Universalism does purify the heart and beget a principle there of universal benevolence and philanthropy to man; therefore it is the true faith.

18. From what the Scriptures teach respecting hope. It enables its possessor to purify himself even as God is pure. 1 John 3: 3. It is an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast. Heb. 6: 19. On the purifying nature of this hope the remarks made above on faith will apply equally as well here. They need not, therefore, be repeated. This hope is called "an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast." But how could it be so if the thing hoped for depended on the fickleness of man? Man is too frail, and erring, and helpless a being to found such a hope upon. And nothing short of a belief in God as the Saviour of all, and the absolute certainty of the accomplishment of the thing hoped for, could impart a hope to man which would be as an anchor to his soul, both sure and steadfast.

19. From what the Bible teaches respecting the confidence which we ought to repose in God. We are repeatedly commanded to trust in God. To do so, is enjoined upon us as a sacred and imperious duty. Prov. 3: 5, "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart." Ps. 62: 8, "Trust in him at all times, ye people; pour out your heart before him: God is a refuge for us." Ps. 40: 4, "Blessed is that man that maketh the Lord his trust." Prov. 29: 25, "Whoso putteth his trust in the Lord shall be safe." Isa. 26: 4, "Trust ye in the Lord forever." Ps. 9: 10, "They that know thy name will put their trust in thee." Job 13: 15, "Though he slay me yet will I trust in him." In Job 22: 21, we are required to "make ourselves acquainted with God, and be at peace." Jesus enjoins upon us to repose the most unlimited trust in God, and to take no anxious thought for the future. Matt. 6: 25-34. But if God is as he is sometimes represented to be by the believers in endless misery, how could we trust in him? And if that doctrine is true, how could we help being anxious in regard to the future? The fact is, nothing but a belief in the universal paternity of God, and that he is the Friend of all, will enable us to repose that trust in him which he requires at our hands.

We are

20. From what the Scriptures teach respecting prayer. commanded to pray for all men, 1 Tim. 2: 1; to pray for our enemies, even for those who despitefully use us, and persecute us, Matt.

5: 44; to pray in faith; for we are told that whatsoever is not of faith is sin, Rom. 14: 23; to lift up holy hands and pray without wrath and doubting, 1 Tim. 2: 8. But how can we pray in faith for the salvation of all men, unless we believe that all will be saved? And why pray for all men if God has determined that some shall not be saved, or if we believe that all will not be saved? The fact that we are required to pray for all men, and to do so in faith, nothing doubting, is a strong proof of the doctrine for the truth of which we are contending.

21. Finally, we infer the truth of this doctrine from the fact that it is in accordance with the highest and holiest desires and expecta tions of all benevolently disposed and good men; and that the opposite doctrine does violence to the intellectual powers of man, and is repugnant to the better feelings of his nature. Just in proportion as the feelings of mankind become refined and elevated, and as their intellectual powers are cultivated, and light and knowledge increase, just in that proportion will this doctrine spread and prevail.

[ocr errors]



1. Ir makes God the author of an infinite evil. Misery is evil. The idea of misery infinite in duration presupposes the idea of infinite evil. No finite being can be the cause of an infinite evil. God is the only infinite being in the universe. If, therefore, infinite evil does actually exist, its existence must be referred to God. But to suppose God to be the author of an infinite evil, is to suppose that he is infinitely evil himself.

2. It impeaches some of the most glorious attributes of the Deity. If it be said that this evil is something which God did not foresee, wish, will, desire, appoint, permit, intend nor purpose, then his wisdom, foreknowledge and omniscience, are expressly denied. If it be said that he foresaw this evil, but could not prevent it, this impeaches his power, his goodness, justice, mercy and benevolence; because, to all those whom he created, knowing that their existence would be an endless curse, he is neither good, just, merciful nor benevolent. If it be said that this evil is something which he did actually will, wish, desire, purpose and appoint, this not only impeaches his goodness, justice, mercy and benevolence, but it makes him as malignant as malignity itself;-a perfect monster in cruelty, and as much worse than a Caligula or a Nero, or even the fabled god of hell, as he possesses more power than they to do mischief, to inflict pain

and misery.

