commenced and exercised their minis
try among believers in endless punishment, an error so great that
Mr. Drew says of it, " Put all the other errors of the world into
one, and this would not equal it in magnitude." Now we ask,
may we not expect to find something very explicit, decided, and
pointed from the Son of God, in opposition to this error ; some
thing that shall make the matter clear to the church in all after
ages, something at least analogous to the efforts against it by
modern Universalist preachers ? We should certainly expect
this. But what is the fact ? It is nowhere to be found in all
the Scriptures that Christ, or any of his followers, ever spent a
moment's time in disproving the doctrine, or in portraying to
their hearers its dreadful effects, or in warning them against it.
We boldly assert that not a single instance of this character
can le found. Let Universalists produce one, if they can.
To what shall we attribute this silence ? Could not the Sa
viour perceive the dreadful effects of this error, as well as men
in our day ? Or perceiving, had he no heart to feel as well as
they ? Had pity left the Son of Man ? And what is still more
surprising, he did expUcitly point out and correct other errors
which were as the pebble to the mountain when compared with
this, if we may believe the smallest part of what its opponents
say of it. He faithfully exposed the- errors of the Pharisees ;
such as their superstitious observance of the Sabbath, their wash
ing of hands and pots, their making long prayers, the incon
sistency of their " tithing the mint, anise and cummin," while
they neglected the weightier matters of the law, and many other
things : but he wholly passed over this great error. The apos
tles too, were often found opposing errors of little consequence
compared with this, if Universalism is true. " How boldly and
explicity Paul opposes the sentiment, that ' by the deeds of thc
law men could be justified in the sight of God.' With what a
masterly argument he overthrew the Saddncean heresy, that
'there is no resurrection.' How fearlessly and directly lie
denounced the heresy of Hymeneus and Philetus, that ' the

360 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part H
resurrection was already past.' Indeed, a very considerable
portion of the Epistles of Paul is taken up in opposing the prev
alent errors of the times." In the book of Acts, too, we find
prevailing errors exposed, and faithful reproof administered and
caution given, by different apostles. Also, in the Epistles of
James, Peter, John and Jude, we find the errors of the times
pointedly rebuked and glaringly exposed. But nowhere in the
book of Acts, or any of the Epistles, do we learn that they ever
rebuked the doctrines of a future judgment, and an endless pun
ishment. How unlike modern Universalists, whose chief labor
consists in exposing what they call their dreadful effects, and
appealing to the sympathies of men respecting them !
Let us further inquire,
Did the Saviour andhis apostles teach a future judgment
and eternal punishment ? Did they use language calculated to
confirm those they addressed in these errors, if ihey were such'!
To this we reply, they most certainly did. To say nothing of
the impression Matt. 25 : 31-46 always makes upon the mind
of the unsophisticated reader, we think there is not one, at all
acquainted with Jewish belief relative to a future state, but must
be convinced that our Lord's Jewish hearers, when he uttered
this passage, must have understood him as teaching a general
judgment, and endless bliss ancl misery. See an extract from
Josephus, Sec. XLI.
" In hell (hades') he lifted up his eyes, being in torments."
Luke 16 : 23. Mr. Balfour admits, (Inq., pp. 74-79,) that
when our Saviour spoke these words, "the opinion prevailed
among the Jews that there were torments in Hades; " and he
will have it that our Lord speaks in accordance with popular
opinions. The Saviour then, instead of opposing a dangerous
and prevailing error, speaks in accordance with popular opinion
upon the subject. How then must his hearers have understood
him ? He qualifies nothing. He must have been understood
as teaching torments in the invisible or spirit world.

SeC. 132.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 361
For understanding the language of the Bible, the following
common-sense rule is given by an eminent writer :
" The meaning of a word used by any writer, is the meaning
affixed to it by those for whom he immediately wrote. For there
is a kind of natural compact between those who write and those
who speak a language ; by which they are mutually bound to
use words in a certain sense : he, therefore, who uses such words
in a different signification, in a manner violates the compact, and
is in danger of leading men into error." Home's Introd., vol.
1, p. 325.
It is obvious that this rule applies with force to the subject
under consideration. As a few out of the many, the reader is
referred to the following texts. Mark 3 : 29 ; Luke 12 : 4, 5 ;
John 5 : 28, 29 ; Matt. 10 : 15-28 ; Rom. 2 : 4-16 ; 14 :
10-12 ; Heb. 6:1,2; 9 : 27, 28 ; 2 Thess. 1 : 7-10 ; 2 Pet.
2 : 4-9. If the belief of those to whom these texts were ad
dressed is considered, and also the labored, unnatural, and
absurd interpretations Universalists are under the necessity of
giving to destroy their force, what candid mind, we ask, but
must see that Christ and his apostles not only did not oppose the
doctrines of future judgment and endless punishment, but that
they actually did sustain them by their own teachings ?
Let us again inquire,
Did either Jews or Gentiles oppose Christ and his followers
for teacking tke future salvation of all men, or for rejecting
tke opposite doctrine ?
There is not a single instance in the Scriptures where they
met with such opposition. Universalists have often asserted that
Christ was opposed for the same cause they are now, viz. : his
Universalism. But this is mere assumption, without any
foundation either in the history of our Lord or the Pharisees.
That the Pharisees were the enemies of Christ, is well known ;
and as such, accused him of many things, such as his being an
enemy to Cassar ; as in league with Beelzebub ; a blasphemer,
&c. On his trial, Pilate said to him, "Behold how many

362 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part II.
things they witness against thee;" but we look in vain to find
that they ever charged him with holding and teaching no futuie
and eternal punishment for the wicked. The Pharisees being
his enemies, and the doctrine of eternal punishment being gen
erally believed, both among Jews and Gentiles, might we not
reasonably suppose that Christ's being a " perfect Universalist,"
would have occupied a prominent place in the charges brought
against him from time to time. But upon this point there is a
dead silence. He never complained of the Jews for holding the
doctrine of eternal pnnishment, neither did the Jews of him
for holding the salvation of all men. The same is true of all his
apostles, who labored both among the Jews and Gentiles. For
instance, look at the charges brought against Paul at different
times ; but never is he charged with teaching the salvation of all
men. In the vindication of his character from heresy (Acts
24 : 15), he says: " And (I) have hope toward God, which
they (the Jews) themselves allow, that there shall be a resur
rection of the dead, both of the just and unjust." What did
the Jews allow ? None will assert that they allowed, or believed,
that all men would be ushered into bliss by the resurrection,
But they did believe that the just and unjust would be raised,
and judged ; ancl that one class would be welcomed to bliss, and
the other sentenced to endless punishment. This was Paul's
belief. All are aware of the great labor of Universalists to por
tray before the people the dreadful consequences of the doctrine
of eternal punishment. But be it known that there is not a
single precedent fur this course in all tke Bible. They have
not produced one, for the good reason that they cannot.
Let it be observed, that while they fail to give one text to
show that either our Saviour or any of his apostles eVer came in
collision with either Jew or Gentile upon the doctrine in question,
they do bring a solitary text in which they profess to think
Christ warned his disciples against it. It is this: Matt. 16 : 6,
" Then said Jesus unto them, beware of the leaven (doctrine,
v. 12,) of the Pharisees and ofthe Sadducees." Universalists

Sec. 132.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 363
will have it that this means, ' ' beware of the doctrine of endless
punishment." But did the Sadducees believe that? See Sec.
XCVI., where tho true sense is given, and the perversion
exposed. There is one text more they sometimes bring, to prove that
Paul and others were persecuted for preaching their faith. It is
1 Tim. 4 : 10 ; " Therefore we both labor and suffer reproach,
because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all
men, especially of those that believe." That this is a perversion
may be seen, Sec. XCV.
A favorite argument to prove Christ and his apostles Univer
salists, may be briefly stated thus :
The Pharisees hated Christ and his apostles ; the Pharisees
were Partialists ; therefore Christ and his apostles must have
been Universalists. Their disciples often use this argument in
substance, if not in form, and they obtain it from their teachers ;
for none can sit long under their ministry, without learning from
them that the hatred the Pharisees bore to Christ and his apos
tles, was on account of their Universalism. This, you will see,
is a very easy method to prove people Universalists. Let us try
it again. The Pharisees hated all heathens ; the Pharisees were
Partialists ; therefore the millions of heathen must have been
Universalists. So you see that by this simple process, not only
Christ and his apostles are made Universalists, but all the
heathen. Other grounds of difference, besides a point or two of doctrine,
may call forth hatred. Papists have persecuted Protestants,
and put them to death, yet they have ever agreed upon some
points of doctrine. We do not contend that Christ taught or
sanctioned all the doctrines of the Pharisees. Christ called them
hypocrites, a generation of vipers, and threatened them with the
damnation of hell, and claimed in opposition to their views to be
the Messiah. Yet Universalists, it would seem, can see no pos
sible reason why the Jews should have hated Christ, unless he
was a Universalist ! They will have it, too, that our Lord's

364 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part II.
Universalism was shockingly offensive to the Jews, and yet in
all their controversy with him, and their proceedings against him,
it is not so much as once charged against him, or even named !
Let the reader weigh well the following thoughts :
1. Our Lord and his apostles, whose business it was to estab
lish truth and overthrow error, spent their time upon earth among
believers in endless punishment.
2. Deriving our knowledge from the Bible, they never ex
posed or rebuked the doctrine in a single instance.
3. If they were Universalists, they taught the doctrine, and
it must have been known to the Jews. Charges of heresy were
from time to time brought against them by their Jewish enemies ;
but in no single instance, either formally, incidentally, or acci
dentally, are they charged with holding the salvation of all men.
4. They used the same language in tho presence of the Jews,
that the Jews did to teach somo of their prominent doctrines of
a future state ; or, as Mr. Balfour says, they spoke in accordance
with popular opinions.
Now to what shall we attribute their conformity in language
to Jewish belief, and the complete absence of any collision either
with Jews or Gentiles upon the doctrines in question, and their
failure to rebuke a future-judgment and endless punishment, by
a single direct attack or exposure.* Had they not as much love
for human kind, and sympathy for suffering humanity, as mod
ern Universalist ministers ? Were they so blind that they could
not see the fatal effects of this great and alarming error ? Or
were they wanting in courage to speak out and warn tbe people?
Who so blind as not to see that if Universalists have the truth
upon this subject, Christ and his apostles were sadly deficient as
Universalist ministers ? Or rather, who so blind as not to see
that Universalism is glaringly false, that Christ and the apostles
taught no such doctrine, but were believers and teachers of end-
* Mr. Thayer, speaking of endless punishment, says, "It was the popu
lar doctrine of the day in the time of the Saviour, a part of the common
f.iith of Jews and Pagans." Mr. T. also asserts that Christ maintained
towards it a position of " entire silence." Mist, of E. Pun., p. 137.

