תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

eternity, should first be impressed with the magnitude of his subject. But when he throws the eternal interests of a world into doubt, and begins to question whether countless millions of the human race shall not, ultimately, be miserable beyond degree, and without end, it seems to me he must be made of sterner stuff than ordinarily falls to the lot of humanity, if he does not feel that his subject is invested with an awfulness, which forbids not merely lightness and trifling, but every thing that is inconsistent with the deepest concern. For, flatter ourselves as we may, it is, I should hope, impossible for any man even to glance at this question, without yielding to the conviction that he is personally interested in its answer. He may if he can, bar all doubt of his own salvation; but has he no kindred, no friends, no "neighbor" whom he loves as himself, for whose eternal welfare he is solicitous ? Are there none of all his race with whom he sympathizes, and whose happiness or misery bears directly and powerfully upon his own? It has been well said by a divine of our own country, "that the whole human family is woven together, in every direction, by the ties of consanguinity, the bonds of friendship, the cords of love; so that no individual can suffer, without involving many in his wretchedness. We were made social creatures; and so strong is this connexion, strengthened and confirmed in so many ways, that it must lift the whole race to heaven, or draw it down to hell. final destiny, it must be shared by the whole." sion, at present, to urge the conclusion which is the consideration of man's social nature, but it is well for us ever to keep our various and most intimate relations with mankind in view when discussing their prospects for an everlasting felicity or wretchedness. Had this been more generally observed, we have reason to think that a different tone and temper would have distinguished much that has been written on the subject of man's final destiny. Instead of manifesting a kind of gratification on making out a convincing or probable argument in favor of the doctrine of endless misery, as we have not unfrequently witnessed, the advocate of a doctrine so little consonant with the dictates of humanity, would show some tokens of regret and sorrow at the conclusion which he felt himself compelled to draw. The celebrated English divine, Dr. Barrow, tells us that in his time "it was nothing, in one

Whatever be its I have no occahere drawn from

breath, to damn whole churches; at one push to throw down whole nations into the bottomless pit." At present it is almost a matter of glorying if one can, even with the show of probability, damn half of the human species; and what is most unaccountable, is, that the splendor and joy of the triumph is scarcely lessened though it be obtained at the risk of one's own eternal well being, and at the sacrifice of his best hopes for many who are among the dearest and most cherished objects of his affection on earth!

I offer these remarks for your consideration, sir, because I find on the very first page of your book, a sentiment that deserves nothing less than unqualified reprobation. I allude to the letter of your friend Amos Belden, which is introduced to grace your little work and perhaps to commend it to the hands and hearts of your Metho dist brethren. I must be permitted to quote a part of this com mendatory epistle, that the reader may judge whether my censure be just. Mr. Belden says

"Rev. and Dear Sir-Having had the pleasure of listening to your sermons on Universalism recently delivered in the Willet street church, to crowded and delighted audiences, my own convictions of the originalty and conclusiveness of the arguments there presented, induce me to express the opinion that their publication would promote the cause of truth and righteousness."

Of the "originality" exhibited in your Lectures I shall have occasion to speak hereafter. The conclusiveness of the arguments there presented," I will for a moment concede. But what was the object of these conclusive arguments? I reply, to disprove the doctrine of the final holiness and happiness of all men, and to establish the opinion that all who have died, or shall die, impenitent and unbelievers in Jesus Christ, shall be endlessly miserable. And to this point your arguments were conclusive. And yet your warm and zealous christian friend, Mr. Belden, speaks of " having had the PLEASURE of listening" to you, and of your delivering your lectures" to crowded and DELIGHTED audiences." What a subject to excite pleasure and delight in the bosom of a christian congregation! Had your lectures been delivered in pandemonium, it might have been reasonably expected that the prominent views there advanced would produce a most sensible pleasure, a most thrilling

[ocr errors]

delight. To the arch-fiend, and to all from him downwards through every grade of malignant spirits in that world of poetic fancy, the great leading truth set forth with so much originality and conclusiveness of argument in your little volume, that Satan is forever to divide the empire with the Almighty, and that the Son of God died for millions in vain, must doubtless have come as tidings of victory. There might have been a delighted audience," and more than one no doubt could have spoken of "the pleasure of listening." But of a congregation of christians, of those born again, begotten of God, of love, of those who have been taught to love even their enemies, and to pray for their worst foes; o such persons being pleased, delighted with such conclusions as those at which you arrived, I can form no conception. It seems to me utterly and forever impossible. That Mr. Belden was gratified is certainly within the limits of thought, and that there were others in your audience who sympathized with him is quite possible. Bat how much of common humanity, to say nothing of christian sympathy and benevolence, was exhibited in that gratification, I leave you to decide. Still I cannot withhold a frank avowal of my astonishment that such a sentiment should find so conspicuous a place in your volume, and obtain even your tacit approbation. I am pained to see a spirit thus exhibited which is at so infinite a remove from all the dictates of christianity. If you believe the doctrine of endless misery, as an honest man preach it, and preach it faithfully, but in the name of all that is sacred and benevolent, let us never hear an expression from mortal lips on this subject that savors of gratification, or indicates the slightest emotion of pleasure and delight.

