Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

their own deceivings," that they "delight in lies,"-that "their souls delight in their abominations,”—and that they "rejoice to do evil!" [2 Thess. 2. 12. Heb. 11. 25. 2 Pet. 2. 13. Ps. 62. 4. Is. 66. 3. Prov. 2. 14.] These sinners, let it be remembered, are all this while suffering punishment for their sins! Yes, according to Universalism, they are now enduring the awful judgment threatened by Christ and the apostles,—the damnation of hell; and all the while too they have pleasure, they sport, they rejoice to do evil, and delight in lies and abominations! A man is always the best judge as regards himself, whether he is happy or miserable. Now suppose you offer a helping hand to one of those conscience-seared rioters who is now delighting in his lies and abominations, and sporting and rejoicing in the pleasures of unrighteousness, and he will tell you he wants no better times, and no better company than he is now enjoying. If you wish to make him miserable, let him think he will be compelled to go to heaven; but if you wish to make his heart leap for joy, convince him from the Bible that he is now in the very hottest hell there is, and that he will have to remain in this Universalian "lake of fire" to all eternity, and your object is attained. Such fellows would hardly thank my opponent for preaching against such a hell as that! It is a great consolation to them, however, when they hear a talented Universalist combating the hell of orthodoxy! As one of them once told a preacher (when he saw he was about to break down upon the text: "These shall go away into everlasting punishment,") "Make it out if you can, Mr. T.—if you don't, I'm a gone sucker!" Now permit me to ask my friend, and all Universalists present, whether it would be "soul-benumbing," or "heart-withering," to think that such profligate characters are doomed to suffer "endless punishment" or "ceaseless torture," when they are now in the very hottest of it, according to their own doctrine, and "enjoy" it so well that the highest and strongest motives of heaven and earth cannot induce them to leave it? Does it "benumb" your soul, my dear sir, to think that they enjoy themselves so well now, and that they will continue to be tormented with such delightful punishment as will make them "rejoice to do evil" to all eternity? Singular logic indeed, to be horrified at the idea of a sinner remaining eternally in a condition which, if he could be induced to pray at all, would be his first and most fervent request! And would it be "vindictive hatred," and "inexorable cruelty," on the part of God if he should confer upon the sinner that which he desired above all things in heaven and earth? All we insist upon is the punishment of the Bible; and as the sinner is now suffering that very punishment, according to Universalism, and rejoicing in it at the same time, why should my opponent object, and why should he make such an ado because he is destined thus to "enjoy the pleasures of sin" to all eternity?

But he tries to tell us how long eternity is, and I confess he gets

about as far into it, as I have ever seen any one go; yet it is no objection to an endless misery as has just been demonstrated. But Universalists may be deceived, as regards the punishment of sinners here in time, and my opponent can but have serious doubts I am confident, with reference to all men being saved in heaven. Now as heaven is a most glorious and desirable place, and if a man lose heaven he loses all, and as my opponent must admit that he may be wrong and that there is at least a risk in preaching Universalism of the loss of heaven both to himself and others, hence, the length of eternity is against him and not against us! Let him think of the joys of endless felicity which he is jeopardizing for himself and others every time he preaches the (at least) doubtful doctrine of Universalism! Suppose we could enjoy a little more present happiness if we all believed in Universalism, than we now do (which is exceedingly doubtful), then compare this paltry difference with the illimitable and inconceivable contrast between this short life and boundlessshoreless e-t-e-r-n-i-t-y, and it follows, if there be but one probability in a million against Universalism, it rationally forbids any man to preach the doctrine? But how much greater is the hazard in preaching Universalism when there is not one probability in a million in its favor?

I remember the poetry he quoted, and let that give him an idea of how much he risks every time he preaches his doctrine! He enumerated all the blades of grass,-grains of sand,-drops of water,— rays of light,-stars of heaven, and leaves, buds, and blossoms of the forest, and even yet he had entered but the portals of eternity? Let us if possible try to look still further. Suppose all this countless number to be multiplied into itself as many times as it contains units, and this whole amount set down in as many different places as there are atoms of matter in the universe.

Then estimate this sum without delay,
And mark the ages that have pass'd away:
Then set this number down ten thousand times,
Make each of these to head ten thousand lines:
Let every line ten thousand miles extend,
Make numbers in the lines so closely blend
That microscope can not discern between,
Nor mark the distance that shall intervene:
Then strike a line below, and add again;
And take the mighty sum you thus obtain;
Let every unit stand for ages vast,
And wait until those ages long have past:
And should you wait as many millions more,
Duration must continue as before!

There's none but God can solve this mystery-
This wonderous problem of eternity!

Thus we see how much my friend' is hazarding whenever he preaches Universalism based as it is, and as he must see, upon a most uncertain foundation! Let it be remembered, then, that whenever a Universalist minister attempts to portray the length of eternity, it is against himself and no objection to "endless misery;" since every Universalist is compelled to admit that men may be endlessly punished and rejoice all the while! I hope this will satisfy my friend and that we shall henceforth hear no more about the cruelty of the orthodox faith in "endless misery " and " ceaseless torment!"