Sec. 133.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 365
less punishment ? Do Universalist ministers sometimes say elo
quent things concerning the example of Christ ? Suppose they
were to imitate it, would they ever clamor against endless pun
ishment ? Would they ever appeal to human sympathy, and
raise arguments from the attributes of God against the doctrine ?
And suppose they were to use the same language Jesus did,
without qualification, would they ever be taken for teachers of
Universalism ? Truly this is an age of improvement, for these
moderns are far in advance of the Master !
Think upon the facts stated in this section, reader, and be a
Universalist if you can.
CXXXIII. " The doctrine of endless misery, that inhuman
dogma, whieh is common to both Arminians and Calvinists, was
first openly asserted in the Christian Church by Tertullian, in
the third century. Until this time, no declaration of any such
doctrine as endless misery by any professed disciple of Jesus, is
known to have been made." Univ. Almanac, 1844, p. 36.
This appears to be a common stock idea with Universalist
writers, but it is a historical falsehood. Mr. H. Ballou, 2d,
some years since published what he called the " Ancient His
tory of Universalism," in which he states concerning Tertullian,
as follows : "He is thought to have been the first Christian
writer who expressly asserted that the torments of the damned
will be of equal duration with the happiness of the blest." p. 80.
Looking to Mr. Ballou as an oracle, he has by this statement
misled all who have put their trust in him. If Mr. B. had no
knowledge of such an important work as Justin Martyr's Apol
ogy, he was not qualified to write church history : if he had a
knowledge of this work, then there was a wicked concealment of
facts. Justin was one of the most learned of all the early
Fathers, and among his valuable works are his Apologies, or
what would be called in our times defences of Christian doctrines
and practice, the first of which he addressed to the Roman Em
peror Antoninus Pius, about A.D. 150. This, translated by

366 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part II.
Rev. W. Reeves, London, 1709, is before us, from which
wo give the following extracts :
He says, "Moreover we say, that the souls of the wicked
being reunited to tke same bodies, shall be consigned over to
eternal torments, and not as Plato will have it, to the period of
a thousand years only ; but if you will affirm this to be incredi
ble or impossible, there is no help for you, but you must fall
from error to error, till the day of judgment convinces you we
are right." p. 26.
The word eternal is evidently used here to distinguish between
the endless punishment believed by Christians, and the limited
one taught by Plato, the heathen philosopher.
Again he says, "I must tell you likewise, that of all men liv
ing we arc. the greatest promoters of peace, and bring you in
the most powerful auxiliaries to establish it in your dominions,
by teaching that it is impossible for any worker of iniquity, any
covetous or insidious person, any one, either vicious or virtu
ous, to hide himself from God; and that everyone is stepping
forward into everlasting misery or happiness, according to his
works." p. 31.
Observe, " every one is stepping forward into everlasting
misery or happiness." Is the word everlasting used in a bor
rowed sense bore ? Then is the happmess of the righteous limit
ed. All must see that it is used in its proper sense, to signify
endless duration.
Once more he says, " When we assert departed souls to be in
a state of sensibility, and the loicked to be in torments, but the
good free from pain and in a blissful condition, we assert no
more than your poets and philosophers."
"But the ringleader and the prince of evil spirits, is by us
called the serpent, and Satan, and false accuser, as you may
easily find from our scriptures, who together with all his
hosts of angels and men like himself shall be thrust into fire,
there to be tormented world without end, as our Christ hath
foretold."

Sec. 133.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 367
"For, tell you I must, ihat if you persist in this course of
iniquity, you shall not escape the vengeance of God in anotker
world." pp. 49, 59, 127.
Remark, " tormented world without end, as our Christ hath
foretold. ' ' All must see that endless punishment is declared by
Justin to be a doctrine taught by Cbrist and believed by
Christians; for he is not giving his own belief merely, but tho
doctrines of the Christians generally. This apology was written
at least fifty years before Tertullian flourished.* A few years
since, (1846,) we published a work containing an examination
of the Ancient History, by Ballou, and the Modern History, by
Whittemore, in which their errors upon this subject were ex
posed. The following is a synopsis of our investigation down to
A.D. 210.
Barnabas, who lived in the time of the apostles, says of
Christ, "after the resurrection he will judge the world."
" The way of darkness is crooked, and full of cursing, for it is
the way of eternal death with punishment."
Clemens Romanus, a fellow laborer with St. Paul, says, " If
we disobey his (Christ's) commands, nothing shall deliver us
from eternal punishment."
* Mr. H. Ballou, 2d, in his History, attempts to show that Justin believed
in the eventual annihilation of the wicked. This he does by quotations from
his Dialogue with Trypho, the Jew. It is well understood that his Dialogue
was written some years after his First Apology. This Mr. Ballou himself
asserts as follows : " The Dialogue with Trypho was written certainly after
the First Apology, but perhaps before the Second, which is generally placed '
at the year 162." Ane. Hist., p. 56. Note. Whatever may have been Jus
tin's views when he wrote his Dialogue, he has most certainly testified in
favor of endless punishment in his First Apology, which was written years
before. Observe, it is from the First Apology we quote; and futhermore
he was not giving his own opinions merely, to the Roman Emperor, but the
doctrines of Christians generally, at that time. Why did not Mr. Ballou
furnish some extracts from Justin's First Apology, to show his readers what
Christians believed respecting endless punishment, a day of judgment, the
coming of Christ, &c, only fifty years from the death of St. John, and
while Polycarp, the disciple of John, was still alive ? He probably was not
anxious for his readers to know these things.

368 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part II.
Ignatius, who was acquainted with St. Peter and Paul, says
of some, " They shall not inherit the kingdom of God,"
" shall depart into unquenchable fire ."
Polycarp, a disciple of St. John, talks of Christ's coming to
"judge the quick and tke dead," of the " eternal fire of God's
judgment reserved for the wicked in the other world."
Justin Martyr, who lived at the time of Polycarp, and had
doubtless seen St. John, testifies abundantly, as we have seen,
in favor of future judgment and endless punishment.
Hermas, about A.D. 150, or befc e, taught the possibility of
such an apostasy as that there could be no return, that they
might depart from God forever."
Tatian, (A.D. 170,) taught that there will be a "resurrec
tion and judgment at the end of the world," that some will
" undergo death in immortality."
The Epistle of the Churches of Lyons and Vienna, (A.D.
177,) says this of one : that she, " recollecting the eternal
punishment in hell, reproved her tormentors."
Authenagoras, (A.D. 180,) teaches that " at the day of
judgment rewards and punishments will be distributed toman-
kind as they have done well or ill."
Theophilus, (A.D. 181,) advises one to study the scriptures,
that he might shun eternal torments."
Irenceus, (A.D. 180-190,) in giving the sentiments of all
Christians, and stating that they were received from thc apostles
and their immediate disciples, asserts a, general resurrection and
judgment, when the wicked shall be sent into everlasting fire,
and tho righteous into life and glory forever."
Clemens Alexandrinus, (A.D. 190-196,) taught a future
hell, and that the same means would be used there for the salva
tion of men that are used here. He was probably a Restora
tion! st.
Tertullian, (A.D. 200-204,) taught & future judgment and
eternal punishment. "
Minucius Felix, (A.D. 210,) asserted the eternity of hell
torments.

Sec. 133.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 369
The reader may rest assured, that down to this period (A.D.
210) no Christian writer is known to have asserted that there
will be no future judgment, or no future punishment; that our
conduct here cannot affect our future state ; or that by the resur
rection all are to become holy and happy. Such sentiments were
not known in the early days of Christianity. Mr. Ballou, in his
history, has not attempted to show that one of the above named
notions are to be found in any Christian writings down to this
period; but says of them, (Ane Hist., p. 83,) "That there
was a future state of suffering they all agreed."
Wo should like, would space afford, to give large extracts
from our former work ; but a few statements upon which the
reader can rely as the result of investigation must suffice.
Clemens Alexandrinus, already named, and Origen, (A.D.
230,) taught Restoration, obtaining it not from the Bible, but
from the Platonic philosophy ; and Origen propagated it by
adopting the allegorical method with the scriptures.
After Origen, there is no declaration on the part of any Chris
tian writer whose works have come down to us, that Universal
Restoration was his belief, or the belief of others, until 134 years
from the time Origen flourished ; which was A.D. 230, or 111
years after his death, which took place A.D. 250. The writ
ings of Titus, bishop of Bostra, A.D. 364, are thc first named
by Mr. Ballou as containing the doctrine, after Origen.
8. That although we find the doctrine in the writings of a very
few men in the fourth century, yet it never was so extensively re
ceived as modern Universalists would have us believe ; but that
in addition to the 134 years from Origen to Titus of Bostra, there
are at least two periods, one of 50 and another of 170 years, in
which Mr. Ballou can produce no trace of the doctrine. Since
the Reformation by Luther, somo of the Anabaptists, Unitari
ans, and others, both in Europe and in this country, have held
the doctrine of Universal Restoration, down to the present time •
but they have always been few in number, compared with Evan
gelical Christians. 18

370 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part II.
As it respects the sentiments, that man's conduct here cannot
affect his future state, and that all will be rendered holy and
happy by the resurrection, neither Mr. Ballou nor Mr. Whitte
more has produced a single instance, showing that they were
held by any professed Christian, from the time of St. John down
to the commencement of the present century. It remained for
men in the nineteenth century to produce these errors, and call
them Christian doctrines.
Mr. Whittemore had access to the library of the Harvard
University, which contains as large, if not the largest number of
theological works, of any library in the United States. Doubt
less Mr. Ballou had the same privilege with Mr. Whittemore,
in the preparation of his work. How long Mr. Ballou's work
was in preparation, we are not informed; but Mr. Whittemore
has told us that he- was upwards of five years in collecting mate
rials for the Modern History, and that he steadily pursued his
purpose, without regard either to labor or expense. None will
doubt but what these men did the very best they could for Uni
versalism, and for modem views in particular. Now with all
their years of persevering labor and research, and with all the
advantages of the extensive library in Cambridge, how many
have they found professing to be, and received by the people as
Christian ministers, who have had the boldness to openly avow
and advocate the doctrine that all men will be saved, without
any suffering beyond this mortal life ? How many such men
have they found among the thousands of ministers named on the
pages of the Harvard CoUege library, from the time of St. John
down to the commencement of the present century ? We an
swer, NOT ONE, according to their own showing ! Samuel
Richardson (Mod. Hist., p. 71), was so far from boldly advo
cating the doctrine, that he kept himself behind the curtain,
sending forth his work without his name, if indeed, he was the
author of the work attributed to him. Some have thought he
was not.
Mr. Whittemore occupies four pages and a half of his Mod-

Sec. 133.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 371
em History with an account of Richard Coppin, who lived
ahout the middle of the sixteenth century. Well may he make
much of him, for it is the first instance of which we have any
account in history, of the public vindication of the doctrine of
the salvation of all men, without any future suffering. He is
named in none of the church histories before us, save Mr. Whit
temore's. He appears to have been a reckless fanatic, very like
the Come-outers of our day, and we have no account that he was
ever recognized as a gospel minister by any body of professed
Christians whatever.
The doctrine, that all men, irrespective of their character, or
agency, shall be saved without any future sufferings, was openly
avowed and advocated for the first time, by a man caUing him
self a Christian minister, about thirty-seven years ago. Hosea
Ballou, the elder, was that man. Strange thatthe world should
have been destitute of a true gospel minister so long !
Mr. Ballou advanced his scheme of no future punishment
about 1818. There is one thing in this man's history worthy of
remark. He states that during a reformation, he became inter
ested in religion, and joined the Calvin Baptist Church, of
which his father was the minister, in Jan. 1789, being then in
his nineteenth year. He says of himself: " From that period to
the present, I have been a constant student of the science of
divinity." The fall before he was twenty-one he commenced preaching
UniversaUsm. So it appears that he studied about twenty-nine
years, twenty-seven of which he was a preacher, before he
found out that the Bible taught no future suffering ! ! Surely
this is slow work for a constant student of divinity, especially if
Universalist sentiments are taught as clearly in the Bible as Mr.
Whittemore would have us believe, when he says, ( Trumpet,
No. 646) : " We are not ashamed to boast, that of all the
opinions in Christendom, ours grow tke most naturally out of
the sacred writings!!" That Universalists had been very
anxious to get rid of the doctrine of future judgment and pun-

372 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part II.
ishment, is evident from the account given by Mr. Ballou him
self, which is as follows, (Fut. Retrib., p. 182) : " When I
lived in Portsmouth, N. H., some fourteen or fifteen years ago,
(about 1817 or 1818,) I was made exceeding glad, by discov
ering in my study -on Heb. 9 : 27, 28, what I now believe to bo
the true application and use of the passage. I immediately
communicated my thoughts on this text, ancl all accepted the ex
position with approbation and delight."
About this time, Messrs. Turner and Ballou held a controver
sy in the Gospel Visitant, in order to satisfy themselves, in
which, says Mr. B., " We agreed to do the best we could ; he
in favor of future punishment, and I the contrary."
" While attending to this correspondence, I became entirely
satisfied that the scriptures begin and end the history of sin. in
flesh and blood ; and that beyond this mortal existence, the Bible
teaches no other sentient state but that which is called by the
blessed name of life and immortality."
This account of Mr. Ballou's early life we find in the Modern
History of Universalism, pp. 433-438.
CXXXIV. The less informed in the order are led to be
lieve, by the glowing accounts in their papers, that Universalism
is about to take the world by its rapid increase. Let us look at
this idea in the light of facts. All things taken into the account,
the progress of this error has not been very rapid in this coun
try. By the statistics of the order for 1855, it appears that
they number in the United States six hundred and forty-six min
isters. How many members, we are not informed. To say
nothing of the many evangelical denominations, besides the
Methodists, that are increasing with great rapidity, and whose
missionaries are belting the earth, let us take a comparative view
of the Methodist and Universalist denominations. Although
John Murray held scarcely any thing in common with modern
Universalists, yet they proclaim him the father of Universalism
in America. He landed upon our shores in 1770. Methodism
commenced in America by the labors of Philip Embury, a local

