penitentiaries are nearly all of them the subjects of that faith.* Surely if this dogma possessed the practical virtues which its advocates claim for it, we should not find a people vicious in proportion to the prevalency of its belief amongst them; but it is incontrovertible, that we do so find them, and therefore it has no such virtues. 7. "But in a matter of this sort," does the reader say? "it is a maxim of prudence to choose the safe side. Supposing it is; is it safer to doubt the divine goodness than to trust in it? Will God be angry with those who ascribe to him more benevolence than (according to your system) he actually possesses? And will he punish them for such an ascription? This hacknied maxim of prudence, has, after all, no prudence about it; we have no right nor power of choice in the matter of our belief-we are bound by conscience, and compelled by necessity to believe according to the decisions of evidence, and, so far as it respects our eternal state, one belief must be just as safe as another. The catholic is deterred from embracing protestant principles by the consideration, that though the latter may be better-i. e. more reasonable and scriptural-his own are more safe. "You cannot be saved out of my church if my faith is true," saith he, "whereas, by your own confession, I can be saved out of yours; prudence then cautions me to choose the safe side." The Jew, and the Mahomedan, use precisely the same argument, each considering salvation sure in his own church, and uncertain out of it; and its foundation in al cases is the weak supposition that a dependence on the divine mercy alone is insecure. "God may be as good as you say; out then he may not; and it is the more prudent course to repare for the worst, that in any event we may be safe." Shame in sucn distrusts of the divine goodness! and on the systems of heology which tend to beget them! 8. We must be careful how we adopt mere arbitrary interpretations of scriptural terms and phrases, or we shall easily be tertained dubts as to the truth of the notion of endless suffering: he had for fourteen years belonged to a church, which makes this an essential article of faith. *A few years since the newspaper vituperations against universalism, on the ground of its supposed vitiating tendencies, provoked an examination among tho state convicts of Auburn and Sing Sing penitentiaries, in order to ascertain whether this system of religion had influenced them in their choice of a criminal course of life. The result of the investigation was, that not a singie universalist was found in either of these establishments. The author of this work visited the prison at Auburn two years ago; this is in the heart of a country abounding with universalists, and yet among its 800 convicts not one believer in this doctrine was included!! deceived as to the doctrines of the bible. For example; Walker defines the word redemption, "The purchase of God's favour by the death of Christ." Could anything be more absurd than the idea, that the infinite Being sells his favors? and sells them for the blood of suffering innocence?! The scriptures everywhere represent the grace of God as being free, or gratuitous; but purchased grace can scarcely be termed free. Webster gives us as the meaning of damnation, " A sentence to eternal torment;" and he even refers us for his authority to Mark xvi. 16. Now it happens that said passage is entirely silent about "eternal torment;" and that there is nothing in the connection which necessarily implies anything of the kind; consequently, both his definition and his reference are a sheer assumption. Three words in the original tongues, which are wide of each other in their signification, (I mean sheol, tartarus, and gehenna,) are represented in our common version by the one English word hell; and, until lately, it was not known that even, this term has now a different signification from what it had formerly; insomuch, that Christ could be Isaid to have "descended into hell." (See what is miscalled "the apostles creed,") without its being thereby meant that he went down to a region of torment, which is the idea now conveyed by the phrase. The English words eternal, everlasting, forever, etc. most commonly signify endless duration. The reader must bear it in mind that the scriptures were not originally written in English; the original terms which in our version these are made to represent, often to misrepresent, are not equivalent in their meaning, but require to be understood in each case according to the connection in which they stand; hence these terms cannot be relied on as sufficient, of themselves, to settle such question concerning duration as may arise in the course of this investiga tion. But of these things in their proper place. For the present the reader is only requested to bear in mind, that his religious ed ucation has led him to associate with every biblical term a partic ular idea, and that this association is often incorrect, having grown out of interpretations entirely arbitrary; and, therefore, that it is in such cases likely to lead him to wrong results in his inquiries into the meaning of the scriptures. He is requested as far as possible to guard against the influence of this circumstance; and, instead of leaning too much upon any authority aside from the scriptures, to prefer making them in all possible cases the interpreters of themselves. Lastly. Although it is freely confessed that mere human authority is insufficient for the settling of a question like the one before us, yet should it be found, that a doctrine now received as true, was not known by christians in the early ages of the church, the fact would warrant the conclusion, that said doctrine is not taught in the scriptures. What should we think of a politician who should set up certain principles as belonging to the Jeffersonian school in politics, and on enquiry it should be found, that none of the immediate successors of that statesman had ever held them? We should conclude with certainty that said politician was mistaken. In like manner, when