thus-" We undergo the toils [we do in spreading the gos pel,] and the reproaches and persecutions we have to bear from its enemies, because we hope and trust in the promises of God, who is the temporal Preserver of all men, as well as the Savior of mankind in general, whether Jews or Gentiles." The truth is, God is the Savior of all men in Christ Jesus who gave himself a ransom for all and tasted death for every man. He is the Savior specially of them that believe, inasmuch as they are made immediately the participants of his grace.

You refer to Rom. xi. 26. I was not before aware that this is one of the most prominent proof texts of Universalism. I pass therefore to 1 Tim. ii. 4. "Who will have all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth." The manner in which you dispose of this passage is curious. Universalists say "that to come unto the knowledge of the truth all must believe in Universalism? But do all men believe in Universalism? No, certainly not: for the author of these lectures does not." And multitudes besides, infidels and heathen, almost without number. "Has God lied? This blasphemous conclusion must follow if the Universalist's construction of this text be admitted." Very clever. But pray where is the blasphemy save in our limitarian friend's infidelity? God, says the apostle, will have all men to be saved and come unto the knowledge of the truth, Is that true, Mr. Remington, or is it not? If it is true, then Universalism is true, or the Deity will be eternally disappointed. You may take your choice of these consequences,

I shall pass the text you quote from Rev. v. 13, because I do not profess to understand that book. It will answer, however, for the complete counterpart of all those passages which are so constantly adduced from the Revelation to prove endless misery. Even Mr. Wesley's dreamy exposition will not save a reasonable man from such a conclusion.

Thus ends your examination of the prominent texts of Universalism, and I trust none of the pillars of our faith are moved out of their place, You might, by patient study, have dis covered a few more, but with your tact at exposition they would have been easily explained away. You close this part

of your lecture by instructing us "that certain classes of mankind are positively denied admittance into heaven or the gift of eternal life." In Gal. v. 19-21, you say, the works of the flesh are enumerated under sixteen different heads; and it is added that they that do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. In 1 Cor. vi. 9, 10, you find a similar catalogue, of whom the same thing is asserted. Now it would be well for you to state explicitly what you understand these passages to teach. If they inculcate the doctrine that "the unrighteous, fornicators, adulterers," &c. &c. are placed beyond all reach of mercy, let it be so understood, and let your Methodist friends cease to mock the miseries of the world by inviting persons guilty of such crimes to repentance and salvation. But then, you know, and every body knows, that this is not the doctrine of the Bible. Again, if these declarations mean that all persons dying with such characters are to be everlastingly excluded from heaven, let this interpretation be proved. Yet you know this is impossible. The Scriptures give no warrant for such an opinion. The plain meaning of all such passages is this; that the kingdom of God, whether it be understood of Christ's kingdom on earth, or of heaven itself, is a kingdom of purity and truth, in which the wicked can enjoy no part from their total unfitness for participating in its spiritual happiness. Now it is the grand design of the gospel to prepare sinners for the possession of this inheritance. In 1 Cor. vi. 11, after affirming that "neither fornicators nor idolators, nor adulterers, &c. shall inherit the kingdom of God," the apostle adds, “And such were some of you; but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, etc. in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."

The real matter of dispute between Universalists and Limitarians is not whether sinners, as sinners, i. e. with the dispositions and characters of sinners, shall be admitted into heaven, or be blessed with the enjoyment of eternal life; this Universalists believe no more than any other class of Christians; but the question is, whether sinners shall remain sinners endlessly, and thus be endlessly excluded from the felicity of the spiritual world. On this point we are divided. You

contend that some men will be wicked throughout eternity, the enemies of God, and the sufferers of his wrath. I, on the contrary, believe that Christ must reign till he hath subdued all moral creatures to his sway, till he hath finished sin and brought in everlasting righteousness, and prepared a ransomed universe for the full participation of the pleasures which flow at God's right hand for evermore. That men are now unbelieving and rebellious, is no proof that they will remain so endlessly; for Christ came to save them from their sins and bring them to a knowledge of the truth. Of course, all the facts to which you here appeal, have no bearing on the subject. That sinners cannot go to heaven in their sins, that they cannot be saved without repentance and reformation, that the gospel opens the only hope of life and immortality, is all true; and that all men shall ultimately be redeemed and sanctified and gathered together in Christ Jesus is equally true; and God shall be all in all.

tures.

I have now gone over the argumentative part of your lecHereafter I shall pay some attention to the objections you close your labors. In the mean As ever yours,

to Universalism with which time I am

THOMAS J. SAWYER,

9

LETTER XIX.

Dear Sir-I now come to your " leading objections to Universalism," with which it seemed good to you to conclude your lectures. These objections were reserved, no doubt, for the purpose of producing effect, and leaving a mighty impression upon your hearers and readers. As they add nothing to the weight of argument, however, I might be excused from the task of examining them, did not the tone and spirit exhibited in them, demand a public reproof. Grossly ignorant of all the facts necessary to form an unbiased judgment, and utterly reckless of truth, you have gone on from objection to objeotion, pouring out your abuse without mercy, upon the poor Universalist, and at the same time in a manner that says, plainer than words can speak, Thank God, I am not like other men.

I intend to deal mildly with you, however, though it may be necessary for me to utter some unpalatable truths.

Your first objection to Universalism is, that "it destroys man's moral agency, and, by consequence, makes the holy, just and good God, the author of all the sin and misery in the world. This we have proved in the first lecture."

I have looked over your first lecture with great care, for the proof of this assertion, and must confess that my search has been in vain. It is true you quote Dr. Fisk, who says that "Universalism is founded upon predestination;"-that Universalists generally are fatalists, and that "those who are not, are evidently ignorant of their system." And this is all the proof which the erudite pastor of the Willet, street church adduces in support of the gross and graceless assertion that Universalism destroys man's moral agency, and makes God the author of all the sin in the world! Not a solitary quotation is made from any Universalist author, high or low, known or unknown, and your utter neglect of such authorities shows

that all your little knowledge of Universalism was derived exclusively from your brethren in the Methodist ministry. The argument is purely a Methodist one, and with Methodists will no doubt have its weight; but to those who know or who trouble themselves to think on the subject, it must appear as it really is, a specimen of sheer assertion and wholesale abuse.

Your second objection, is, if possible, still more strange. Universalism, you say, "sets aside the atonement of Jesus Christ altogether, and makes man suffer the full punishment of his crimes, in this world. Hence, if men enter the kingdom of heaven, it must be without Christ or his salvation, and the song of the redeemed be rendered null and void forever. This we have proved in the second lecture."

That Universalism sets aside the atonement of Christ is utterly false. But the assertion that it does so, probably originated in the Rev. Mr. Remington's utter ignorance of what Christ's atonement is. You think that Christ came to save men from the punishment of their sins-a doctrine which is contradicted in plain terms, on almost every page of the Bible. Universalists believe that the object of his mission was to save men from their sins, and hence, from deserving punishment. Atonement is reconciliation, and the Scriptures assert, what the Universalist believes and rejoices in, that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself." If, therefore, men ever enter the kingdom of heaven, it must be by Christ and his salvation, and the song of the Redeemer will they sing for

ever.

I would affectionately recommend you to review your second lecture, and observe, as you can hardly fail of doing, how utterly futile are all your attempts to free the sinner from the just punishment of his sins. "He that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done, and there is no respect of persons." Hath God said and shall he not do it? Hath he spoken and shall he not make it good? The Lord renders to every man according to his works. Beware, then, I beseech you, lest you fritter away the truth as you attempt to escape the justice of God.