Sec. 134.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 373
preacher in New York, in 1766, four years only before the ar
rival of Murray.
From the statistics of the Methodist Episcopal Church, for
the same year with the Universalist statistics named, we find the
following : Members, 755,916 ; traveling preachers, 4,474 ; lo
cal preachers, 6,061. The statistics for the M. E. Church
South for the same year, stand thus : Members, 542,851 ;
traveling preachers, 1,741 ; local preachers, 4,455. Taking
these together, which, till a few years ago, were one denomina
tion, we have a membership of 1,298,767, and a ministry,
traveling and local, of 16,731.
We have not only the M. E. Church and the M. E. Church
South, but there are the Protestant Methodists, the Wesleyans,
and other smaller branches of the Methodist family in the United
States, whose statistics are not at hand, all holding the same
doctrines with the larger branches named. The ministry in all
these, according to Dr. Baird, (Sec. CXXIX,) number 22,198.
In the absence of a report of numbers we can only judge ofthe
progress of Universalism by its ministry. By their own show
ing, there are now (1855) 646 in their ministry in the United
States, of course not including the British Provinces. Take
646 from 22,198 and it will be seen that Methodism numbers
twenty-one thousand five hundred and fifty-two more in its
ministry than all the Universalist ministry in our land ! By
statistics, as reported in the Universalist almanacs, we see that
in 1844 there were on the continent, including the United
States, Canadas, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia, 646 minis
ters, the same number they now report for the United States
alone. In 1855, on the same territory, there are 651, being an
increase of five in the Universalist ministry during eleven
years !
We have not statistics at hand to show the increase of tho
Methodist ministry; but it is some thousands in thc eleven
years, for we find its increase in the two leading bodies the last
year to be 783. That is, the increase of the ministry in the M.
E. Church and the M. E. Church South the past year, is one

374 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part II.
hundred and thirty-two more tkan all the Universalist ministry
in North America ! Now, if the small increase of five minis
ters in eleven years indicates, as it doubtless does, the general
state of the cause, we cannot conclude that Universalism is in a
very prosperous condition.
Figures will show that on a comparative view the numbers are
as one to thirty-four and a half. That is, for every Universalist
minister there are thirty-four Methodist ministers, with fractions
in our favor, in the United States. We are also without data
to furnish the increase of the ministry in all the evangelical
orders during the eleven years named ; but have their present
numbers (Sec. CXXIX) amounting to forty thousand, which
gives for every Universalist minister, at least sixty-one evangel
ical ministers in the United States. Universalism has done
great mischief in the world, and its progress has been consider
able when contemplated by itself ; yet when compared with the
great increase of our population, and the progress of truth, it
has been but little.
If Universalism did spread as rapidly as many of its votaries
are induced to believe, it would not of itself be evidence of its
truthfulness. Methodism has far outstripped it in numbers;
but we should never think of contending that Methodism must
be true solely on account of its rapid increase. If a doctrine
spreads rapidly, and the reception of it has a transforming influ
ence, changing the character and habits of wicked men into those
of virtue and piety, we may safely conclude that it is of God,
that it is true. But, where shall we look for such results from
the spread of Universalism ? We ask, where ?
For the state of the cause in Maine, see Sec. CXXII.
CXXXV. Christians, because they cannot fellowship Uni
versalists, are often charged with bigotry. We deny the charge
ancl submit the following :
If evangelical Christians hold the fundamental truths of the
Bible, then the doctrines which stand directly opposed to these
must be infidel in their character. None, we think, will dispute

SeC. 135.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE.

375

this. That they do hold the truths of the Bible they firmly be
lieve. The question we now propose, is this : Is the Univer
salist system antagonistical to the whole system of evangelical
Christianity ? Leading men in the order shall answer this. Mr.
Williamson says :
" I have no disposition to conceal the fact, that there is a wide
and irreconcilable difference between us and our opposers ; nor
can it be denied, that if we are right they are wrong ; not mere
ly in some points, but radically, and I had almost said totally
wrong. This is a truth with whieh we are well acquainted ; and
that man pursues a mistaken policy, nay, even a wicked course
of hypocrisy, who attempts to conceal this fact. There is no
manner of use in endeavoring to make it appear, that there is
but a shade of difference, between us and other denominations ;
for there is a difference, high as heaven, wide as the earth ;
a difference as hopelessly and utterly irreconciliable, as light and
darkness ; and there is no disguising thc obvious truth, that if
one system is true the other is false, desperately and hopelessly
false, I had almost said, in its whole length and breadth." Exp.
and Def. of U, p. 215.
Such is the strong language of a distinguished Universalist
minister, relative to the perfect opposition of the two systems.
Mr. Grosh, another great man in the order, says : " Our faith,
as of old, is opposed in every material part, that can effect the
honor of God and the happiness of man, to the faith of the re
hgious world." Mag. and Advocate, p. 349.
Abundance of similar testimonies are before us in their peri
odicals. We select the following from other leading men. In
the Trumpet for Dec. 12, 1835, is an article on the " Tendency
of Universalism," taken from the Gospel Banner, in which the
following is found :
" The tendency of Universalism is, obviously, opposite to that
of Partialism. They are clearly and plainly opposite senti
ments; and, of course, must be opposite in their tendency and
influence. If one of them is true, and productive of beneficial
e quences, the other is not ; and vice versa. Both of them

376 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part II.
cannot be sustained by the word of God, if that word is itself
worthy of credence ; for 'a house divided against itself cannot
stand.' If, therefore, tbe word of God is divided, and presents
opposite and conflicting sentiments, it cannot sustain the test of
critical examination, and should at once be abandoned."
This is doubtless from Mr. Drew/then editor of the Banner, as
no correspondent is named.
Again : In the Banner of Nov. 2, 1844, is a sermon by J.
Boyden, delivered before the United States General Convention
of Universalists, in Baltimore, and in speaking of the opposing
sentiments with which Universalism had contended, he says :
" How difficult then to establish a doctrine so diametrically
opposed to all the leading and long cherished opinions of the
age!" The Trumpet is before us for August 18, 1838, in which Mr.
Whittemore quotes the following from Mr. Royce, who, in con
trasting Universalist with Orthodox views, says :
" Universalism has ' a different God, a different Christ, a
different spirit, a different sinner, a different sin, a different
atonement, a different grace, a different pardon, a different salva
tion, a different resurrection, a different judgment, a different
punishment, a different hell, and a different heaven — in fine, a
difference with respect to all the essential doctrines of Chris
tianity.' "
After quoting the above, Mr. Whittemore' uses the foUowing
very emphatic language :
" To this we give our assent. Mr. Royce is right. We con
firm Ms words, that Partialism is, in every sense, a very differ
ent doctrine from Universalism. He cannot represent the dif
ference to be too great."
Here it is contended, by these prominent men in the order,
that their religious belief is in all respects entirely opposite to
that of Christians in general ; that the difference is " as high as
heaven, wide as the earth, and as hopelessly irreconcilable as
light and darkness ; that there is no disguising the obvious

Sec. 135.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OE THE BIBLE. 377
truth, that if one system is true the other is false, desperately
and hopelessly false ; that Universalism " is opposed in every
material part to the faith of tke religious world ; " that it is
" diametrically opposed to all the leading and long cherished
opinions of the age ; " and of the two systems it is said : " If
one of them is true and productive of beneficial consequences,
the other is not ; and vice versa," and we " cannot represent
the difference to be too great."
The unqualified testimony here given, that Universalism
is diametrically opposed to evangelical Christianity in every
essential point, is correct ; and we call the special atten
tion of those professors of religion, who have been somewhat
deceived by their goodly words and affected piety, as occasion
may require, and are beginning to have a morbid sympathy for
the system, to the statements of these leading advocates. With
these facts before them, what view can enlightened Christians take
of the system ? They must either acknowledge their own sys
tem infidel in all its essential features, or else they must look
upon Universalism as a system of infidelity, having assumed
the Christian name to give it more force. This we conceive to
be its true character.
By its own showing, the two systems are complete antipodes,
and Mr. Drew, just quoted, says: "If one is true, and pro
ductive of beneficial consequences, the other is not ; and vice
versa." Professing, as they do, to be a complete "opposition con
cern," what shall we think of their oft repeated efforts to brand
us with the character of bigots, because we cannot fellowship
them as Christians ? Do they really think that it would be an
act of Christian liberality for others to fraternize with them, and
thus endorse their religious character and sentiments ? Might we
not inquire, " What concord hath Christ with Belial ? or what
part hath he that believeth with an Infidel? " 2 Cor. 6 : 15.
Must we aid the incendiary in kindly the flames to burn the
house over our own heads in order to be liberal ? And are we
18*

378 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part II.
to be accounted bigots because we cannot unite with this class of
people in a religious capacity ? In a religious capacity, we say,
for we would live on terms of good neighborhood with them, as
men and citizens. We would unite with them, the same as we
would with other irreligious men, to rescue our fellow beings
from temporal evils.
We would as readily seize hold with a Universalist minister to
pull a man from the water or fire as any one else. But we can
do nothing knowingly to endorse his sentiments, or to recognize
him as a gospel minister. We cannot look upon him as one of
Christ's ministers, or his gospel as Christ's gospel. We would
love Universalists as those for whom the Saviour died, and do
them good. We would deprive them of none of their rights.
Yea, more, if their rights were in danger, we would aid them in
securing them.
We, too, have rights. We claim the right of exemption from
the charge of bigotry, because we cannot unite with those whose
sole business is to destroy that which we consider more valu
able than Ufe itself. It is most conscientiously believed, that no
enlightened Christian can unite with Universalists in a religious
capacity, any more than he can with the disciples of Tom Paine.
Is this bigotry ? Then was the loving and beloved John a
bigot. He says : "If there come any unto you, and bring not
this doctrine, receive him not unto your house, neither bid him
God speed. For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of
his evil deeds." 2 John 10, 11.
Surely the errors to which John refers could not have been
more inimical to thc gospel of Christ than are Universalist doc
trines. It is only infidel liberality that makes God's truth of so
little value, and glaring and poisonous error so harmless, that all
who choose to call themselves Christians must be so considered,
whatever the doctrines they may hold and teach. We believe
no man can understandingly embrace Universalism, and be a
Christian, any more than a man can understandingly embrace
Mormonism, and still remain a Christian.

Sec. 135.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE.

