place of punishment. This theme is so much dwelt upon, and this place is described in such a way, that the hearer's mind is wholly absorbed with it. To be saved from this dreadful place is, with him, the most essential part of religion.

2d, The objector is constrained to practise selfdenial, much against his inclination, to avoid the torments of hell. If there was no hell he would indulge in all kinds of iniquity. But seeing that there is such a place, to avoid it, he restrains his inclinations. His holiness is the mere effect of fear. The man is chained and in fetters and cannot act himself. Only let him loose from these, by assuring him that there are no eternal torments in hell, and he would be foremost in the ranks of licentiousness.

3d, The objector has a very wrong view both of sin, and the salvation of Jesus Christ. He thinks sin a pleasant, good thing, if it were not for the hell torments in which it must end. He plainly intimates that this is the chief, if not the only thing which prevents his present enjoyment of all the pleasures of sin for a season. Now nothing, we think, more obvious from Scripture, than this, that sin is connected with present misery; and that truth and holiness are productive of happiness. The ways of transgressors are hard, whilst wisdom's ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths lead to peace. A man that feareth the Lord, happy is he; but though the wicked join hand in hand they shall not go unpunished. Licentiousness is inseparably connected with loss of health, reputation, and property; besides all the pangs of remorse and mental agony to the individual. liness is connected with health, reputation, and temporal prosperity, in addition to peace and serenity of mind, which are worth every thing else the world can afford. But the objector does not think so; for he seems to think that a life of licentiousness is the


most happy kind of life he could lead, and but for the dread he has of hell torments, would gratify every sinful lust and passion. But he has also a wrong. view of the salvation of Jesus Christ. His mind is so much absorbed with the subject of hell torments, that he has no idea of being saved from sin, but merely from such a punishment. Now the objector should remember that our Lord received the name Jesus, because he should save his people from their sins. But does he find that he received this or any other name because he should save them from eternal torments in hell? I do not find it once mentioned in the Bible, that Jesus the Saviour, is said to save any persons from hell. He came into the world to save even the chief of sinners. He came to save men from sin, from the course of this present evil world, from ignorance, folly, crime, and death; but no inspired writer ventures once to say that he came to save men from endless punishment in Gehenna or hell. But this view of Christ's salvation seems, in a great measure, lost sight of: and with the objector and many others, is taken very little notice of, if they can only be saved from eternal punishment.

But the objector says further, "Look at the loose principles, and still more loose morals, of the Universalists; and adds, by way of triumph, whoever heard of a revival of religion among them?" As to the first part of this charge, we think enough has already been said, showing, that persons who understand the true principles on which the doctrine of Universal salvation is founded in Scripture, can neither be licentious in their principles nor morals. Such Universalists are no more accountable for the licentious principles and practice of all those who style themselves Universalists, than Calvinists, Methodists, or any other sect, are for similar characters among them. The very same charge has been brought against other de

nominations: and, at the present time, is urged with great zeal against the Unitarians, and indeed all who are not orthodox.

As to the charge of loose principles, we observe that this is a very loose way of speaking; for we may call any principles loose which do not exactly accord with our own. This is the kind of shot every party fire in their turn at each other, when they have nothing better at hand. Before we can determine any principles to be loose, we must first settle what are true Scriptural principles. The standard must first be established, before we can determine the principles which deviate from it. The principles of our Lord and his apostles were counted loose by the Jews. Besides; do we not find that every thing which does not accord with the popular creeds of the day, branded with this same mark, for party purposes? At the Reformation, the principles of the reformers were counted loose by the Romish church; but these very loose principles which they advocated, are certainly a blessing to us in the present day. Indeed, what man since their day, who ever attempted to state any thing from his Bible, contrary to the popular belief, but has been obliged to submit to the same kind of scorn and obloquy? Some of the principles advanced by those calling themselves the orthodox, in defence of the doctrine of the Trinity, in the present day, would have been deemed not only loose, but also heretical, by the persons whose names are the objects of veneration to the different seets of the day. Calvin would not now own many of those who call themselves Calvinists, because their principles have become so loose, and differ so much from his. And we doubt if Hopkins would not, like Calvin, disown many who call themselves Hopkinsians. Yea, Mr. John Wesley, if he was to rear his head from the tomb, would remonstrate, we think, with the Metho

[ocr errors]

dists, that they have become loose in their principles, in not following up the system which he left them. And it is a notorious fact, that there is a falling off, in almost every sect, from the rigid systems which were originally given them by their respective founders. All sects of professed Christians have corrupted their way upon the earth, and are rather more loose in their principles than they once were. What can be a more loose principle than this, compared with ancient orthodoxy, that Jesus Christ made an atonement for the sins of the whole world. Yet this loose principle is now embraced pretty generally by not only Methodists, but Congregationalists, Baptists, yea, by almost all sects of Christians. This loose principle, which formerly would have been considered universal salvation in disguise, is now advocated by the sects of the day, and what more loose principles they may yet adopt, it is not for me to say, or even conjecture. Such has been the rapid march of Scripture inquiry and investigation, that orthodoxy now is a very dif ferent thing from orthodoxy twenty years ago. And what orthodoxy will be twenty years hence, time must develop. If Calvin was now alive, that which is the current orthodoxy, would be heterodoxy with him. He would disown it..

Connected with this loose principle; another is now advocated-that the number which shall be sent to hell at last, to be eternally miserable, will not be a greater proportion of the whole human race, than the persons executed in any country are to the whole community. The man who should have broached such a loose principle as this, in former years, would not only have been detested in the religious world, but would have been burned as an heretic. We ask, how much more loose must those persons become in their principles, to be as loose as I am in mine? They have not many steps to take to stand on my ground; indeed, they have

got one foot on it already. If Jesus Christ made an atonement for the sins of the whole world, we really think that such persons might let all the world be saved. Why deny him the glory of saving all for whom he died? Must he die in vain for a number, and must they suffer eternally for the very sins for which he made atonement or reconciliation? And if such persons have reduced the number which are to be eternally miserable to so few, why not let the Saviour's triumph over sin and death be complete, in saving the whole? If my principles are loose, the principles of such persons are far removed from old, rigid orthodoxy. The fact is, that nothing is easier than to call certain principles loose. The question with every man ought to be, are they true or false? This suggests another-what saith the Scriptures? To them I have appealed, and by their decision I am willing to abide; and shall feel grateful to the man who will show me my error, by an appeal to the same authority. The word of God correctly understood, is true orthodoxy, and no man's principles ought to be condemned as loose, until it is shown that the standard of truth does not warrant such principles. It will be allowed that men have gone beyond the Bible, in rigid principles. This, present orthodoxy warrants me to assert. It is the duty of orthodoxy to show that my principles are more loose than the Bible.

As to the second part of this charge, made with such an air of triumph,-"Who ever heard of a revival among the Universalists?" We shall now attempt a reply: As we do not wish to hurt the feelings of any who may differ from us about revivals of religion, we shall touch this point with as gentle a hand as possible.

1st, If preaching the doctrine of hell torments produces revivals of religion, it is not to be expected that any revivals of this kind could be produced among

« VorigeDoorgaan »