Page images
PDF
EPUB

The moment attention is diverted from this assumed point, by the enquiry concerning the way of coming at it, they are represented as broken to pieces, and as wandering off in different directions though professedly going to the same place.

Here are sixteen ways marked out by which to arrive at the grand conclusion, the salvation of all men. These theoretical paths cross at right angles, and in almost every other direction, in a manner to contradict and destroy each other, insomuch that but one out of the whole sixteen can be true. Now on the truth of one of these theories universalism depends; for it must be true in some one of these forms if true at all, unless the number of theories be increased by multiplying divisions, which will render it still more doubtful; and as all these theories are embraced by universalists with equal tenacity, each being equally confident that he has the truth, it follows that fifteen universalists out of sixteen must be mistaken, and can never obtain salvation in the way they anticipate. If then fifteen forms of universalism out of sixteen must be false, it is reasonable to conclude that it is false in all its forms. This conclusion is the more reasonable, when we consider that the main question at issue, and the only question which universalists are willing to agitate, is whether or not any of these forms are true.

3. It is too plain to be overlooked that the above account of the sentiments of universalists, savours strongly of infidelity. In two respects the features of infidelity are developed in the extract we have made. First, it appears that many universalists do not themselves believe that some very important points in their religious creeds have any foundation in the word of God. The writer says, of those who believe in punishment after death, and those who deny it, "neither believes his opinion in any wise revealed, but infers it from reason and analogy alone." The meaning of this is, some universalists believe that sinners will be punished in the future world, and at the same time do not believe it is taught in the Bible; and others believe that sinners will not be punished after death-that they receive all their punishment in this life, on the ground of natural reason, not believing it taught in the word of God. It is clear then, if we may believe a universalist witness, that many suppose that some

very important points in their creeds, have no support from the scriptures; and if the question, are sinners liable to punishment after death or not, can be decided both affirmatively and negatively with equal tenacity, without even an appeal to the law and testimony, we think universalists can have but little use for the scriptures; nor does it appear to us that persons who can decide such momentous theological points without the aid of the scriptures can have but little confidence in them as a full and perfect system of revealed religion.

Secondly, another feature of infidelity, which the extract contains is the denial of the immortality of the soul. Of H, (a class of universalists,) the writer says, he "believes in the sleep of the soul." This sentiment he applies to five other classes of universalists, making it probable that at least one third part of universalists "believe in the sleep of the soul;" that is, that the soul dies with the body and with it sleeps in the grave. This not only shows that universalism is indefinite and self-contradictory, but also that it is infidelity outright. No man honestly believing the scriptures, can believe in the sleep of the soul. Does the soul of Enoch, who was translated, sleep in death? Does the soul of the prophet, whom the fiery chariot of the Lord bore to the heavenly world, sleep in death? Do the souls of Moses and Elias, who appeared and conversed with Christ on the mount, hundreds of years after the dissolution of their bodies, sleep in death? Do "the souls of those who were slain for the word of God" whom the revelator saw under the altar and who cried, "saying, how long O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood;" sleep in death? See Heb. xi. 5. 2 Kings ii. 11. Matt xvii. 3. Rev. vi. 9, 10.

4. Universalism is self-contradictory in the means through which the grand object is to be obtained. One argues that all men will be saved because sin does not deserve endless punishment. A second contends that all will be saved because God is good to all-that he is the tender parent of all men; and because he is gracious to forgive the iniquity of his people, &c. &c. A third is sure that the doctrine of universal salvation is true because Christ has died for all men to redeem them from the curse of the law. These positions on

which universalism is made to rest, are directly opposed to each other, and cannot all be true. If all are to be saved because sin does not deserve endless punishment, then they cannot be saved on the ground of divine mercy and forgiveness, nor on the ground of Christ's death; for, in such case, they may be saved without either. Again if men are to be saved because God is merciful even to the forgiveness of sin, as universalists often argue, then the circumstance that sin does not deserve endless punishment, cannot be the ground of salvation, since a pardon would secure salvation even if sin did deserve endless punishment. Nor can the death of Christ be urged as the ground of salvation, if God's forgiving mercy secures it; for if mercy can extend pardon to offenders without the death of Christ, then sinners can be saved without it, and therefore the death of Christ cannot be the ground of salvation. Once more, if the death of Christ be urged as the ground of salvation, or as a reason why all men will be saved, then neither the small demerit of sin, nor the pardoning mercy of God can be urged as such ground, or reason. If endless punishment be unjust, and if Christ, notwithstanding, died to save men, then he must have died to save them from an evil which they did not deserve, or to prevent God from being unjust. Thus it is plain that universalism is discordant in its parts and self-contradictory, and therefore is defective as a system of religious faith.