379

There may be some deluded persons who have been drawn
among them unwittingly, who retain, for a while at least, some
thing of their Christian character ; but, as a general thing, they
soon become imbued with the spirit of the order, which we con
ceive to be nothing less than a war with Jehovah's attributes
and penalties. But is it right to class all in the denomination
with Infidels ? This we have not done. Many are with them
who are not yet, neither do they mean to be Infidels, for they
are not enlightened to see the true character of the system. But
it would be a severe reflection upon the intellectual character of
its leading advocates, were we to say the same of them ; and we
think no Christian man capable of tracing all their windings,
and detecting their perversions of scripture, can sit down to their
books without becoming established in the opinion, that their
leading writers have no manner of faith in the Bible as a divine
revelation, in the proper sense of that term, but are Infidels at
heart, and have brought forth this system and baptized it with a
Christian name, the more successfully to oppose vital godliness,
and to make money by preaching and writing it.
That they use the Bible and profess a regard for the Christian
faith, is well known. How they use tho Bible has been shown
in these pages ; and as to the profession, that changes nothing.
Theodore Parker, and his compeers in Infidelity, profess a high
regard for pure Christianity.
Chubb, a noted Infidel, entitled one of his Infidel tracts,
" The True Gospel Asserted." Universalists preach and write
some smart things against Infidelity, whUe its chief elements are
found in their own system. (Sec. CXVIII.) Informing this
estimate we look more particularly at what is denied concerning
God the Father, Christ the Son, his nature and offices, the Holy
Ghost and his work, and the condition and wants of man. We
look at the treatment the Bible receives, and the baneful influ
ence of the doctrines inculcated, (Sec. CXXXVII,) in pro
ducing irreligion, general skepticism, and nothingarianism.
Now what is the obvious duty of Christians in respect to this

380 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part II.
system of error ? Let its votaries be treated with the same
kindness that all other unconverted men are entitled to, but do
nothing which shall seem to bid them God speed in their work.
Build no meeting houses with them, neither open any for them
to disseminate their doctrine. Yield to no expediency in this
matter ; it will always prove bad in the end. Somo Christians,
to please their friends, have occasionally accompanied them to
Universalist meetings. The influence of this goes to confirm
them in their errors.
If our friends have been deluded by the system, it is a
weighty reason why we should give no countenance to it what
ever. Let direction be sought of God, in the closet, and a
Christian will seldom be found under the poisonous droppings of
a Universalist sanctuary. A conscientious and strict disfellow-
ship is demanded by the love we should bear for Universalists
themselves, for a world lying in wickedness, and for " the
church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood."
Napoleon's policy was to make those upon whom he made his
aggressions pay the expenses of his wars. Universalists pursue
a similar course of policy in getting up fairs, levees, and Sabbath
School exhibitions, for which a fee of admittance is required, the
object of which is to sustain Universalism. Some Christians aro
induced to attend, not fully realizing what they are doing, and
thus they aid the enemy in his warfare against the armies of
the living God. Christians, beware how you cast you influence
and pay your money !
CXXXVI. Twenty-four years ago, Mr. Whittemore, after
laboring to show that it availed nothing against modern Univer
salism for the opponents to refute the opinions of Origen, Relly,
and Winchester, said, (Trumpet, April 1, 1831) : " Univer
salists now know of no condition for man beyond the grave, but
that in winch he is as the angels of God in heaven."
Here no future punishment is declared to be a denominational
sentiment. He has shown, too, in his Modern History of Uni-

Sec. 136.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 381
versaUsm, pp. 439-441, that there were but few, comparative
ly, as early as 1829, among their preachers or people who be
lieved in any future punishment whatever. But some have en
tertained the opinion that they are about to abandon the no fu
ture punishment scheme, and go back to Restorationism. What
evidence is there of this ? We are aware that there has been a
little controversy through their papers concerning future punish
ment, pro and con. This, we conclude, is a kind of sham fight,
the design of which is well understood by their leaders. We
have known a few of their preachers, who were said to be be
lievers in future punishment, but never heard of their preaching
it. To make such a presentation occasionally may answer their
proselyting ends, especially when it is desirable to bring about a
marriage between the Universalist and Unitarian denominations
in certain locaUties.
The sum and substance of the instruction imparted concern
ing the future is this : ' ' Just what you desire the future state to
be it shall be." Will their people desire punishment after
death ? Not they. If there is punishment after death, then in
preaching it there must be appeals to their fears concerning it.
Would their ministers be allowed to do this ? We doubt if there
is a Universalist congregation in our land that will tolerate the
enforcement of future punishment by their minister. He may
be permitted to hold it as a private opinion, but he must not
preach it. After all, we conclude that this doctrine hangs
rather loosely about those mmisters in the order, who assert a be
Uef in it. They fraternize with those who deny it, and appear
perfectly at home with them.
To a mind unenlightened upon the subject, the doctrine of
limited future punishment does not at first present so glaring an
absurdity as no future punishment ; and it is a fact that the
most of those who apostatize from the truth, do not embrace the
no future punishment scheme, at first, but believe in future pun
ishment and restoration. To help forward this class, these
preachers doubtless find it convenient to have a set of reserve

382 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part II.
doctrines, the public advocacy of which would not be tolerated
by full grown Universalists.
Their first great labor is to prevail upon men to abandon end
less punishment ; this gained, they then, like the leaders of the
French Atheism, initiate them into other degrees, and soon they
reach the sublime climax of modern Universalism, namely : Re
ligion is designed only for this world ; so far as tke future is
concerned, tke saint and the sinner stand on a perfect level ;
all shall be made holy and happy by the resurrection.
Some of the order, when hard pressed with the absurdity of
no future punishment, have stated that the number of believers
in future retribution is numerous in the denomination. If this
is so, why are we not informed in what part of the Bible the
doctrine is taught ? Why is it not preached from their pulpits ?
Why is it not taught in their books ? Wc have in possession a
large number of books, sermons and tracts, from their ablest
ministers, and in them all there is not a single effort to
teach future rewards and punishments ; but on the other hand
the doctrine is uniformly combatted by these authors, and the
future-state reference of those texts, which Restorationists for
merly employed to teach future punishment, is denied. We
called a short time since at the Universalist book store in Bos
ton, and inquired if there was a book on sale in which future
punishment is taught, or if any one in the denomination had
issued such a book. The man in attendance said he knew of no
such book issued among them. Their approved catechisms, used
in their Sabbath Schools, do not teach it. They are before us
by Balch, Bacon, Skinner, Adams, and S. R. Smith, not one of
whieh even intimate that there is anything whatever to he
dreaded by the sinner in the future world ; but on the contrary,
the last named author combats the doctrine. Now if the belief
of future punishment is common in the order, why is it not
found in their catechisms, designed to indoctrinate their chU
dren ? And why from their pulpits do they not point out the
scriptures and enforce the doctrine by them ? Probably those

Sec. 137.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 383
who profess to believe it, hold it as a mere philosophical specu
lation, and are not over-anxious that it should have any practical
effect, save to cover up one of the absurd features of Universal
ism, or to gain the favor of Unitarians.
A few years since, Mr. Drew, (Banner, Nov. 18, 1844,)
speaking of some of his brethren in the ministry, who believed
future punishment, says of them : " Their desire for the peace
of the order has caused them to be more careful than some
of different views have been, as to committing the order to their
opinions." That is, they have, very generally, said nothing about a fu
ture hell, to which they believed their fellow men exposed ; but
have been in closest union with, and have suffered their fellow
travelers to eternity to be deceived by those who were teaching
no future punishment, and that for the sake of "the peace of
the order ! " What shall we think of the honesty and
'benevolence of such teachers as fail to apprise men of such
danger. CXXXVII. All that modem Universalism professes to do
for man is confined to this world. Its doctrines are productive
of the purest morality. This is the profession. Does it accom
plish what it professes ? Pages might be filled with the testi
mony of such men as Charles Hudson, Adin Ballou, Dean
Todd, Whittaker, Smith, Bailey, Dow, Turner, and others, who
have left the order and have given us the result of their obser
vations concerning the baneful influence of the system, as put
forth by Ballou and Whittemore.
Those ministers, who left them in 1831, calling themselves
Restorationists, have presented the deleterious influence of mod
em Universalism from what they themselves had witnessed, in
as deep colors, as any anti-Universalist ever did. But for our
present purpose we prefer to give statements from the pens of
those who are now in fellowship with the order. Twenty years
ago the editor of the Trumpet, in furnishing an account of his

384 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part IT.
visit to the Maine Convention of Universalists, and of the re
solves reported and passed by that body, says :
" They declare the cause of Universalism worthy ihe sup
port of men of piety and religious feelings ; and recommend
to the societies in Maine, ihat no man known to be addicted to
the habits of drunkenness, or gambling, or profane swearing,
or who is an unbeliever of Christianity , should be appointed
to office in the societies." Trumpet, July 11, 1835.
From this we readily learn what class of men rallied for the
support of Universalism at that time. Observe : There is
nothing said in the resolution about private members, only
the officers ! This was passed thirty-six years after the organ
ization of the Maine Convention. What shall we think of the
sin-killing power of Universalism, when, at so late a period
in its existence, it was found necessary to pass such a resolu
tion? A few years later, and we find Mr. W. C. George, a minister
of the faith, writing as follows :
" There is, I fear, too much of disrelish among Universalists
to practical preaching. Too many who call themselves Univer
salists, are glad to have our ministers hew our opponents in
pieces, very much as Samuel did Agag, and to illustrate and de
fend the great doctrine of human salvation ; but when he ex
horts them to abandon bad habits, and to live good lives — when
he preaches repentance and reformation, why that is very good,
but then the orthodox are' always harping about religion and
morality ; and we want the people to hear our doctrines." Ban
ner, March 27, 1841.
If it is a self-evident fact, that those who love the practice of
Christian morality do take pleasure in hearing it taught from the
pulpit, what is the conclusion we are to draw from the state
ment of Mr. George ?
A few years after this, Mr. J. George, of the State of New
York, said by Mr. Drew to be one of their best ministers, writes
as follows :

Sec. 137.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 385
" I will notice a few particulars in the character of our de
nomination, which, for myself, in the light of the gospel, I can
neither approve or countenance." The first thing Mr. G. names
is, "A want of attention to the vital claims of religion upon
the heart. It is a shameful truth, that this important demand of
the gospel is almost entirely neglected in the denomination.
Vital piety, a new heart, and a prayerful and holy life, as the
first obligation of the New Testament, has but few advoQates in
the order."
Again, Mr. G. says: "There is among us a contentious,
wrangling, controversial spirit, which is certainly uncalled for.
There are multitudes professing, a faith in Universalism, who
seem to think that they have performed their duty religiously by
a boisterous defence of their faith in controversy, and by giving
their orthodox neighbors a severe and unmerciful castigation.
There is a notorious lack of public spirit in the denomination.
The missionary cause, and that of education is wofully disre
garded and neglected, and the tme catholic spirit is almost ex
tinct among us. There is an unwillingness to make any sacri
fice for the intellectual and spiritual improvement of others, and
this is to be attributed to a want of vitality, of deep religious
feeling and devotional sphit among us."
These extracts are taken from a June number of the Gospel
Banner of 1849. This is not from an opponent, but a volunta
ry confession of a friend and minister of the order, who would
be interested to represent the matter in the most favorable light.
Yet such is the corruption and irreligion in the denomination,
that he is obliged to speak out most truthfully. Mr. G. should
become sensible of one more fact, namely : That these evil fruits
are legitimate ; that Universalism is a bad tree, and can never
bear good fruit.
We see in the hght of these facts why it is that Universalist
papers have contained so much scurrility against Christian denom
inations, and why tho editors of the-order have seized with so
much avidity upon the real or supposed defections in the minis-

386 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part II.
try and membership of Christian churches, spreading them
before the world to meet the cravings of their patrons. It is to
pull others down on a level with themselves, in the public mind,
that they do this. It answers as an apology for their own sins.
The vastly superior numbers in all the Christian denomina
tions over their own, both in the ministry and membership, af
ford them great advantage in collecting this offal. Facts could
be given, were it necessary, concerning not a few of their minis
ters, which, on a relative view, would place the order in no very
enviable light.
A few figures will show that, on a comparative view of num
bers, (Sec. CXXXIV,) for every individual case of immorality
among them, there should be at least thirty-four among the
Methodists to render it equal, and sixty-one in the ministry of
the evangelical churches of the country. (Sec. CXXIX.)
The same view may be taken of the respective memberships,
only there is a far greater disparity in numbers here than in the
ministry. A few years ago, some of the leaders in the order
became quite zealous in church-forming, but the effort was looked
upon with but little favor by the most of their people, and some
of their ministers ; for since all men are the dear children of
God, why should such a division line be drawn between children
of the same family ? There was evidently too much Partialism
in the idea for well instructed Universalists, and the thing has
succeeded so poorly that they do not attempt to furnish the num
ber of church members in their statistics.
A vast majority of the most zealous among them assume no
church resposibilities ; and when persons of this class commit
deeds of wickedness, why then, forsooth, they were never Uni
versalists ! Christians, acting in accordance with the New Tes
tament, form churches, extend their labors to the low and vi
cious, as well as the moral, seek their conversion to God, and
when conversion is professed, gather them into churches, and
strive to throw around them those influences which have a ten
dency to keep them in the narrow way which leads to heaven.