I am glad that you do not sympathize with many of your breth ren in an affected contempt of the doctrine of Universalism. On this point you have spoken in your preface in a manner that I can fully approve. You say

"I am fully aware that there are various and conflicting opinions on the subject of religious controversy.Some think that there are errors prevalent in our day which ought not to be noticed in so formal a manner, lest by so doing we make them prominent and popular; but I have not so learned religious obligation. The faithful servant of God is set for the defence of the gospel, and it

is his imperative duty to expose all dangerous heresies and earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. To omit this is to omit his duty, and to be an unworthy watchman upon the walls of Zion. Universalism I believe to be a very insinuating and dangerous doctrine. It is to be feared that it has ruined souls both in time and eternity. It may ruin more; and it doubtless will unless its progress be arrested. Upon this subject I fear we have already been too long silent. While we have been sleeping on our posts the enemy has been diligently sowing his tares. The minds of many of our youth have been poisoned and corrupted by this deadly opiate. And shall we still continue silent. God forbid! Let us lift up our voice like a trumpet, and sound an alarm. Let us cry aloud and spare not. Let us persevere, and never give up the contest till God shall crown our efforts with complete and triumphant victory."

This I like. It is valiant; it is right. If you believe Universalism to be an insinuating and dangerous doctrine; if you think it has ruined souls in time and eternity, and that it will ruin more; if the minds of many of our youth are poisoned and corrupted by it, and the poison is still spreading, your duty, and the duty of every man who agrees with you in your opinions and fears, is very plain. You must expose and refute it.

But you suggest that some of your brethren are unwilling to notice Universalism in a formal manner, lest by so doing they should make it prominent and popular. Be it so; the policy is obviously bad, since it manacles the hand that should be free to resist every encroachment of fatal error. You have well said that upon the subject of Universalism you and your brethren have already been too long silent. But bad as this policy is, it is the best the case admits. I am, therefore, not inclined to yield implicit credence to the pretension that Universalism is so contemptible as to deserve no formal notice, or that it possesses so peculiar a character, that although as false as perjury, it is destined to gain victories in an open encounter, or under a full examination. Can you persuade yourself, sir, that your brethren are so far behind their age as to believe that truth is likely to be the loser in a grapple with error? Were they confident of wielding "the sword of the spirit," they

would have no occasion to shun religious controversy, and least of all would they shield themselves under the affected fear of making falsehood popular by exposing it. No, sir, there are some among you who well know the danger of examining Universalism. They are fully aware that the best mode of staying its progress is to represent it as unworthy of notice, to speak of it as very insinuating and very dangerous, and thus to bring into discredit and contempt what it would be unsafe to examine. Whether you have been altogether judicious in assailing this "dangerous doctrine," time alone can determine, but you certainly deserve praise for your zeal, though it be not wholly according to knowledge. Better undoubtedly it would be for the cause of truth were your brethren to follow your example. Rest assured, sir, Universalists have no fears for the re

sult.

Hereafter I shall trouble you with occasional remarks upon your lectures. Do not understand, however, that I am to subject every argument you have introduced to a rigid examination. There are reasons which must excuse me from assuming so ungrateful a task. Meanwhile I remain yours, &c.

LETTER II.

THOMAS J. SAWYER.

Dear Sir-While I commend you for openly attacking Universalism, if you believe it to be so insinuating and dangerous as you represent it, I cannot withhold my approbation of the course of conduct pursued by your immediate friends, and particularly by the members of your society. Your lectures were delivered at the instance of one of your own church, and were published by request of the board of your Trustees, of a large meeting of the young men of your congregation, and of Mr. Amos Belden. Seldom indeed has any thing against Universalism been issued from the press with so wide an approval. It is true, your zealous Trustees solicited them for publication before they were all delivered, but that circumstance only shows the unbounded confidence which they reposed in your ability, and "the pleasure and delight" they anticipated you would diffuse by giving them to the public. But the zeal of your young men is deserving of all praise, and I cannot resist the temptation to insert here the most important part of their

« הקודםהמשך »