Can you mention one passage, which contains the idea, that the wicked shall not be punished hereafter by the wickedness here committed? Can you mention one passage, which contains the idea, that all mankind are to be made happy the first moment they enter upon the next conscious existence? Can you mention a passage which contains the idea, that all are to be on a perfect equality in the future life, and that their future condition will not be affected by the characters here formed? No. I have no hesitation in answering these questions in the negative. You cannot find one text in the whole bible which teaches your distinguishing sentiments. Is not your system unscriptural?

2. The scriptures teach doctrines in direct opposition to modern universalism. Have I not produced plain passages, which clearly prove that sin does not always punish the sinner sufficiently? Have I not produced plain passages, which clearly prove that corporal punishments were inflicted upon transgressors by divine authority? Have I not produced plain passages, which clearly prove that the wicked were not always punished according to their sinfulness, and that the righteous were not always rewarded according to their goodness? Have I not produced plain passages, which clearly prove that the righteous are hereafter to be rewarded for their conduct in this world, and that the wicked are to be hereafter punished for their earthly transgressions? Have I not mentioned many indisputable facts which cannot be reconciled with your peculiar views, without destroying the characters of Jesus and his apostles? Are not all these positions directly subversive of your theories? And do they not fully prove that your system is unscriptural.

3. The origin of modern universalism proves its unscriptural character. Two of your ministers have writ

ten the ancient and modern histories of universalism. Their publications are wrongly named. They should have been called the ancient and modern histories of restorationism. All that relates to universalism might have been comprised in a small appendix. Now what accounts do they give us of your peculiar sentiments? Do they find them recorded in the writings of early or later christians? Do they trace them distinctly from the apostles to the present day? Nothing of the kind. They furnish no satisfactory evidence of their existence in the church until within a very recent period. They indeed make some assertions to the contrary. But have they found any thing in proof of their positions which is convincing to their own minds? Could I have produced no better testimony to show that the doctrine of a future retribution was embraced by the ancient disciples, would they not have sneered at my reasoning and ridiculed my conclusions? Now if our Savior and his apostles taught your system, I consider it a moral impossibility that it could have been so universally banished from the church. Some clear and indisputable traces of its introduction, corruption and banishment must have been discovered. Nor is this all. If the scriptures contain your distinguishing sentiments, would they not have been found by some of the many learned critics, candid inquirers after truth, impartial theologians who have lived since the apostolic age? I must affirm that these facts satisfy me of the unscriptural character of your doctrines.

4. The manner in which your system has been defended proves its unscriptural character. Sometimes it has rested on one foundation and sometimes on another of a directly opposite character. Sometimes it was said that the soul remained pure and could not suffer after its release from the body. Sometimes it was pretended that all sin originates in the flesh, is punished

in the flesh, and moulders to dust with the flesh. Sometimes it is argued that men have no immortal souls, that all sleep until the resurrection, and that we shall then be qualified for happiness by miracle. Sometimes one passage of scripture is adduced and sometimes another. Of late the whole stress of one party has been laid on our Savior's answer to the sadducees, and on the chapter of Paul in relation to the resurrection. And then the efforts made to destroy the meaning of those passages which teach or imply future retribution have been remarkable. Several different and even contradictory explanations have been given of the most important. Expositions have been published which outrage every principle of sound criticism and every dictate of common sense. Let me present you with a few specimens from those who rank among your first divines. Take the following from Luke. "And I say unto you, my friends, be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do; but I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear; fear him which after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you fear him." Now read the universalist explanation. "And I say unto you, my friends, be not so much afraid of them, (the Jews) who have power only to scourge you in their synagogues, and to administer cruel tortures to your bodies, but have no authority to take your lives, as of that more extensive authority, (the Romans), to which your brethren the Jews will deliver you, by bringing you before governors and kings; for this power can, after inflicting cruelties on your bodies, doom your lives and bodies to be destroyed in gehenna." Take another example from the same author. ed unto men once to die, but Here you have the meaning. unto men once to die, means, as it is appointed unto the

"And as it is appointafter this the judgment. "And as it is appointed

men who are high priests, to die once a year, by proxy, in their sacrifices; and after this the judgment,' means, after the high priest died in his sacrifice, he entered into the most holy place, bearing the judgment of the people, or the justification of the people." Take another explanation of the same passage. "What judgment comes after death? I answer the judgment God pronounced on all mankind; dust thou art and unto dust thou shalt return." I could fill a volume with similar specimens. While reading the various criticisms of your writers, the words of the poet have been deeply impressed on my mind. "A little learning is a dangerous thing."

5. Modern universalism destroys the impartiality of our Father. Have I not proved that no perfect retribution takes place on earth? Have I not produced satisfactory evidence that all are not rewarded and punished according to their deeds? Have I not clearly shown that the wicked frequently escape deserved punishment, and the righteous receive undeserved infliction? Have I not shown that an inequality in the means of improvement and happiness, of rewards and punishments, exists in this world? Does not the bible assure us that God is the Father of all, that he is no respecter of persons, that he will render unto every man according to his deeds? Unless the inequalities of the present life are hereafter equalized you cannot preserve his impartiality. You must admit that he manifested partialism towards individuals and nations. And does not this destroy his strictly paternal character, and consequently render such a belief unscriptural?

6. Modern universalism makes our heavenly Father a cruel and vindictive being. Why does an earthly parent punish his disobedient child? To produce reformation and improvement. What is the design of the

Discipline and correction?

Or

divine punishment? revenge and torture? Look at yonder hardened wretch who has been suffering the painful consequences of his sins for twenty years. His torment has been gradually increasing with his wickedness. No reformation is yet produced. In all probability he will drop into the grave unreformed. Why has God tormented him so severely and for so long a period? To gratify his own resentment, or to produce repentance and holiness? If you say the former, then you make God a cruel tyrant; if you say the latter, then you must admit that the benevolent design has not yet been accomplished; and consequently he must continue to suffer until punishment produces its proper results. Now you may find hundreds and thousands whom punishment has not reformed; and if God is infinitely benevolent and perfectly just, their discipline must continue until it terminates in salvation. And since God is represented as a kind and merciful Father, does not your doctrine become unscriptural?

7. Modern universalism takes the work of the Savior out of his hands. He came to redeem men from their iniquities. He accomplishes this salvation by moral means. Many leave the world unreformed. If they enter upon heavenly happiness when they awake from the sleep of death, then Jesus has no share in their redemption. They are made holy either by passing through the grave, or by the resurrection, or by an immediate miracle; in either case the work is taken from. the hands of him who was appointed to subdue every enemy to the universal Father. Does not such a supposition contradict the teachings of revelation, and thus become unscriptural?

8. Modern universalism makes the labors and sufferings and instructions of our Savior and his apostles of no real value. For what did they exert themselves?