Sec. 137.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 387
Thousands are thus saved to themselves, to their friends, and to
the world, for usefulness. Among those thus gathered may be
some hypocrites, perhaps Universalists at heart, (Sec. CXXVI,)
or some may fall away and commit wicked deeds, and the
churches be obliged to expel them, and what then ? Why, such
cases are taken up and published in Universahst papers as the
fruit of Partialism !
Taking into the account their paucity of numbers, and the
very few who assume church responsibilities, it will be seen that
theirs is a mere Indian warfare with the armies of the living
God. What a fine opportunity it would afford them to build up
their people, not in holiness, but in hatred to others, if for every
immoral minister among them, sixty-one such were found in
other denominations. Others, when a defection occurs, bring the
offender to trial and suspend or expel, if found guilty, and by this
it becomes more extensively known, ancl soon finds its way into
Universalist and Infidel papers. But Universalists are so char
itable that some of their ministers, known to be guilty of im
moral acts, continue to preach as though nothing had happened.
To such an extent has this been carried, that even Mr. Drew, a
few years ago, was compelled to utter his complaint as follows :
" We have seen too much of this false mercy — this real in
justice — among Universalists. They have not dared to deal
with their dishonest men, lest the public should find out that
they had bad men amongst them ! " Banner, Jan. 31, 1841.
If Christians desired such food for a spiritual growth, and their
ministers and editors were base enough to joyfully deal it out to
them, a black list could easily be furnished, three to one in pro
portion, from the ranks of the Universalist ministry. Think of
these facts, reader, when you chance to take up a Universalist
paper, -and see some doleful- account of the " fruits of Par
tialism." Modern Universalism has had its birth and being amid the
largest religious freedom, and has used its license to the full ex
tent, as the world knows. Its advocates have traveled, preached

388 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part IT.
and printed at their will. With great zeal they have explained
their doctrines, and caricatured evangelical sentiments. They
have converted some to their views, and induced many to hate
evangelical sentiments and operations, and yet with all these ad
vantages we find the wretched state of things described by the
writers we have quoted. The cause of this is told in a few
words, namely : Universalism is not of Qod. Its motives are
not those which God has furnished to move the heart to peni
tence and piety. Preaching the love of God to sinners, at the
expense of other revealed truths, never did or can produce love
to God in the heart. On the other hand it will produce irre
ligion as surely as a constant presentation of the harsher truths
in the abstract will produce fanaticism. The world has witnessed
an illustration of the former in Universalism, and of the latter
in Millerism. It would have been well if the votaries of each
of these delusions had heeded the words of Christ to the devil,
where he says: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by
every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Matt,
4:4.
All the doctrines of revelation should have an influence upon
tbe heart to give it a proper religious balance. It is not a pre
sentation of the abstract idea that God is love, that produces
love to God in the human heart. The sinner must first see his
disease and danger, and with penitence and faith receive Christ
as his Saviour ; and then, and not till then, is the love of God
produced in the heart ; not by hearing that God is love, but by
the Holy Ghost. Rom. 5 : 5.
But it may be asked, if Universalism is thus baneful in its
influence, how is it that some respectable men are found in the
denomination ? We answer : That they are so upon the same
principle that some, who openly profess Infidelity, are persons of
many good qualities, in many respects good citizens, and kind
neighbors. We are all aware that there are some such Infi
dels, yet no Christian thinks of attributing these good qualities
of theirs to Infidelity, but they possess them in spite of Infidel-

Sec. 138.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 389
ity. Notwithstanding their hatred to Christianity, they are
greatly indebted to it for its moulding and elevating influence
upon their own character. If their birth and education had been
in a heathen land, they would doubtless have been as debased
as millions now are who possess minds naturally as good as their
own. Now these respectable Universalists occupy the same po
sition in respect to true Christianity. Many of them are chil
dren of praying parents, and all have had the advantages of a
general Christian influence and instruction, and were the same
respectable men, before they had any connection with Universal
ism, and some of them still retain this character, in spite of
Universalism and their opposition to truth. This system had no
agency in giving them this character. It is a fact, too, that not
a few of this class are not aware of all the absurdities which must
be believed, and all the truth whieh must be rejected, in order to
be a consistent modern Universalist.
CXXXVIII. The bugbear of insanity and suicide caused,
as they say, by the doctrine of endless punishment, is an im
portant matter to be kept before their people by Universalist
editors. " The occasions of insanity are various as the numerous sub
jects which claim the attention of the mind. In most cases, the
cause, near or remote, is in the constitution, latent until revealed
by some casual circumstance, which imparts a sudden or unusual
excitement to the mind. In very many instances, the direct oc
casion is known to be a hereditary pre-disposition to insanity,
which is almost sure to show itself at a particular stage of men
tal development, under all circumstances. In general, any sub
ject which attracts attention, and excites the mind beyond what
is consistent with health of body or mind, tends to destroy the
harmony of the mind and produce insanity. In some countries,
cases of insanity are much more numerous than in others. Cli
mate, diet, and customs, become inducing causes, by the influ
ence they exert over physical and mental developments. The

390 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part II.
exciting cause of insanity, in a great majority of cases, are either
of a business character, or arise from sudden and calamitous
change, of one kind or another, in worldly circumstances or
prospects. Recent investigations of this subject in Paris confirm
these remarks, and so does the last report from our own State
(New York) Asylum. Out of sixteen hundred and nine cases,
only one hundred and fifty-two aro put down as occasioned by
'religious anxiety,' leaving fifteen hundred and fifty-seven to
be referred to other causes. Out of fifty professional men af
fected with insanity, only eight were clergymen. That religious
anxiety does in some cases lead to insanity, I have no disposition
to deny ; but this fact is no argument against the causes of this
anxiety. To suppose it is, would compel us to condemn all
mental discipline, and all business transactions, because the
anxieties and perplexities connected with such persuits, are
sometimes inducing causes of insanity. Moreover, I wish you
to mark and remember, that for every single case of insanity
produced by those religious feelings which arise out of evangel
ical views of Christianity, we may safely calculate upon the pres
ervation of two from that affliction, by the salutary and conser
vative influence of that same religion. By far the greater
amount of insanity is among the irreligious and depraved. In
so far as they are brought under the influence and power of
evangelical religion, are they reformed and preserved from those
habits of dissipation, and acts of dishonesty and wild specula
tions in business, which lead to so many catastrophies, and be
come the inducing cause of insanity. This subject is beginning
to be understood by those who have charge of the insane, who
are recommending the exercises and motives of religion, as a
means of restoration. The Christian religion is founded on the
revealed character of an infinite God, and is therefore adapted
and intended to call into exercise the highest powers of the hu
man mind. A religion incapable of interesting the mind, or
exciting it to an extent that might, under some circumstances,
induce insanity, would, in my humble judgment, be unworthy
the attention of intelligent beings." Rev. D. Holmes.

Sec. 138.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 391
But how does it happen that so many who have been deluded
by the spirit rappers, become insane and commit some most hor
rid suicides, when they are assured by the good Universalist and
Infidel managers, that the spirits declare that there is no hell ?
Surely, endless punishment is not the cause of this. Why do
Universalists become insane, and why do they commit suicide ?
Why did A. V. Bassett, a Universalist minister in Dedham,
Mass., commit suicide by cutting his throat a few years since ?
Was Partialism the cause ? Why did young Crawford hang
himself in the jail at Lowell? Was Partialism the cause of
this ? Did he believe that an endless hell awaited him in the
future ? No man with such a belief, possessing as sane a mind
as the letters left by Crawford evinced, could have committed
suicide. This act was a most cool and deliberate one. We
learn from an article published in a Lowell paper at the time,
that Crawford had been educated a Universalist, that his pa
rents were of that faith, and that his father was very zealous in
the cause. Crawford had connected himself with a gang of
counterfeiters, was detected in the business, and confined in jail
to await his trial, which would have taken place in June, 1840.
Knowing the evidence of his guilt was such that he could not
escape the state prison, he resolved on committing suicide. He
wrote one letter to a man respecting his business, and another to
his mother, assigning the reason for committing the fatal deed,
as follows :
" He had got into trouble — and trouble for life — and he
thought he would get out of trouble the shortest way." "He
bade his friends farewell till they should meet in an unknown
world, where parting was not known."
Now, as horrid as it is, we contend that Crawford reasoned
like a philosopher, and acted a most consistent part, believing as
he did. Why, we ask, should a man suffer in the state prison,
and then the ignominy and disgrace all his life of having been
there, when heavenly bliss is so near him, that a piece of rope,
the razor, or the pistol, will give him a sure transition thither in

392 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part II.
a few moments ? Young Crawford showed that he possessed no
slavish fear of his Heavenly Father. He evinced, too, his faith
by his works, and this act calls loudly upon those who are of
like faith to go and do likewise, and take as many more with
them as possible, especially if they are in trouble, and thusshow
their philanthropy and benevolence.
A few years since a Baptist minister, in Maine, was deluded
into a belief of Universalism, and on a day he gave his reasons
for renouncing his former belief and embracing his new opin
ions. This was a great day with the Universalists in that re
gion, and they listened to his story most joyfully. But a short
time elapsed, however, before the poor man, availing himself of
the privilege of a Universalist, committed suicide by hanging,
and thus evinced his faith by his works. A minister of tho
right stamp for such an occasion was employed for the funeral,
and the audience listened to the stale perversion of, " For he
that is dead is freed from sin." Rom. 6 : 7. (Sec. VI.)
Is it said that the man was insane ? This act is not to he
taken as evidence of it, if Universalism is true. Is it not ra
tional to escape all evil, and secure the greatest amount of per
manent good possible ? Does not the suicide do this, if Uni
versalism is the truth ? Most certainly he does. Is it still con
tended that he was insane ? But how could that have been,
when he so firmly believed Universalism ? Does Universalism
produce insanity ? The leaders in the order would do well to
be looking into this. This case occurred in Harmony, Maine.
For the sake of surviving friends wo would say nothing of such
cases, were it not to show that modern Universalism, when sin
cerely embraced, leads directly to suicide, especially when earthly
hopes are blasted or comforts destroyed.
The editors in the order are cruelly reckless of the feelings of
friends, when they can in any way turn a suicide against future
punishment. They iterate and reiterate such eases with all tbe
recklessness of misanthropes. Were other editors equally reck
less, they could present an astonishing array of suicides commit-
ed by those who had no fear of the future.

Sec. 138.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 393
The effects of removing all fear from the minds of wicked
men, respecting the future, is strikingly illustrated by the French
people. We are told by a French, writer in the New York Ob
server, that "it is estimated that there are in France at least
three or four thousand suicides a year."
Is it a beUef in endless punishment whieh causes so much
suicide among the French ? No ; for they are as strong in their
hatred to this doctrine as American Universalists are. The
writer tells us the cause is their belief in Materialism, by which
all fear of future retribution is removed. A great portion of
the French people look upon man as a machine — to run for a
while ; and that death is an eternal sleep. The thought of
suicide enters into their business calculations, and misfortune in
speculation, a Uttle trouble or disgrace, carries them out of the
world by their own hands. He gives the case of a comedian,
who kUled himself because he heard a hiss. To illustrate this
position, he presents the following respecting a murderer :
" We have seen the same doctrine advanced before the courts,
by an assassin, who was a man of some education. This wretch,
named Lacenaire, gravely told the court that he had made a sort
of algebraic equation between the advantages and the dangers
of crime. ' I knew well,' said he, ' that by killing others I ex
posed myself to perish on thc scaffold. But what is the punish
ment of the scaffold ? It is a momentary pain, and then comes
annihilation. I foresaw what has overtaken me ; but meanwhile
I have enjoyed the fruit of my. assassinations, and I persist in
maintaining that I made a good calculation. Since I have fallen
into your hands, condemn me, and cut off my head ; you are
my enemies and I am yours ; we shall be even. I do not at all
regret having kUled several persons to seize what belonged to
them ; I would do it again if I could.' Thus spoke Lacenaire
at his famous trial."
Ungodly men love the doctrine of annihUation in proportion
to their love of sin, and as they become wretched by it. It is
the good man who can appreciate the value of the soul, and the
18

394 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part II.
joys of heaven, who shudders at tbe idea of annihilation. Now
we ask, is there not as much in American UniversaUsm to divest
the worst of men of all fear of the future, as there is in French
Materialism ? Suppose we substitute for these views, so common
in France, the idea that unspeakable and eternal bliss awaits every
man in the future, irrespective of character in this world, could
we expect suicides would be any less frequent among them ?
The reader can judge.
After all the hatred to evangelical doctrines, and clamor for
Universalism, we conclude that there are but few to be found
among them who have not their fears, in their thoughtful
moments, that punishment awaits the sinner beyond the grave,
and that the church, generally, may have been right for eighteen
hundred years past, while they have been mistaken. In this
way, and tbis only, can we account for the great desire of hfe
on the part of Universalists, even though some of them are ex
tremely wretched here.
The Christian believes that deliberate suicide would shut his
soul out of heaven, and consign it to unutterable woe ; and under
its influence he never would commit the deed. But Universal
ism teaches that there is nothing for any to fear beyond this life ;
that the man who puts an end to his own life, or dies in the act
of taking the life of another, shall be immediately crowned with
Paul, and enter into bliss ; for it says that there is no condition
for man in the future, but that in which he will be as the angels
of God in heaven. (Sec. CXXXVI.)
One thought more. Such is the disparity of numbers, that
for every Universalist minister that becomes insane, there should
be at least sixty-one believers in future punishment afflicted in
the same way, to make it equal ; and so with suicides. What a
shout would ring through the Universahst camp, if sixty-one
evangehcal ministers were to commit suicide on the same day ;
but this would be no more in proportion than for one Universal
ist minister to die by his own hands on that day. (Sec.
CXXIX.) If there is any argument in the simple fact that

SeC. 139.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE.