a theclogian starts a theory in religion, and we find it to have been unknown by those who immediately succeeded Christ and his apostles in the gospel ministry, we are compelled to conclude against the truth of said theory. It must not, however, be inferred from the above, that the mere age of an opinion entitles it to respectful consideration; for the early converts to christianity from the Jewish and heathen churches, brought many strange whims with them, which they were fond of incorporating with their new faith and the notion of a dark infernum, populated with doomed spirits, which is the basis of our present theory of hell, was, without doubt, one of said whims. Whilst, then, the entire novelty of a doctrine is proof presumptive of its untruth, the mere antiquity of a doctrine affords no presumption in its favor. That the belief of universal salvation is not a new thing in christendom is evident from ecclesiastical history. Origen, in the third century, a distinguished father in the church, maintained this opinion distinctly; and although several of his tenets were subsequently condemned as heretical, this was not included among them, which goes to show that even at that early time, this doctrine was not regarded as a novelty. The fact of its not being then considered a heresy is of great weight in its favor, for, unlike the doctrine of endless misery, it cannot be shown to have been derived from any system of heathen mythology: but, on the contrary, must be regarded as a tenet peculiar to christianity. Whereas the opposite doctrine, whilst it forms a part and parcel of most of the pagan codes of faith, was entirely unrecognized by the Jewish religion, which claims its origin from God himself. Many other important considerations, reader, might be suggested here on the threshold of this investigation, serving to show how very small is the probability, that the dogma of ceaseless suffering can in the issue be regarded as of scriptural authority : but the above, it is believed, are quite sufficient for this purpose. Of this, however, you must be judge for yourself. "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." UNIVERSAL SALVATION DIRECTLY AND POSITIVELY PROVEN FROM THE AT TRIBUTES OF GOD. 1. GOD IS LOVE.-(1 John, iv. 8.)-This proposition has been much declaimed upon, by those too, who, while they admitted its truth in terms, denied it in fact. It is now introduced as a subject for careful argumentation. In this business we shall not need those rhetorical embellishments which, at the same time that they amuse the fancy, often make it an instrument in deceiving the judgment: the less our argument is encumbered with these the better it will be, because the more intelligible. As has been well remarked (by Adam Clarke) "God is never said, in the scriptures, to be Justice, or Patience, or Holiness, but he is frequently in one form or another said to be love." Hence it is inferred that love is his moral nature, and the basis of all his other attributes-love is God to say that God is just, or holy, or unchanging, is the same as to say that infinite love is characterised by these qualities; to say that all creatures throughout all space are in God's hands, and subject to his control, is in effect to say they are in love's hands, and subject to its control: in short, God and love are so essentially identical, that the name of each may be, and often is, employed for designating the other; any predicate of the one will answer equally well as a predicate of the other; hence we may affirm of infinite love that it rules the universe, is eternal, impartial, holy, just, good, &c., for God is all these, and God is love. In these three words is he defined E by John, a fisherman of Galilee, and they express more than all the collected wisdom of previous and subsequent ages ever has or can express. The doctrine of endless misery is utterly irreconcilable with this essential attribute of the deity, for love invariably seeks, and to the utmost of its power promotes the ultimate good of its ob jects; by this circumstance alone is it distinguishable from its opposite principle; to affirm that love will consent that any of its objects shall be miserable, without reference to any eventual good from that misery, is to affirm that it approves of misery for its own sake, and this is to confound it with hatred. The doctrine of endless woe does in effect affirm this, and thereby it absurdly confounds Jehovah, who is infinite love, with infinite hatred. To make this more plain, we will suppose God to be the opposite of what he is What should we expect as the result? Anything worse than what is contemplated in the belief of unceasing torment? If not, in affirming this doctrine, are we not manifestly confounding love with hatred, since we ascribe to the one such actions as can only result from the other? Wherever infinite love is, there can no suffering be, except per mitted from motives of ultimate benefit to the sufferer, and consequently, in no conceivable case can the theory of endless misery be verified, except by some means the subject thereof could get beyond the presence of love, or, which is the same thing, beyond the presence of God. But, course, 2. GOD IS OMNIPRESENT.-(Psl. cxxxix. 7.)-And, of love is omnipresent; it surrounds, pervades, and sustains all things, (Ephe. iv. 6,) to get beyond its reach, therefore, is impossible, for whither shall we go from its presence? Shall we ascend to the heaven of heavens? it is there. Shall we descend to depths unfathomable by the plummet-line of thought? it will still be far, far beneath us: and should we speed with the wings of light to the farthest bounds of being, still, still should we find its presence to extend immeasurably beyond us. The sinner is in its hands when he goes hence equally as while he is here, and although he may find it "a fearful thing to fall into the hands of God," yet the result will prove that they are the hands of love, and, therefore, not the hands of an enemy. Such was David's view of the matter, when reduced to the necessity of selecting |