3. It teaches that our present existence is one of extreme hazard; so much so, that no rational man could possibly choose to exist under such circumstances. It has been taught by the believers in this doctrine that ninety-nine out of every hundred of the human family would suffer endless misery; and, indeed, if there is any truth in their general theory, this seems to be a necessary conclusion. Every man who is born into the world, therefore, stands ninety-nine chances of being endlessly miserable, to one of being endlessly hap py. Now, suppose a narrow bridge erected over a deep chasm or gulf. On the opposite side there is a fine country, a healthy cli mate, and everything which can be conducive to the happiness of man. On this side we must experience the same toils, deprivations and sufferings, which fall to the lot of man in this life. We are anxious to cross this gulf and better our condition. We approach to the brink of the gulf, and propose crossing the bridge. We are informed that we are at perfect liberty to do so; but says our informant, "before you attempt the passage, I feel in duty bound to inform you, that although thousands have attempted to cross this bridge, yet ninety-nine out of every hundred fail in the attempt, fall from the bridge, and are dashed to pieces in the chasm below." What rational man, under these circumstances, would be willing to attempt the passage? Not one. No we should choose rather to remain where we were, than to run such an awful hazard. And yet this falls infinitely short of being a parallel case to that of the other. In the one case we only run the risk of our lives. In the other we run the risk of being endlessly miserable, when the chances are as ninety-nine to one against us. What rational man would not rather choose to sleep the quiet sleep of non-existence, than to receive existence on such terms, and run such a desperate chance?

4. If, as is contended by the advocates of this doctrine, man is the procuring cause of this misery, then it makes infinite conse quences flow from finite causes, which is altogether unphilosophical.

5. It carries the consequences of men's actions altogether beyond the sphere in which they act; and involves the absurd idea, that we can sow our seed in one field, and reap the harvest in another. Man, by his sins, only injures himself and his fellow-men, “by destroying his own internal peace, and their external happiness" He cannot injure God, nor any being superior to himself. His


actions do not affect the inhabitants of the moon, nor of any of the planetary worlds, nor of any in any part of God's universe except those living in this world. Why, then, should it be supposed that the consequences of his actions can extend beyond the present world, to which all of his actions are confined?


6. The doctrine, as it is held by Arminians, makes man the arbiter of his own destiny, and suspends an eternity of weal, or an eternity of woe, upon his own actions. Now, we appeal to every rational man, and ask if this is not too important a trust to be committed to so frail a being as man? Man, in his best estate, is a frail child of mortality. He is extremely liable to err, and is surrounded with temptations on every hand. He is born into the world entirely ignorant and helpless, and all that he ever knows he is obliged to learn. The very first that he knows of himself, he is as he is, and he cannot help it. The very first sensations he experiences are those of appetite and want. He is very frequently placed (unavoidably by himself) under circumstances which are unfavorable to the development and cultivation of his moral nature. He is not unfrequently corrupted in his very youth by the teachings and examples of his fellow-beings. Now, to suppose that such a being is made the arbiter of his own eternal destiny, by Him who created him, is such a reflection on the wisdom and goodness of God, that we see not how the idea can be harbored for a single moment. Man manifests but little wisdom in the management of his temporal affairs. Can it be supposed then that he would manage his eternal interests any better?


7. It charges God with cruelty. It accuses him of inflicting pain upon his creatures with no good object in view; that is, in reference to those upon whom it is inflicted. It needs no argument to prove that endless punishment can result in no good to the punished. If it be said that this misery is inflicted for the purpose of vindiCannot cating God's glory, justice, and his law; then we ask, God's glory, justice and law, be vindicated only at the expense of the endless misery of millions and millions of his own children? Who would not rather think that no such being as God exists? The remark of Plutarch will apply here. "I had rather," says he, "that men would say that no such man as Plutarch ever existed, than to have them say, there was one Plutarch who devoured his ba own children as soon and as fast as they were born into the world."


« VorigeDoorgaan »