"He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth his rain on the just and on the unjust." That God will reward every man according to the deeds done in his body, is the concurrent testimony of the Bible. Now as facts prove that some men are more wicked than others, it must also be proved that the wicked suffer more in this life than the righteous, and that the more wicked a man is the more he must suffer. This has never been done. The language of scripture as well as the universal experience and observation of mankind bear testimony to the contrary. Consequently this doctrine under consideration is contrary to scripture.

If men are punished in the present life according to their deserts, then the scheme which advocates the salvation of all men is false. For this goes to prove that all men are saved. But from what are they saved? They are saved from nothing if they endure the whole penalty of the law. It is absurd to talk of salvation after men have received all the punishment due to their offences and thereby fully satisfied the claims of divine justice. Full punishment and free salvation are totally inconsistent with each other. Now if you assert that all are punished according to their deserts, then none are saved. But if you say all are saved, then none are punished as they deserve. I am not unaware of the evasion of some respecting the meaning of the term salvation. They would persuade us that it is deliverance from the dominion only and not from the guilt of sin. But does this idea accord with scripture. Does that explain salvation to mean simply the deliverance from the power of sin. Is all that it says of pardon, forgiveness, and remission of sin, without meaning? Is not pardon a deliverance from the punishment of sin, and remission a release from the penalty of the divine law? To explain these terms, then, to denote only freedom from the power of sin, furnishes an example of the facility with which some can wrest the scriptures, and perverts the plainest words of the language.

These arguments I have thus briefly noticed, are, I believe, the strongest and most plausible that are adduced by the objectors to endless punishment, against that doctrine and in favor of the final

S*

salvation of all men. Whether they have been fairly met and answered in this discourse, I leave it with the judgment of the serious and candid to decide. To me it appears that the arguments which I have noticed, are altogether fallacious, built upon unfounded assumptions, and perverted inferences; and that they are not supported by a single text of scripture. If others think otherwise, I hope they will investigate the subject with candor. As truth is important, and the result of our investigations may carry with them eternal consequences, let us seek the truth with candor and prayer and embrace it with joy, that we may be saved by its influence.

LECTURE X.

ON THE SOURCES, THE EVIL NATURE, AND THE DANGEROUS MORAL CONSEQUENCES OF A SCHEME, WHICH DENIES THE DOCTRINE oF ENDLESS PUNISHMENT, AND ADVO

CATES THE FINAL SALVATION OF ALL MEN.

Proverbs xix: 27.-" Cease, my son, to hear the instruction which causeth to err from the words of knowledge."

PRINCIPLES are not objects of speculation merely; they are the foundation and frame-work of character. They are the main-springs of purpose and action, and enter into the essence of all we do. Moral beings are in this life, and in that which is to come, just what they are in principle. "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he." And as principles are the immediate and chief objects of God's cognizance in moral being, so they form the principal ground of acquittal or condemnation at his righteous tribunal. Good principles are the primary elements of a good character. It is, therefore, just as important that we should adopt correct principles, as it is, that we should here sustain a character morally good, and hereafter enjoy the presence and favor of Almighty God.

The scriptures are very full and explicit, in representations of the unholy and destructive influence of erroneous principles. They represent them as increasing unto more ungodliness, and eating as doth a gangrene. They are fruitful and productive; and on this account they are the more dangerous. They will destroy the soul as a gangrene destroys the body. Let a system of false opinions, in respect to religion, once get possession of any mind, and what

can you expect to emanate from this poisonous fountain but the bitter streams of pollution and death? Hence it is that those evil men, who corrupt the morals of our youth, begin their work of death by assailing their religious principles. In this they act with keen discernment of what constitutes the strength and safety of a virtuous character-correct moral principles. It is in reference to efforts like these, that the wise man gives the advice contained in our text: "Cease, my son, to hear the instruction which causeth to err from the words of knowledge." Those persons whose minds are not firmly established in the truth, by listening to the instruction which causeth to err from the words of knowledge, are liable to be led away with the error of the wicked. Familiarity with error, as with vice, has a tendency to make us insensible of its deformity; and those, who are comparatively unacquainted with the word of God, are not properly furnished for an encounter with error.

Under the fullest conviction, that what has been said of error in general, is applicable to that scheme which denies the doctrine of endless punishment and advocates the final salvation of all men, we would, in the most serious and affectionate manner, lift our warning voice against it. In doing this, we shall notice ITS SOURCES; ITS NATURE; AND ITS DANGEROUS MORAL CONSEQUENCES; which if clearly ascertained, will be so many presumptive proofs of the fallacy of its principle, a persuasive to its abettors to give up a scheme that is based on error, and supported by a perversion of the sacred scriptures, and a loud dissuasive to all from listening to their instructions, and embracing a religious belief that is fraught with the most pernicious and fatal consequences.

SOURCES OF MODERN UNIVERSALISM.

I. Let us then in the first place inquire into some of the causes which incline the minds of men to reject the doctrine of future retributions, and to embrace the doctrine of universal salvation. That the cause cannot be traced to any firm and satisfactory evidence of truth, may be seen from the indefinite manner in which the doctrine is held, and from the confusion and shifting of the arguments by

which it is defended. One point is assumed, and it is this and this alone which characterizes the doctrine, viz: that all men will ultimately be made perfectly holy and happy. But as to the time when, and the means by which this is to be effected, the advocates of this scheme are not agreed. Some think that all men will be happy like the angels in heaven the moment they enter the next conscious existence, and that no distinctions will exist among mankind beyond the grave. Others suppose that there will be a period of punishment indefinitely long beyond the grave, which will terminate in the reformation and consequent happiness of all the wicked.

Nor is there a greater uniformity as it respects the manner of salvation. Some expect to be saved through the infinite merits of Christ; and thus they yield the position as untenable, that mankind will be saved by enduring the whole penalty of the law. Some suppose that it would not consist with the benevolence of God to inflict eternal punishment for the sins committed in this life. Others will tell us that endless punishment is inconsistent with our deserts. Some expect that irresistible grace will draw all men to heaven; and others, that irresistible justice will drive all men there. Some expect to be purified by the blood of Christ without a change of heart in the present life, and others to be purified by the flames of hell. One is expecting salvation by the fogiveness of sin, and another by suffering the whole penalty of the law.

And the main arguments by which not only different persons, but the same persons at different times, defend their system, are as various and contradictory as their system itself. Now the conclusion to which all this brings us is, that the doctrine in question does not rest in the perception of solid proof. We should have supposed that if this main point, universal salvation, was reached by a chain of evidences that led to it, all who have arrived at this conclusion would do it by a corresponding course. But as their arguments are various and contradictory, we conclude, and not without reason, that the main position is first assumed without regard to proof. A system which in the hands of its advocates is constantly changing its form and resting upon some new foundation, must be rather the