II. Universalism is indirect and confused in its proof.

This must follow to some extent, from the confused and contradictory views of universalists stated above. Where there are so many and contradictory views taken of the same theory, there will be a proportionate confusion in the modes of proving it; for though all aim at the same point, yet as they have different modes of coming at it, each will argue as he conceives most consistent with his own peculiar views, and as there are so many contradictory views taken of the system as a whole, so the arguments employed to support it will clash with each other just as they are suited to the different forms in which it is held and defended. We will notice a few instances of the indirectness and confusion of universalists arguments.

1. Universalists labour more to disprove the sentiments of

others than they do to build up their own theory by direct arguments. The reason of this is plain; they can constantly assail others in this way without hazarding any thing in the warfare. It is much easier to oppose a system even of pure truth, than it is to rear a fortress of error, which will stand an assault; hence, universalists, by keeping their own system indefinite so as to present nothing tangible to be demolished, can, after the manner of infidels, carry on an offensive warfare without hazard. No one who has read many universalist books, or heard much universalist preaching can fail of being convinced that their arguments consist mostly of negative propositions, designed to prove that such and such things are not true. Mr. Ballou, under the pretence of writing a treatise on the atonement, has written one against it, in which the principal effort consists in denouncing the opinions of others. His exposition of the parables is in a similar style. Mr. Balfour has written an entire volume of three hundred and forty-eight pages, to disprove the existence of a place of punishment called hell. The same author has produced a second volume to disprove the existence of devils or evil spirits. This last effort is no more than justice might seem to demand of the author; for if in his first he has annihilated hell, as he pretends, it appears no more than right that he should, by another blow, strike the devils from being, and not leave them to linger in a homeless existence. In like manner universalist criticism is usually spent in attemps to prove that some pre-conceived notion of the sacred text is absurd-that such and such texts do not mean so and so. Now, we ask why is this so, if universalism be the plain and obvious sentiment of the Bible? If the scriptures in their most plain and natural construction, are not opposed to universalism, why is all this labour and critcism spent to prove that they do not mean what common readers generally understand by them? This kind of proof though it may have some bearing on the subject, is indirect and of itself insufficient. Should they succeed in proving every argument advanced by their opponents false, still it would not follow that their theory is certainly true. 2. Universalists employ arguments which contradict and destroy each other. We will give a few instances as speci

mens. It is common for universalists to urge Christ's death for all men, in proof of universal salvation. They contend that as Christ died for all men, all must be saved; for, say they, he could not die in vain. Let us then see how this will agree with other arguments which they employ. They urge the salvation of all men from the corrective design of punishment. This is a favorite argument, entering into the very composition of universalism, and is directly opposed to the argument drawn from the death of Christ. If men are to be saved because punishment is designed to make them better, then the death of Christ cannot prove their salvation; for if punishment can effect it, the death of Christ is superfluous and can prove nothing on the subject; and if punishment cannot effect the salvation of sinners, then the argument drawn from its corrective nature and design must fall. The two arguments are opposed to each other, and therefore they cannot both stand. Again, universalists argue from the goodness of God, which is directly opposed to the argument drawn from the death of Christ. If the goodness of God secures the salvation of all men, irrespectively of the atonement or any conditions, then the death of Christ cannot have secured their salvation, and therefore cannot prove it. If sinners might have been saved without the death of Christ as an atonement for sin, then it cannot have secured their salvation, and hence cannot prove it; and if sinners could not have been saved without the death of Christ as an atonement for sin, the goodness of God does not secure salvation, and therefore cannot prove it. We see then that to argue the salvation of all men, both from the death of Christ and the goodness of God, is to contradict one's self.

Universalists also introduce the justice of God to prove universal salvation, or to disprove the doctrine of endless punishment, which also contradicts the argument drawn from the death of Christ. If the endless punishment of sinners would be unjust, as is insisted, then no sinner could have been endlessly punished if Christ had never died for our redemption, since it cannot be admitted that God could do an act of injustice. Now, as no sinner could have been punished forever without a violation of divine justice, Christ can

« PreviousContinue »