395

believers in future punishment sometimes become insane or com
mit suicide, that argument lies with equal force against Univer
saUsm, since some of its votaries are found in the same condition,
and do the same thing. Religious men sometimes become
insane, when their religion has nothing to do with producing it,
as every well informed man knows.
CXXXIX. Much has been written by Universalists to show
that endless punishment cannot be reconciled with the love of
God, and much has been written by Atheists to prove that pres
ent evil is inconsistent with the idea of an infinitely perfect
Being ; and the arguments of the last named class are of equal
force with those of the first. It by no means follows that
because some things appear to us unreasonable, that therefore
they are so in themselves or in their relations. Tell a savage of
the wonders of the magnetic telegraph, and left simply to his
reason he would exclaim, I cannot believe it ; for it is unrea
sonable. But let him become assured of the superior information
and strict veracity of his informer, and relying upon his word,
he would,beheve the fact, although his reason could not compass
the manner of its existence, or its mode of operations. This
faintly Ulustrates the relation of man's reason to the revelation
and ways of God. We say faintly, for while there is a vast dif
ference between an enlightened mind and the mind of a savage,
there is, between the greatest mind of man and the mind of the
AU-wise God, an infinitely greater disparity ; hence, what may
appear perfectly reasonable to his mind, may appear unreasona
ble to man. Reason is to be employed in religion to learn what
God has revealed, and not to dictate what God must reveal.
The sincere believer in the Bible relies upon the superior knowl
edge and strict veracity of its Author, and therefore admits the
existence of facts, when revealed, the mode and relations of which
he cannot fully understand. Some things may be far beyond
human reason, but not contrary to right reason. God has endued
man with only a portion of that reason which he possesses in

396 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part II.
absolute perfection. The great fault with Universalists is, that
while they have professed deference for the Bible, they have
ever practised upon Rationalistic principles. (Sec. XCVIII,
CXVIII.) They first assume what is reasonable, according to
their limited conception of things, in the government of God,
and then, not to be considered infidels outright, they bring the
Bible twisted into all manner of shapes, to sustain their theories.
We believe that endless punishment harmonizes with the love of
God, because they are both revealed ; and the believer in the Bible
need go no further. We believe, also, that sin and present
misery harmonize with the love of God. But had we no knowl
edge of their existence, we could never, by reasoning from the
attributes of God, come to the conclusion that they do exist ;
much less could we harmonize their existence with the love of
God. The Bible reveals the love of God, and matter of fact
teaches us the sad lesson that human misery is widely extended.
To say that this vast amount of human suffering is to secure a
greater amount of good to man in the end, does not help the
matter, as may be seen Sec. CIV. and CXIV.
CXL. A striking evidence of the antagonism of Universalism
to the Bible, is seen in the frequent explanations its advocates
are obliged to give of numerous portions of scripture, to keep
their people in anything like a believing trim. Common sense
often rebels, and the text explained does not remain explained.
No class of men are called upon for explanations of scripture so
often, according to their own account, as Universalist ministers
and editors. It is quite amusing to look over files of the Trum
pet, in our possession, for eleven years, and see how often the
same text is explained. Some member of a Christian church
desires to become a Universalist if he can, and a text must be
cleared away for his benefit ; or some disciple is in doubt, and
something must be done for him ; or some beUever in eternal
punishment has sent a poser to the editor, and that must be attended
to. This affords Mr. Whittemore, with some show of reason, an

SeC. 140.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 397
opportunity of publishing his stale stereotyped arguments and per
versions again and again. No ministers have so many texts
selected for them — none meet with so many inquirers after
truth. A minister receives a request through the post office ; it
may be written by himself, to give his views of a certain scrip
ture ; and who can blame him now, if he lets go a whole broad
side against the Partialists ! Who can blame him if he gives the
old rigmarole upon Sheol, Hades, and Gehenna ? That some
of these letters are written upon the editor's table or in the min
ister's study, we have no reason to doubt, for priestcraft is not
confined to the Romish clergy ; but that they have many inquir
ers who find it impossible to harmonize the views they cherish
with the Bible, is also tme. It is this difficulty with the Bible,
which brings forth such a great amount of doctrinal matter in
their periodicals and books. You can seldom take up a number
of some of their leading papers, without finding in it a doctrinal
essay or sermon, to say nothing of other baseless arguments and
clap-trap paragraphs, thrown in by the editor and others. Then
look at the great number of their doctrinal books. In proportion
to their numbers, they have doubtless ten times more doctrinal
matter afloat than any evangelical denomination in our country.
Evangelical Christians are not under the necessity of constantly
repeating their arguments in proof of their doctrine, or in oppo
sition to Universalism ; neither are their editors often catechized
concerning troublesome texts. Now why is this ? Is it because
their people do not study the Bible, or are indifferent to what it
teaches? By no means. It is because they confide in the
Bible, having no doubt concerning the meaning of those passa^
ges used to sustain their doctrine. This great labor of Univer-.
salists to prove their doctrines, reminds us of a boy we knew
when at school, who was a notorious Uar, and seemed to feel
obhged to repeat a statement several times, with great
vehemence, in order to be believed. Indeed, such is the vast
labor required to make Universalism even plausible from the
Bcriptures, that its advocates can find time for but little else save
to prove their doctrine, and help the numerous doubting ones.

398 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part H.
CXLI. The advocates of UniversaUsm boast much of the
superior moral influence of their system, because of the better
view it presents of God ; and it is assumed that our views of
God's penalties are productive of revenge, cruelty, and bloodshed
among men ; for, say they, if God punishes when it is not for the
good of the sufferer, then it is right for man to do the same, as
he is certainly at liberty to imitate his God ; or, in other words,
man may treat an offending fellow man, as God treats an offend
ing creature of his. Now here is a great faUacy, put forth and
elaborated by the whole tribe of Universalist advocates, in some
form or other. The truth is, we are not at liberty to even at
tempt to imitate God in everything, for we are to learn our duty,
as dependent creatures, not so much from what God does as from
what he says. The faUacy of this argument is seen in the fact
that the Supreme does not stand in the same relation to man that
one mortal stands in to another ; and as the relation differs, so
must the conduct differ. God has given us a written revelation
to guide us. This points out most clearly our duty to God and
man ; and if some men have taken vengeance into their own
hands with the idea that they have a right to imitate God, it is
no proof that the idea of vengeance in the divine administration
is false, but only shows that such have mistaken their rule of
duty. God demands, and has a right so to do, that his crea
tures worship him ; but has any man a right, in imitation of
God, to claim worship from his fellow men ? Certainly not.
Man-worship has obtained in the Romish Church ; but is this to
be brought as argument against the doctrine that God is to be
worshipped ? As well might Universalists do this as to urge
the cruelties of wicked men against endless punishment. It will
not be contended that the French Atheists were under the influ
ence of this doctrine, for they hated it as ardently as our Uni
versalists do ; but the world has witnessed their fierce cruelty
and bloodshed, and thousands who clamor against endless pun
ishment in our time, have hearts no better than theirs. The
origin of cruelty is found in the depraved nature of man ; and

Sec. 141.] UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. 399
under certain circumstances, whatever his doctrinal views, he
will be heartless and cruel. The love of God shed abroad in his
heart, by the Holy Ghost, can remove the difficulty. But the
heart can never be improved by cherishing a hatred to God's
penalties. Craelty and persecution, it is said, grow legitimately
out of the doctrine of endless punishment, because men will imi
tate their God. This is precisely the argument of the French
Atheists against the being of a God. He is the Sovereign of
the universe. AU the sovereignties of the earth grow out of the
idea of a sovereign above, and as nature teaches equality, the
idea of a king above must be banished from the minds of the
people, before earthly thrones can be destroyed. This was their
argument, and it is just as forcible against the sovereignty of
God as the Universalist argument we are considering is against
endless punishment. We are not prepared, however, to deny
the doctrine of divine sovereignty, because there is king-craft
upon earth.
The scriptures speak of God's executing vengeance, which is
the opposite of good. Take the foUowing : " Dearly beloved,
avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath : for it
is written, Vengeance is mine ; I will repay, saith the Lord.
Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him ; if he thirst, give
him drink ; for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his
head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good."
Rom. 12 : 19-21. Here man is prohibited the right of taking.
vengeance on an enemy, and the reason assigned is, that it is God's
prerogative. God executes vengeance ; but as man does not
hold the same relation to his fellow man that God holds to man,
as his lawgiver and Judge, he may not imitate God in avenging
himself. Man must seek to overcome evU with good ; but God,
instead of overcoming evil with good, will execute vengeance ;
and thus we see that vengeance in the passage stands opposed to
good, for, " Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord."
In the light of this, we see the sophistry of that question so often
and artfully put. by UniversaUsts, namely : " If God requires us

400 UNIVERSALISM NOT OF THE BIBLE. [Part IT.
to overcome evil with good, ;will he not do the same for all his
creatures ? " Is it said that the term vengeance is not to be
understood in a harsh sense, but in the sense of a disciplinary
punishment for the good of the sufferer ? This view reduces the
text to a senseless mass of contradiction. It makes the apostle
say, " Dearly beloved, do no good unto your enemies ; for it is
written, good is mine, I will do them good, saith the Lord;
therefore, my brethren, overcome evil with good." Attach the
sense to " vengeance " that Universalists do, and all must see
that this is a correct paraphrase, as absurd as it is. We see that
the term must be understood as expressing a positive evil in
opposition to good.
Did space admit, it might be shown that the severe punish
ments recorded in the Bible, such as those upon the Sodomites
and others, are liable to the same objection we have been consid
ering ; for were these acts of God extensively imitated, by his
creatures, great cruelty must be the result. Not that God was
cruel in destroying the Sodomites, but it would be cruel in men
to burn their fellow men with fire and brimstone, because they
are not at liberty to imitate God in such a work, for reasons
already given.

GENERAL INDEX.

GENERAL INDEX.

