hearers shall doubt their teaching it at all. Certainly the inspired penmen knew how to teach well enough; and if universalist preachers and writers will teach universalism as they did, (if they teach it all) there will be no occasion to controvert their writings. They would then teach it indeed like Watts, Wesley, and Clarke. But such preaching would never be supported by the opposers of religion, as universalist preaching is now supported; and universalism never did and never will spread by such preaching.Whoever supposes universalism to be taught in the Bible as a fundamental important doctrine, with the same clearness and in the same manner, that universalist preachers now teach it, is out of his senses, and cannot be reasoned with. 9. No man therefore should preach universal salvation plainer than the Bible does; and they should preach damnation just as plainly as that does. Universalist teachers profess to respect the Bible as much as others; yet they often burlesque others for preaching about "hell torments,” the "unquenchable fire," "hell fire,” “everlasting destruction," the "lake of fire," "fire and brimstone," &c. Such like expressions were used in the Bible, as that teaches universal salvation. Now if our universalist teachers respect the Bible, and teach universalism just as that does, why do they so often ridicule us for teaching as the Bible does? Why do they not prove, that in such language, we all mean universal salvation, as well as the Bible? Why do they impute to us an opposite meaning, and ridicule us as holding to the being literally roasted in fire and brimstone, &c. barely because we use such language as they say, in the Bible, means universal salvation? Would it not be better for them to teach universal salvation just as the Bible did, "everlasting punishment" and all; and then prove that not only the Bible, and Watts, Wesley, and Clarke, but all other eminent divines of all denominations, and of all ages, who have taught rewards and punishments in just such language as the Bible did, were universalists? F 10. A person can never be justified in teaching universalism who has any doubts of its being a Bible doctrine; because if some believing it, would still lead good lives, many others would take indulgence from it, and in case it proved false, would thereby endanger their everlasting welfare.It is not necessary therefore, that the Bible should teach plainly endless punishment, to justify us in not being universalists. Suppose the Bible neither taught certain universal salvation, nor certain endless punishment plainly, but that the good and the pious shall be saved; and its general language would seem to imply, that such only could expect salvation; then we could not be universalists; neither could we be under any obligation to support, or vindicate, or justify endless punishment. When the author first renounced universalism, why then, did the editors of universalist papers, insinuate that, therefore, he was bound and vindicate the doctrine of endless punishment? Why insinuate that he must be dishonest in renouncing universalism? Again, if the Bible teaches that all the good will be saved, and the good only; and as all may be good if they choose; endless punishment could not be taught in the Bible positively and unconditionally, except as matter of pure prophecy; but the evidence of endless punishment would be mainly drawn from the conditional expressions of the Bible in regard to such as might not accept of Christ, from inferences also drawn from biblical representations of the fate of certain characters, compared with the actual existence of such characters in the world. to prove As our theory admits that all will be saved, who will embrace Christ, we are not bound to prove positively that any will be endlessly punished, but only, that none but the penitent and good will be saved.* *By penitent and good, we mean to be understood in the common acceptation of the terms. And we admit of course the salvation of such as are not accountable, infants, &c. without reference to character. It devolves, therefore, upon universalist teachers themselves, to prove from reason and scripture, that all men will be saved whether they become pious and good in this life or not. Nay-it further devolves on them to prove it so clearly, indubitably, and unequivocally, that we can safely risk everlasting consequences on the proof. And all we need to show, to justify the course we have taken, is, that' their doctrine is not susceptible of such clear, positive, and certain proof. Do not understand us, that it would be difficult to prove endless punishment as clearly and as positively as the nature of the subject admits of; but only, that we are under no necessity to do any thing more, than to show, that it is not certain, that any more than the good will be saved. And that the Bible, in its plain and most obvious sense, does not teach the certain salvation of all. SECTION II. Some of the fundamental REASONS of universalists examined. 1. Universalists generelly begin their system in what they call sound reason; and having established it in their minds, as a system of philosophy, so clearly and indisputably, as they suppose, that it must be true; they then go to the Bible and search out all those passages, which alone seem to favour it, and commit them to memory so well, as to be able to hand them out fluently on any occasion. They next study out, either themselves, or by aid of their teachers, some subtle way to explain hard passages, (as they call them,) so as not to let them overthrow their favorite theory. Most of common professors of it, however, never consider themselves able to give the curious explanation, (or evasion,) but are always sure their preachers can do it. Indeed, the explanation, or rather, evasion of these hard passages, is the principal business of universalist teachers. 2. We now state the grand argument, upon which the conclusion, that all will be certainly saved, is entirely founded. "God is infinitely good, and of course, must have designed in the beginning, and must still design the greatest possible good of his whole creation. "The greatest possible good of his whole creation requires the universal salvation of all. "But God is infinite in power, and of course can carry his design to promote the greatest possible good—the universal salvation of all, into full execution. As, therefore, God designs, in his infinite goodness, to save all men, and can, in his infinite power, save all, all men will and must be saved." This argument we say is the grand foundation of the whole system. To this the Bible is forced to yield, whether or no! We admit the argument plausible; but we deny that it is conclusive. It is all founded on an a priori argument-reasoning from what God is, to what he must do. This is the wrong way to reason. Instead of this, we should reason a posteriori, from what God does do, to what he is, or may do. 3. The argument is confuted by well known facts, and of course is good for nothing. If the greatest possible good of the whole creation requires the final salvation of all men, it also requires their present salvation. The present happiness of all men, is just as necessary to the greatest possible present good of all, as the future happiness of all men is to the greatest possible future good of all. If God must have designed, that all men should be happy in the future world, because he was infinitely good; by the same reasoning, he must have designed that all men should be happy in the present world. Yet we see, all here are not happy. What certainty have we then, in reason, that God's goodness and power will accomplish, and must accomplish hereafter what it fails to do now? An angel before the creation, learns that the world is to be made and peopled. He begins to calculate whether sin and misery would ever exist in the new world. He saysGod is infinitely good, and therefore must design to prevent all sin and misery; and he is infinitely powerful, and therefore, can prevent them; and therefore, they must and will be prevented! This argument would have proved, equally strong, that the divine attributes must have prevented the sin and misery now in the world, and that have been in being for some thousands of years, as it would prove now that those attributes must prevent the existence of sin and misery at any future time. But notwithstanding an angel before the creation, might have proved, that no sin and misery can ever exist under the government of God, by the very same argument that universalists prove it cannot exist at a future period, yet he would have found, in the event, all his speculations, on what infinite goodness and power must do, confounded in the absolute existence of sin and misery.What certainty have we that this same argument now used to disprove the future existence of sin and misery, is any better than it would have been, when used to disprove their present existence ? If infinite goodness and power must necessarily prevent all misery at any future period, why must not the same infinite goodness and power prevent all present misery? If infinite goodness and power must not necessarily have prevented the present miseries of the world, there is no evidence that they must prevent the fu ture. 4. This difficulty completely upsets the very foundation of universalism. It crumbles their favourite argument into nothing. They cannot get over it. Neither can they twist round it, nor crawl under it. If it be consistent with infinite goodness and power to admit the existence of sin and misery at one time, we cannot say, that it may not be consistent with the same goodness and power to admit their existence at any other time, and at all other times. They will attempt to get round this trouble, by pleading, that temporary misery was necessary to promote the entire |