Page images
PDF
EPUB

versalists, I should think that my argument had met a greater misfortune, than it has yet been called to encounter. The contrary was the fact. And so far as it respects this people, the difficulty which our writer attempts to remove, remains in all its magnitude, and my argument, for aught that I can see, is unshaken.

2. Admitting all the facts which our writer has stated to be correct, they contain no account whatever of the origin of the doctrine of endless punishment. I believe, with this writer, that an aspiring and corrupt priesthood has used its utmost exertions to establish an unbounded tyranny over the persons and consciences of men; that for this purpose, they not only imprisoned, tortured and put to death those who would not patiently submit to their usurped authority, but denounced the pains of endless damnation on those who continued refractory. I believe, too, that the Romish priests propagated and supported their doctrines by these means; and yet I believe that the doctrine of endless punishment existed and prevailed long before popery. Unless our writer considers that "denouncing the pains of endless damnation" is the same thing as to invent, or introduce the doctrine of endless punishment into the world, I know not where to look for his account of the origin of this doctrine. But it is one thing, to abuse the doctrine of endless punishment to improper purposes, or to make it the instrument of propagating and supporting a false religion, and quite another thing to invent it.

3. If our writer's statements could possibly be accepted as a true account of the manner in which the doctrine of endless punishment was introduced into the world, nothing could be more vague and unsatisfactory than such an account is. Whoever understands the subject, and knows that the doctrine of endless punishment is of popish origin, must be able to show from

historical records, that Universalism prevailed from the time of the Apostles, and that the notion of endless punishment did not exist till the days of popery; he must be able, not only to point out the particular time when, and the manner how, the doctrine was introduced, but inform us who introduced it, and give an account of the excitement, the opposition and other circumstances which attended its introduction. All these things are left by our writer in perfect darkness; in short, all that we learn from him upon this subject, if we learn any thing, rests only on his testimony, and we have no proof whatever of its truth, but his declaration. The origin and progress of most, if not all the superstitions of popery, are clearly marked in history, and a distinct and satisfactory account can be given of them. If, then, the idea of endless punishment was a new and monstrous doctrine, started in the days of popery, and having reason, scripture, and the natural feelings of men strongly opposed to it, would it not be singular and strange, if it had crept into the world, and spread itself through Christendom in such a silent imperceptible manner that no one could give a satisfactory account of it ?

4. The writer has quite overlooked the grand difficulty. The utmost that he has attempted is to show how the doctrine of endless punishment could prevail in a time of darkness, when "the great bulk of mankind were sunk in the grossest ignorance," and when the scriptures were kept from the common people. In a benighted and superstitious age, when the voice of reason is stifled, and the key of knowledge is withholden, we have no difficulty in conceiving how any doctrine, however unscriptural and absurd, may originate and prevail. But how such a doctrine could extensively prevail under the light and advantages of the present day, especially if the interested feelings of mankind

should lead them to oppose it, our writer has made no attempt to explain. He has disposed of this difficulty without any trouble, by merely observing, "as all protestant churches are descended from the church of Rome, it is easy to discover the manner in which this doctrine has been perpetuated." If he considers it an easy task to show how the doctrine has been perpetuated, why did he not perform it?

"The idea that man can deserve endless and interminable torments," is in the view of our author so contrary to reason and common sense, that it is "matter of astonishment that any person should ever be induced to believe it." If it be indeed matter of astonishment that any one should ever believe this idea, what must be our admiration when we reflect that it is 'the general belief of the Christian world, and that, too, in an age enlightened with a knowledge of scripture? Did we embrace the sentiments of this writer, our astonishment would have no bounds, and we could discover no possible way of removing the difficulty proposed. But it the idea that men deserve endless punishment be once admitted, the notion that those who die impenitent, will receive what they deserve, is perfectly natural, and easy to be accounted for.

Luther, the grand instrument of the reformation from popery, was remarkable, both for his independence of mind, and his reverence for the word of God. He made it the great business of his life to destroy the superstitions of popery, and propagate the pure doctrines of the gospel. If, then, the idea of endless punishment was a popish superstition, it is wonderful that neither this sharp sighted man nor his coadjutors, with the bible in their hands, were able to make the discovery, especially as "denouncing the pains of endless damnation" was one of the principal means by which the Romish church supported her usurpations.

In attempting to remove my difficulty, our writer ought not to have forgotten that the prevalence of the idea of endless punishment is so connected with its origin, that both must be from heaven, or both of men. Were nothing but its origin to be regarded, I should see no difficulty. It is only as a prevailing sentiment that I consider its human origin impossible. The "pride of the human heart, the passions of envy, anger, malice, &c." might cause a few to introduce any doctrine into the world, however absurd, unscriptural, or repugnant to human feeling. But could these passions lead an enlightened world generally to embrace such a doctrine after it was introduced ?

5. If Universalism is so clearly revealed in the word of God, that no reasonable doubt can be entertained concerning it, and if the opposite sentiment be of popish origin, I am at a loss to understand why those who have broken the shackles of popery, and become so happy as to be guided by scripture and reason, are not better agreed upon the subject. Some who advocate Universalism, contend that there will be no punishment in a future world; others, that there will be punishment, but limited; and both insist that they are supported by the volume of truth. All other denominations agree that there will be punishment, and that it will be endless.

Now what but the strength of scripture testimony could bring so many discordant denominations to unite in one point, and what but the want of testimony to support them on the same point, has divided one denomination against itself? 1. SMITH.

November, 1825.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS AND UNIVERSAL SALVATION COMPARED.

My object in making the following remarks, is to do away one of the principal objections against the last mentioned doctrine.

The objection is this: If Universalism be true, the preaching of the gospel would be useless. This objection is in the mouth of all denominations who are opposed to the doctrine, and especially in those who contend for the perseverance of the saints. They say, that Christ commanded his disciples to preach the gospel to every creature; now if universal salvation is true, all this preaching would be needless. As this class of christians, like many others, are not uniform in their sentiments, I will take for a general guide, the Rev. Samuel Hopkins' opinion of the perseverance of the saints, as laid down in his system of divinity. He says, (Vol. 2, p. 153) "The certain perseverance of the saints in faith and holiness, does not render their activity, constant care, and exertions, needless, or suppose this unnecessary; but the contrary." I would ask, why the certain holiness and happiness of all intelligent beings should render their activity, constant care, and exertions needless ?

To me, there appears more need of preaching the gospel to those who do not experience a present salvation than to those who do. Further he says, "How absurd is it then for a person to say or think, that since his care and activity in living a holy life are made certain, as necessary in order to his salvation, therefore he will exercise no care and concern about it, nor do any thing towards it, but the contrary." Again, "The doctrine of the certain perseverance of believers unto the end of life, is so far from rendering the use of means and setting motives before them, in order to promote and effect their living a life of faith and holiness, unreason

« PreviousContinue »