Page
Anger of God, proved endless by U. arguments,  48, 261
not a passion, as in men,  336
not retained forever,  v . . . .206
All nations, sense of,  13
gathered at Jerusalem,  96
All shall know the Lord, perversion,  22
All one in Christ, perversion  22
Angels, holy, are polluted heathen,  61, 95, 177
all men to be equal to them,  70
fallen, reserved in chains,  118
All Israel shall be saved, perversion,  27
All men saved years ago,  40
drawn to Christ,  100
Atonement, vicarious, denied,  291
Apostles persecuted for preaching TJ. refuted,  258
All, not always a universal whole,  76
Aion, considered,  301
Age-lasting,  305
All flesh not expressive of the whole race,  88
Apocalypse, when written,  314
does not refer to the future state,  58
All saved without future suffering,  321
the idea first advocated by a man calling himself a minister,  371
After death the judgment, (Heb. 9: 27, 28,)  50
All things, restitution of,  74 172
All kindreds, sense of,  .13
As in Adam all die,  214-217
Anthenagoras, his sentiments  393
Annihilation, its influence,  383
sustained by quibbles  98
who love the doctrine,  393
Attributes of God, argument from,  86, 87, 287, 288, 321-323

404 GENERAL INDEX.
Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost  23, 303
Ballou, 2d H., rebukes the perversion of Rev. 5 : 13,  58
says of the Fathers, for more than 100 years after St. John,
" that there was a future state of suffering, they all agreed,". . . .369
Barnabas, his views,  .'  367
Ballou, sen., H., a preacher 27 years before he learnt that there is no
future judgment,  371
his reply concerning the devils in the swine,  269, 270
his disbelief of miracles,  333
Balfour, W., denies the immortality of the soul,  218
Bigotry, charged with, for disfellowship of U.,  374-380
Conditions implied when not expressed,  17, 163
Christ, revealed from heaven when Jerusalem was destroyed,  61
never died as Priest,  51, 62
came not to save men in the future world : quotations from
Ballou, Whittemore, Williamson, and Skinner,  291, 292
saves none from all sin in either world,  293
deficient as a teacher of TJ  364
came not to destroy sin, and reform the sinner,.  124
came not to judge the world,  121
his temptation,  265-275
careful to correct the errors of the age, Mr. Whittemore's tes
timony,  367
made a sinner by U  214,215, 268
Christians, not gathered when Jerusalem was destroyed,  64
fled from the scene,  68, 96, 97
their duty in respect to U  379, 380
appeals to their fears,  163
Crown at the end against TJ  105
Controversy, caution to be used,  845
Coming of Christ, the same in 1 Thess. 4 : 15-18 and 2 Thess. 1 : 7-10  66
also Matt. 25:31-36 and 1 Cor. 15: 23,  99,100,230
predicted Matt. 16 : 27, 28, and fulfilled Matt. 17 : 1-5,  103
five different comings,  104
Jerusalem's destruction never so called,  102
Cain not threatened with endless punishment,  83, 84
Confess, every tongue shall,  138
Changed in the twinkling of an eye,  230, 231
Church of Christ, a vile body,  300
all belong to it,  300
Church forming not successful ; why ?  386
Creature subject to vanity, (Eom. 8 : 20,)  307
Chauncey, Dr., his opinion of Eev. 20: 12-15,  314, 315
Clemens Romanus, his views,  367

GENERAL INDEX. 405
Clemens Alexandrinus, his views,  368
Coppin, Eichard, account of,  371
Christian, his views of the gospel,  170
Conscience, hell of,  112-115
Cloak at Troas, Williamson's illustrations,  260, 261
Creed, obliged to make one,  330
Crawford, the suicide,  391
Doctrines of TJ., arguments to prove often repeated, and why,  396, 397
Damnation, opposed to salvation,  283
one of the precious promises,  283
Dead, sense of, (Rom. 6 : 7,)  30
Devil, children of,  44
Elymas, child of,  45
Judas so called,  271
destruction of,  ». .185
personality of,  265-275
why suffered to do so much mischief,  273
piety connected with a belief of,  274
Devil and his angels, different interpretations by Whittemore and Page,. .97
Devils enter the swine,  268, 269
personality of, a Jewish behef,  270
quotation from Dr. Clarke,  268
Destruction of Jerusalem, not the judgment so often named,  67 68
Jews and Christians not separated then,  96, 97
the expression not used by the apostles,  327
all the Jews fully punished before that time,  284
Christians not gathered then,  96 64
Christian dispensation did not commence then,  181 93
Desire of the righteous, used in proof of U.,  199
Death, no more, perversion,  207
destruction of, not salvation,  223
moral, absurdity of interpreting John 5:28,29,  ... 192
of Christ, deceptive use of the passages which teach it,  290
Deceptive means, numbers in the TJ. ministry from other orders, com
parative view  352, 353
Difference between U. and Evangelical Christians, testimony of lead-
inS men>  375-377
Divine favor neither gained nor lost,  295
Die in your sins,  -„ .
Dods, J. B., a quotation from him on the resurrection,  219
Discussions, who should engage in them,  34c
Disciplinary punishment ineffectual,  286 287
Every creature, this expression considered,  c»

406 GENERAL INDEX.
Everlasting punishment, rebuke of Dr. Huntington,  91
Dr. A. Clarke,  98
not inflicted at Jerusalem,  62
cannot be inflicted in this world,  306
Jews and Gentiles believed it,  356
Christ and his apostles never contradicted it,  359
not glad tidings,  169
a belief in it constitutes a Christian, charge refuted,  343
productive of cruelty among men,  398-400
Everlasting, eternal, forever, meaning of,  301
Endless, a favorite word with U.,  304
Eternal life, its future-state reference denied,  71, 147-161
Whittemore versus Whittemore upon this expression,  80, 150, 151
a gift,  276
Exposure of TJ. beneficial to truth,  338, 339
Elect, Paul's anxiety for them,  46, 74, 82
Enemies of Christ under his feet not salvation,  222
Eternal death, expression not in the Bible,  324
Evangelical sentiments demoralizing,  106, 107, 398
Faith the substance of things hoped for, sophistry,  48
Future punishment, doctrine of, a result of TJ. interpretations, 29, 69, 166, 167
Future suffering denied,  70
Future existence not affected by our conduct here, Williamson,  269
Whittemore,  37, 147
idea refuted,  106-116, 231-233
Father, God a, TJ. views refuted,  41-46
Mr. French out upon his brethren for their perversions of Gen. 12 : 2, 3. . .19
Rom. 11 : 26,  29, 30
John 3 : 35,  79
John 12: 31,  122
Lam. 3:31,  131
1 Tim. 2:4,  132
Fear appealed to,  146
jailor,  211
subject discussed,  151-155
fear of God, Whittemore versus Balfour,  239
TJ. have their fears,  394
every penalty an appeal to fear,  163
Flaming fire, (2 Thess. 1 : 8,) a specimen from Ballou,  60
Fathers, Christian, their views concerning a future state,  365-369
Felix, why he trembled,  135
Fatalism of TJ.,  288, 203-206
Forbearance of God, TJ. robs him of it,  164
Future state, what you desire it to be, it shall be,  .381
Free will a chimera  203

GENERAL INDEX. 407
Good, overcome evil with  399
Grace abounding more than sinj  72, 73
no grace inTJ.,  280
Generation, its meaning,  94
Gospel, affects not our future condition,  146
preached in the future state, a result of TJ. views  167
commission contains no TJ.,  167, 168
good tidings of great joy,  166-170
God, all and in all, not salvation,  223
not imitated by man,  398
Gehenna, whole subject considered,  238-251
German Universalism  330
Grain sown in one state and reaped in another,  146
George, W. C, a disrelish in the order to practical preaching,  384
George, J., his statement of the deplorable condition of the order  385
God worse than man, result of TJ. reasonings,  42, 43
Gomorrah not threatened with endless punishment,  84
Graves, Jews and Christiansraised from, when Jerusalem was destroyed, 189
" come up out of your graves," Ez. 37: 12, sophistry exposed,. . .190
and resurrection connected in but one place in the Bible, reply to, 193
Gift, salvation a,  276
Gracious words, silly argument  85
Good tidings of great joy,  166
Hermas, his view,  368
Hypocrites, or U. professing other views  345-349
Huntington, Dr., influence of TJ. upon him,  347
High Priests, never died figuratively,  51
Hope, wicked may hope for more than the good,  59
Paul's hope, (Acts 24: 16,) examined  36
can you hope for endless misery? answer to,  48
Heathen given to Christ, argument refuted,  '  78-82
Hell, no account of its creation,  87, 88
Paul never used the word,  325-327
Heaven not a state or place of happiness after death  126-129
all men came down from heaven  186
Hades, opmion of the Jews,  92
Christ spoke in accordance with this opinion,  256, 360
Historical falsehood concerning endless punishment, refuted,  365
History, Ancient, of TJ., facts stated,  369
Modern, facts stated  370-372
Heirs of promise  18
Issues, false, on God the Saviour of all men,  261
meriting heaven,  276
shuffling from doctrines to denominations,  329, 330

408 GENERAL INDEX.
Insanity, caused by endless punishment,  389
Infidelity of U.,  377-380
Immutability of God, false reasoning from,  48, 261
Judgment, day of, means gospel day, refuted,  33, 34
divers opinions of Heb. 9 : 27, 28,  60
current view refuted,  61-55
reserved wato,  118, 119
Judgment, future, how treated,  119
resurrection and judgment at the end of time,  124, 133
judgment, Eom. 14 : 10, 11, parallel with Phil. 2 : 9-11, concealed
by TJ., and why,  139
opinion of the Jews,  92
why called to judgment, if souls enter bliss or misery at
death ?  328, 329
not said to be in eternity,  328
sins open beforehand to, 1 Tim. 5 : 24,  136
general in the earth when Jerusalem was destroyed,  68
" Now is the judgment of this world," John 12: 31 ; its perver
sion rebuked by Mr. French,  122
Judge and judgment used in different senses,  119
Judgeth in the earth, sophistry exposed,  120
Justin Martyr, gives the belief of the church respecting future pun
ishment,  365-367
Jailor, case of,  210
Justice and mercy not the same,  353
Kingdom of heaven, its future-state reference denied,  21
Kingdom of God, its application confined to this world,  233
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, in it at Jerusalem's destruction,. .317,318
Lordship of Christ not salvation,  '  81
Love of God, TJ. argument refuted,  85
unchangeable,  87
not a passion, as in man,  386
preaching it in the abstract, begets irreligion,  388
harmonizes with endless punishment,  395, 396
Love to God, how it obtains in the heart,  388
Law, its penalty an appeal lo fear,  153
Liberality, U. willing to hear both sides,  336, 337
Long suffering, TJ. drives it from the divine government,  164
Last day, deceptive course exposed,  123, 124
Living God, sense of,  258
Law, Maine Liquor, its probable influence,  344

GENERAL INDEX.

409

Mercy, none in TJ.,  289
and justice not the same,  353
Murder proved innocent by TJ. license,  56
Mountain on which Christ was tempted was human pride,  267
Moral preaching not relished,  384
Ministers of Christ, their duty in reference to TJ.,.  339
Ministry, comparative view not presented,  352, 353
Materialism not extensively believed; why?  218
its influence in France,  393
Moral agency denied,  203
No future punishment a denominational sentiment,  380-383
Opposition helps TJ.,  338
A. C. Thomas' view of it,  339
the kind of opposition TJ. are fond of,  338
Oath of God,  20
Promise, Abrahamic, not fulfilled by the resurrection,  10
whole subject considered,  9-21
Punishment, future, belief of common in the order refuted,  380
demoralizing — quotation from Skinner,  106
Punishment, not after death, in what it consists,  109
social, physical, and mental sufferings considered,  109-115
all punishment a blessing,  98, 108
refuted  281-290
not inflicted before the sin,  136
inflicted immediately, Whittemore,  117
Witherell,  119
opposed to the idea that men are reserved, 2 Pet. 2:9,  118
none saved from,  155, 156, 279, 280
remission of, a curse,  83
endless, a conclusion from TJ. views of 1 Cor. 15 : 22,  217
greater error than all others put together,  358
first openly asserted by Tertullian, refuted,  365-367
Christian Fathers believed it,  365-369
Christ and his apostles never condemned it,  358
threatened in the Bible, admitted by Dr. Huntington,  91
Persecution, TJ., the sect everywhere spoken against,  143, 144
they have never persecuted,  334
never had the rod of civil power,  335
Peter's vision, perversion  186
Prayer, all pray that TJ. may be true,.  196, 197
can you pray that one soul may be damned?  198
infidel sentiments concerning; pray er  295, 296