I have already continued my speech longer than I had intended; but I felt it my duty to say something in reply to the concluding part of my friend's address, from the consideration that such sympathetic and self-contradictory appeals are generally resorted to as a valuable substitute for Bible testimony, and as a bait with which to catch the vulgar.

I hope you will ponder well the things you have heard, and reflect seriously upon the dangers of embracing any theological doctrine except the one formulated by Solomon: "Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man; for God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." [Ec. 12. 13, 14.] May the Lord keep us from the snares and devices of the adversary, and preserve us blameless unto his heavenly kingdom.

CHAPTER X.

A BRIEF REVIEW OF THE PRO AND CON.

"Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up."-Matt. 15. 18.

The Pro and Con of Universalism, by the Rev. George Rogers, is undoubtedly the strongest work ever written in defense of that doctrine, while its author is admitted to possess a greater amount of caution and foresight than any other advocate of the Universalist faith, living or dead. I state these facts that the reader may see (when the absurdities and blunders which the author has perpetrated are exposed before him) that the system is radically defective in itself-that it is manifestly false, or so many and such palpable selfcontradictions could not have occurred in so small a work (356 pages) and under the watchful eye of so wise and prudent an author.

I purpose in the following strictures to study brevity, and give only samples enough from the work under review to satisfy the intelligent reader that the cause of Univer alism is not founded in truth, and that it carries its own refutation engraven upon its very front. So far as the author of the work under review has relied on scriptural testimony in support of his theological views, the book, needs no examination here, as all such matters have been fully canvassed in the foregoing pages of this work. We shall therefore proceed immediately to point out some of the difficulties, absurdities, and selfcontradictions in which the author of the Pro and Con has involved himself, in his infatuated endeavors to sustain the absurd doctrine of Universalism.

He contends, as the first point to be noticed, that God is the author of sin.

"Believe me, reader, it is not possible to avoid the conclusion that all events take place agreeably to the unalterable decrees of Jehovah."-Page 300.

"The scriptures are most satisfactory, most philosophical upon this puzzling point, [the origin of sin;] they teach that of God are all things,'-they represent Jehovah himself as saying, 'I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil, I the Lord do all these things." "-p. 81.

"So! then,' exclaims the Arminian objector, 'the author really seems bent on proving that as Jehovah foreknew the existence of sin, he must also have designed it!' Yes, such is really my purpose."-p. 286.

"Having then, as I think, established the conclusion that absolute foreknowledge implies absolute foreordination, I proceed to notice the objections which seem to lie against it. I have already considered the most formidable of these, viz., that it makes

God the author of sin; and I now ask, how, on any ground, is this to be avoided? I assert moreover that it is plainly scriptural."-p. 287.

These extracts will suffice upon this point for the present. He here asserts, not only that God is "the author of sin," but he quotes and misapplies scripture to prove that he made and created it just as he created " light." Bear this in mind and observe how it corresponds with the following:

"But in accommodation to our limited conceptions the retributive dispensations of his providence are termed his anger, because they display the repugnance of his infinitely pure nature to all unholiness."—p. 121.

"If sin shall always exist, it will be owing either to a want of power in God to destroy it, or to a want of disposition. To the former it cannot be, for he is Almighty; neither can it be to the latter, for it is a thousand times declared in his word, in one form or other, that sin is utterly odious to him."—p. 61.

66

Then, sir, it is a "thousand times declared in his word that" Universalism is false; for how can God be the author of a thing and form it by the creative act, as he formed light, and that thing be "utterly odious to him?" How can he be the author of all the wick-edness in existence, and yet possess an "infinitely pure nature?" If God can be thus pure, and at the same time be the direct author or creator of sin, then there is no danger of any man becoming impure by practicing it! And if one thing that God has created be utterly odious to him," may not all his other works be equally repugnant to his infinitely pure nature? And if God will utterly destroy or annihilate one part of his creation (which the Pro and Con asserts concerning sin) and that part too which was designed for a good end, where is the proof that he will not utterly destroy any other or all other parts of his creation; and especially the human family, which the Pro and Con asserts were designed like sin for "some future purpose of goodness ?" [p. 103.] But if God is the author of all wrong, then we cannot reasonably expect him to do that which is right at any future period, for he is without variableness or shadow of turning. This author asserts the same.

"Convince me that my maker can do what is wrong, or omit to do what is right at one time, and I shall at once despair of his doing otherwise at any time!"-p. 200.

Now the Pro and Con is necessarilly compelled to admit that God will continue to decree sin, and thus do what is wrong to all eternity, or else he must deny that there is any thing wrong in the universe; for he has repeatedly affirmed (as before quoted,) that God is the author and creator of all things universally including sin! If an evasion be attempted here by assuming that God created sin only as a temporary wrong, to be overruled for a good end, still it leaves the difficulty as bad as ever; for we may expect him to do the same thing at any other, and at all other times, and thus he may continue to create sin and misery to all eternity for a good end? How will they ever be destroyed, according to this? Finally: if sin originated, or had its well-spring in the eternal God, as the Pro and Con teaches,

« AnteriorContinuar »