"ment, to produce the reformation and conversion of sinners, or "the perfecting of the saints;" but knowing "that the grace of God has not only been perverted, "but actually, in its influence, turned into lasciviousness, "they have not, therefore, renounced the doctrine of the grace of God that bringeth salvation to all men, but "separated from the infidelity, levity and corruption with "which it has been associated; and preach it fervent"ly, zealously, and as we believe usefully, under its most "ancient and appropriate name of "universal restoration," or the final "restitution of all things." We are regu"larly organized into an independent ecclesiastical body. "And from what I have heard of your character and tal"ents, should you come among us, we could be useful "to you, and afford you the opportunity to be useful to "many others. In haste yours respectfully,

แ

66

Buffalo, June 20th, 1833.

"PAUL DEAN."

Soon after the reception of the above, I received a letter from Mr. Edwin H. Stone, of Boston, containing similar remarks, from which I only extract the following;

"I perceive by the "Trumpet," of this city, that you "have "renounced universalism," it being a doctrine, "which, in your opinion, is not calculated to make men ""honest, benevolent, social, kind, humble, tolerant, and "pious." With modern ultra universalism, and its effects

64

upon society, I am well acquainted: and three years ago "the restorationists in Massachusetts, from a sense of duty "to God, and the true interests of the christian religion, "separated from the universalists, and became a distinct de"nomination. They were thus enabled to preach without "fear of "making difficulty in the order," in such manner

as they conceived the honour of Christ and the interests "of his religion required. For this step, they have been "much persecuted, and have had all manner of "evil spo"ken of them falsely."

I hope the two gentlemen above will excuse me for taking

the liberty I have with their letters, as I wished to show, that many, who have preached universalism, have seen and acknowledged the same thing that I have alleged.

I have now concluded my defence against the aspersions of the editors. I am aware that I have spoken with severity of them; but a defence against the unprovoked personal attacks of an enemy will justify more severity than would otherwise be justifiable. An eminent gentleman of this state, wrote me, that they “had but poorly paid me for my charity toward them expressed in the Renunciation," and said he "doubted whether they knew how to appreciate such charity." As they could not and would not understand any thing but the plain severe truth, I was, by them, put to the painful necessity of dealing somewhat harshly with them, contrary to my first intention. But that I may be properly understood, I will say here, what I think of universalist preachers generally. It is believed that most of them are brought to look upon the common denominations of christians as far from right, by the perversions of their sentiments, which are constantly made by universalists and infidels. That they become deeply imbued with prejudice against them; and mainly engage in universalism, from mistaken views both of the orthodox, and of the true interests of mankind. That the nature of their doctrine is such, that most of them, as well as their hearers, become so much tinctured with skepticism, that their teachings lead to the same end that open infidelity would. That there are some honest and sincere among both teachers and people, I have no doubt. There are a few learned, gifted, and talented men among the preachers, who would be useful in a good cause; but many of them are illiterate; and only qualified for levity, scurrility, and miserable satire. Winchester and Murray, I think were pious, but their system was no sooner abroad, than infidels who had been foiled in their recent open attacks on religion, by the able confutations that had been published, discovered in universal

ism a disguise for their doctrines, and spread it forth with zeal, fully satisfied that it would answer their purpose just as well. Hence the numerous conversions of infidels to universalism, which signifies nothing more than the shifting of an unpopular name for one more plausible. Infidels, and loose wicked men have cherished the doctrine enough to make it suspicious, and offensive to the christian, were there no other objection to it.

CHAPTER III.

THE FUNDAMENTAL ARGUMENTS AND PRINCIPLES OF UNI

VERSALISM EXAMINED AND EXPLODED.

SECTION I.

Introductory remarks on the belief of universalism. UNIVERSALISM simply implies the doctrine that all men will be finally and certainly saved. But the doctrine, as now generally explained and professed, is, that all mankind will certainly be immortal and happy immediately after death. This is the kind of universalism professed by the principal teachers that now pass by that denomination, as distinguished from the "restorationists" heretofore referred to. It is this last system mainly that we propose to examine, except as our arguments on this, may in some instances, extend to the other also. Universalists generally endeavour to set off their system, by making the opposite doctrine appear a very different thing from what it really is. They speak of "roasting" and "burning in literal fire," "fire and brimstone," &c. to make out the appearance of something too horrible for belief on the other side. Yet it is well known that christians do not believe the future punishment of the wicked will consist of "literal fire and brimstone." They speak of "the fire that never shall be quenched" of "hell fire," of "everlasting fire," of "fire and brimstone," of the "lake of fire," &c. But this is only using the very same language, which the Bible uses. And why do universalists conclude that we hold a horrible doctrine, because we express it in Bible language? If they respect the Bible, why do they reject the ideas it contains? But they will say, that all such language in the Bible is figurative, and should not be interpreted literally. We say so too. But if it was proper for the Holy Spirit to use such figurative language to denote

the punishment of the wicked, why is it not proper for us to use it to denote the same? And why should any ridicule the ideas contained in that language, while they profess to respect the Bible. How do they know that we mean any thing more horrible by such images of wo than the scriptures do ?

2. Suppose the scriptures teach universalism, and we should not so understand them; but should understand them to teach, that all the good, and the good only, will be saved; what shall we lose by the mistake? It will be replied, that we shall suffer much from fear of not being saved. Answer. We need then fear only just enough to induce us to be good; and so much fear as was necessary for that purpose, would be more than counterbalanced by the advantages of a good life. It will be said too, that we shall suffer much from the fear that some of our children and relatives will not be saved. Answer. This fear, however, would induce us to use every effort in our power to bring up our children as they should be; and to persuade our friends to lead good lives. And all these ends, to be obtained by fear that all will not be saved, are far greater than the trouble that such a fear ever need be to us. There is nothing, therefore, to be lost by not being a universalist, if that doctrine be true-For it appears, that we should be more likely to be good; and just as likely to be happy, on the whole, in this life, to believe the good only will be saved. And notwithstanding this errour of opinion, we should in that case, certainly be happy in the next life as well as oth

ers.

3. Suppose the scripture doctrine is, that the pious and good only will be saved, and we understand them to teach the certain salvation of all, what are we to lose then by the mistake? It will be said, nothing, because one may be pious and good notwithstanding this errour of opinion. AnWe might be. People, believing in the certain salvation of all at death, might be pious and good notwithstand

swer.