410 GENERAL INDEX.
Prayer, not answered, refuted,  296
Cobb and Drew, their family devotions, Phariseeism,  298,299
TJ. prayer meetings farcical,  '299
one thousand dollars for proof that Christ ever prayed in public,. 298
Pentecost, day of, (Matt. 25 : 31-46,) had its fulfillment then,  90
Perfections of God, argument considered,  321
Paul, St., aspires to a spiritual resurrection in this life,  294
reproached for his TJ., refuted,  258
aspires to posthumous honors  134
against TJ., 1 Cor. 15 :  232, 233
never used the word hell,  326
his hope concerning the resurrection, (Acts 24 : 15),  36, 37
Polycarp, his belief in future punishment,  368
Pharisees, their hatred to Christ, evidence of his TJ.,  363
Predestination taught,  203, 204, 288
Parables founded upon facts and not fiction,  256
" Presence of the Lord," meaning of,  ,  62
Probation may close before death,  107
Penalty of the law, TJ. views,  109
an appeal to fear,  153
Pardon, TJ. views refuted,  156-160, 279, 280
Eesurrection, all men saved by it,  9, 10
Paul believed with the Jews concerning it,  36
Balfour's views  217, 218
current views of the order, quotation from Dods,  219
Bush refuted,  224-227
all raised in glory, the idea exploded,  228, 229
Paul labored to attain,  232
Jews and Christians raised at Jerusalem's destruction,  189
all shall be equal,  233
of the just, (Luke 14 : 14,) when it took place,  129-, 130
Christ's conversation with the Sadducees against U.,.  234
Restitution of all things not the salvation of all,  74, 172
Rule of interpretation, Whittemore's, destructive to TJ. exposi
tions,  323, 234, 121
future reference of Luke 20 : 34-36, disproved by TJ. defi
nitions,  341-343
Rationalism, resolution of the Boston Association,  331
design of the resolution,  332
men declared to be not Christian ministers, yet continue to
preach U.,  332
Ballou a Rationalist,  333
the principles general in the order,  269
hypocrisy,  ,  334

GENERAL INDEX. 411
Resolution prohibiting drunkards, gamblers, &c, from becoming offi
cers in U. societies,  384
Eeason, sinners not governed by it,  154
man responsible when itis dethroned,  209
its office in religion,  395, 396
Eich man and Lazarus, absurdity of the TJ. interpretation,  252-257
Rewarded according to works at Jerusalem's destruction,  102
Run so as to obtain, against TJ.,  105
Repentance, impossible to renew again to,  208
Statistics, TJ. church membership not given,  386
numbers when compared with Methodists  373
of different E. orders in TJ. States,  '.  352
number of TJ. in Maine,  340
Seed of Abraham, who are they?  11,12
Soul, its loss, natural life,  37-39
its immortality denied by Balfour,  217
part of God, refuted,  200-202
Sympathy, not the rule of doctrine,  42
arguments from, dishonorable to God,  43
opposed to both justice and mercy, illustration,  43, 44
appeals to, deceptive and fallacious,  322, 323
" Saviour of the world," this no proof of TJ.,  58
Salvation, none in the future state, a result of TJ. reasoning,  165, 121
none anywhere,  293
a gift,  276
made sure when God created man,  291, 292
a Christless thing,  292
all saved 3000 years ago,  40
of grace,  280
Sin, pleasures of,  108, 142
none saved from it in this world  293
its own punishment,  117,118
God its author,  288, 203, 204
evangelical views of, misrepresented  106
gospel graee saves from punishment for,  157-159
death frees from it, perversion of Eom. 6:7,  30
Sting of death,  231
Supplied words, (2 Cor. 5: 10, 11,)  67, 68
Saints and sinners on a level as to the future,  ».  231, 233
Sheep and goats, shall separate them, Page versus Eogers,  97
Saviour, God the special,  258
Satan, Peter so called  271
State Prisons, visited to sustain TJ.,  349
Atheism sustained in the same way,  350
J. B. Finley on the agency of TJ. in filling the Ohio Prison,  351

412 GENERAL INDEX.
State Prison, crimes not chargeable to Evangelical sentiments, . . .350,351
Suffering with Christ connected with future glory,  277
Strait gate,  315-318
Suicide, no sin,  319
prepunished,  318
TJ. commit it,  391,392
rational if TJ. is true,,  392
Christians will not commit it,  394
Twistical, history of the word,  349
Tares, parable of,  175-184
Tears, shall be all wiped,  207
" The dead," import of the expression,  228
Thomas, A. C, specimens of his sophistry,  48, 49
Tertullian,  368
the first who taught endless punishment in the church, re
futed,  365-367
Titus, Bishop of Bostra,  369
Terrors of the Lord, must be preached,  154, 155
Temptation, the devil not the only source,  271
of Christ,  266
Ballou's gross perversion,  267
Truth, Christ came not to make it,   291
Tatian, his doctrine,  368
Theophilus,  368
Universalism, not a new doctrine,  329
extensively believed in other sects,  345-349
extensively believed in Germany,  330
its decline in Maine,  340
" will do to live by," false,  355
never reforms,  383-389
object of its ministry different from that of the Evangelical
ministry,  346
not indebted to Christ for it, but the resurrection,  9, 10, 259
destroyed by its own arguments, 48, 49, 121, 135, 165, 217, 323-328, 341-343
comparative view of its ministry in point of numbers,. .352, 373, 386
duty of Christians respecting it,  379
ministers should expose it,  339
wisdom and information necessary,  339
some good ministers do not understand it; such should be
cautious,  ,  345
some respectable men embrace it, and why?  388, 389
not reformatory ; why?  388

GENERAL INDEX.

413

Unversalism, opposed in every point to E. Christianity,  375-377
system of Infidelity,  379
testimony of leading men in the order,  377
number of preachers in North America,  373
number in U. States,  352
its opinions grow most naturally out of the Bible,  371
many of its ministry once partialists,  352
its want of vitality accounted for,  170
its moral influence,  383
its ministry should not be listened to; why?  337
condemned out of its own mouth  347
leads to suicide,  391-394
Universahsts, disfellowship of, not bigotry,  378
treatment Christians should give them,  380
Unpardonable sin, fifty dollars offered for the expression,  325
Vengeance of God, Paul preached it,  145
purifies the sinner,  60
endless, so proved by U. logic,  261, 262
means disciplinary punishment, refuted,  399
Whittemore, T., testifies to the difference between his and other sects,. .376
a twistical writer,  349
Witherell, J. F., his pamphlet, its general commendation,  26
Wesley, John, made a U., hypocrite, and liar,  345-349
Will, human, its freedom denied,  203
God's will always done, refuted,  205, 206
absolute,  288

SCRIPTURE INDEX.

SCRIPTURE INDEX.

PAGE
Genesis 1:1  87
2:7  200
7:23  83
12:2,3  9
18:17,18  9
19:24,25  83
21:33  301
22 : 13  9
26:4  9
28:14  9
Exodus 28:29, 30  51
32:8-14  161
34:6, 7  163
1 Kings9:7  168
18:36,37  296
Ezra 9: 13  161
Job 38:28  41
Psalms2:8  78
5:5  48
7:11  261,48
22:27 
25:11  161
58:11  119
62:12  155
73:7  Ill
82:6  271
98:3  40
103:10  161
118:10  76,13
19

PAGE
Proverbs 10 : 24  199
11:7  59
11:8  59
11:31  174
13:15  142
14:32  59,324
Ecclesiastes 8: 11  106
9:2  174
12:7  200
12:14  165,324

Isaiah 1 : 18  89
2:2  39
25:7-10  76
t 27:11  206
30:33  202
32:22  395
40:4,5  88
45:23-25  138
46:10, 11  203
49:6  40
55:10,11  145
57:16  47
59:20  28
Jeremiah 7 : 31, 32  248
19:5,6,7  248
31:33,34  141,22
Lamentations 3:31  130
3:32,33  281
Ezekiel 18:4  279

418

SCRIPTURE INDEX.

Ezekiel 33 : 14-16  280, 160
37:11-14  190
Hosea 9: 15  87
Joel 2: 28  88
Jonah 1:2  162
3:10  162
4:2  162
Micah 7:18  206
Malachi 1:2  43
2:10  295, 41
Matthew 3 : 5, 6  76
4: 4  388
4:1-11  265
6:11,12  126
6:9  41
6:10  196
7:11  294
7:21  206
,8:28-34  268
JO: 23  104
10:28  238
10:39  37
10:40  13
12:32  ' 23
13:24-30  175
13:33  257
16:6  262, 362
16:19  127
16:23  271
16:25  37
16:26 
16:27,28  101
17:11  172,75
21:31  61
22:30.  234
23:13  21
24:2  93
24:9  191
24:21....  94

Matthew 24: 9-16  63
24:23  102
25:31-46  90,99, 303
26:24  .-.  278
Markl:12,13  265
3:29  23,303, 152
9:43  249
11:17  13
12:25  234
16:15,16  147,57
Lukel:68-75  18
2:10  166
2:30-32  169
4:22  85
4:1-13  265
6: 22, 23  126
7:47  158
12:10  23
12: 4, 5  238
12:32  161
13:23,30  315,285
13: 6-9  160
14: 14  129
14:16-24  77
16: 19-31  252
17:33  37
18:18  147
18:1-3  296
19:41  284
20:35,36  234, 341
21 : 24  94
Johnl:ll  16
1:12  45
3:14, 15,36  101,74
3:35  78
4:42  68
5:40  101
5:28,29  188
6:70  271
6:40  119
6:37  78
6:27  116

SCRIPTURE INDEX.

419

John 8:41, 42  44
8:21,22,23,24  124
9:39  119
12:25  37
12:31,47  119
12: 32  100
13:33  125
17:2  78
17:9,16  82
Acts 1:11  127
3:21,26  15
3:20,21  74
5:1-10  283
10;10-16  186
13:46  17
33:32,33  18
13:10  44
16:30  210
17:30,31  34
23:6-9  37
24:25  136
24:15  36, 362
26:22,23  220
28:22  143
Romans 2 : 4-16  135
3:25  159
4:11,22,24  17
4:25,26  280
5:12,17-21  69
6:7  30
6:23  276, 325
8:9  20
8:14  45
8:17,18  278
8:19-23  307
9:18  354
10:1  27
11:26  27
11:51 
12:19-21 
14:7,8  31
14:10,11  101
14:10,12  138

Romans 14: 23  196
15:8,11  18
1 Corinthians 3: 12  182
9:27  105
15:20  213
16:21-23  214, 211
15:24,25  222
16:26  223
15:27,28  223
15: 35  224
15:42-44  226, 228
15:50-52  229
15: 53,54  231
15:55-57  231
15:68  231
¦- * \
2 Corinthians 2: 11  274
4:17,18  277, 305
5:10,11  67, 154
6: 15  290
5:17  55
6: 19,20  172
6:2  121
6:15  377
Galatians 3:8  16
3: 13  282
3:16  H
3: 17-21  264
3:26  46,18
3:28  22
3:29  12
4:4,5  _  45
Ephesians 1 : 10  171
2:6  128
2:9  251
2:12  20
4:19  114
4:32  156
6: 12  268
6:16  274
Philippians 2:9-11  138

420

SCRIPTURE INDEX.

Philippians 3: 11  294
3:20,21  300
Colossians 1:20  173
3: 13  156
1 Thessalonians 2:18  94
2:14,15  61
4:5  62
4: 15-17  66,65,60 ?
2 Thessalonians 1 : 7-10  60, 66
2:10-12  283
1 Timothy 2:4  130
2:6  290
4:2  114
4: 10  258, 363
5: 24  136
2 Timothy 2 : 10.  46, 74
2: 25  209
3: 13  286
4: 6-8  133
4:7,8  260
Hebrews 2:9  290
2: 14, 15  185
4:1  153
4:3  82
5:9  144,277
6: 1,2  132
6:4-6  208
6:17-20  20
7:22,25  52
9: 16,17  181, 93
9:27,28  50
10: 11  262
10:26,31  144

Hebrews 11:1  48
11:7  154
12:11  78
James 1 : 14  271
1:17  48
2:13  354
4:7  274
1 Peter 1:18, 19  62
2Peter2:9  118
3:7  .'  32
Uohnl:7  89
1:9  171
3:10  45
3: 15  318
3: 8  170
4:14  68
4:16  85
2 John 10, 11  378
Jude6  117
14, 15  188
Eevelation 1:7  13
2:10  116
3:4  237
6:13  56
7: 10  292
7:9,10  65
14:13  49
20:12-15  314
21 : 4, 7, 8  207
21:4  265

7/1