horrors. Now it is a fact, no less notorious than mournful, that the children of this world, can conceive of no better heaven, than these sensual enjoyments. Notwithstanding the halo of purity, with which the corrupt and ignorant have graced the head of Plato, this universalist wise-man was himself addicted to such vices; and in his fifth Republic, he represents the enjoyment of such impure pleasures beyond the grave, as constituting the chief feature of the brave soldier's heaven. That this is the doctrine of Mahomet and his millions of followers is well known to you all. I need hardly add, that those Unitarians and Universalists, who have made overtures of confraternity, to the successors of the Arabian impostor, shew by their profession and practice, that this is the heaven which they desire. How could it be otherwise? They have rejected spiritual happiness, and nothing remains but a carnal paradise. After having despised the Trinity, could they be happy, where a Trinity presides? After having abhorred the atonement, could they dwell with those who are washed in the Saviour's blood ? and could they relish the heavenly influences of that Divine Spirit, whose Deity and operations they had denied and rejected here? They have forsaken the fountain of living waters, and it is natural for them to hew out to themselves, cisterns, broken cisterns, which can hold no water. If, therefore, sensual pleasures, in which they delight, be the only hell which is threatened them, what have they to deter them from sin? Although Mr. Balfour has failed to prove that future punishment was invented by the heathen, it is a fact that this temporal hell of my opponent, is an invention of heathenish corruption and infatuation. While Plutarch represents the fear of future punishment, as a "childish fear,” and represents the doctrine which we hold, as made up of "fabulous stories, and the tales of mothers and nurses," he says, "I am of opinion, if it be lawful to say so, that wicked men need neither the Gods nor men to punish them: but their own life, being wholly corrupted, and full of perturbation, is a sufficient punishment."h The most prominent argument of these wise men for a future immortality in any condition, was perfectly futile and false, and accordingly, they generally doubted and rejected the doctrine of a future existence altogether. When they appeared to advocate it, it was only for a limited period, and for h Leland, vol. 2, pp. 375, 376, 339, 373. the benefit of the learned only; but even these usually joined in denying it entirely. Aristotle says that "death is the "most dreadful of all things: for that it is the end [of our "existence]: and that to him that is dead, there seems nothing farther to remain, whether good or evil.” Cicero in his Tusculan Disputations, informs us that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul was despised by the whole literary world. He tells us that it was not only contradicted by the Epicureans, "but," says he, "I know not how it is, that "every learned man treats it with contempt." The sentence quoted some time ago from Plutarch, in which he speaks of the "fabulous hope of immortality," shews, that long after many of the vulgar heathen had received the Christian religion, "the better informed among them," as Mr. Balfour styles these Philosophers, continued to ridicule what these learned blind men considered the tables of hell, and the fables of heaven too. How unenviable is that pre-eminence, which consists in the gross abuse, of peculiar talents and opportunities of improvement! While the Universalists admire them for their errors, and give them the praise of being better informed than the vulgar, who believed in future rewards and punishments, the Spirit of God declares that they “be"came vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart "was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." By such men it is an honour to be condemned and derided. While claiming these heathen wise men for the Universalists, Mr. Balfour tells us that "punishment after death in Tartarus was believed by the heathen generally." If this be true, it is an astonishing fact. Concerning the people and their instructors, it may generally be said, "like priest, like people." "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." Now although these favourites of Mr. Balfour and the Universalits, often spoke one thing and thought another;—although it is a notorious fact, that they openly advocated downright lying; it is far from being certain that the body of the people materially differed from them. Concerning future punishments, Plutarch says, "there are not many that fear these things." The celebrated disciple of Socrates repeatedly and variously declares, that this doctrine of future punishment, "met with little credit among men." According to him, the vulgar among the Heathen, were a sort of Atheistical Mate i Lel. 2: 284. 285. vialists, like my opponent. Plato says that "most men "seemed to think that the soul was immediately dissolved "at death, and that it vanished and was dissipated, like the "wind or smoke, or became nothing at all: and that it need"ed no small persuasion and faith to believe that the soul "exists, and has some power and intelligence after the man " is dead."j The inconsistencies and contradictions found in the writings of these ancient philosophers, are scarcely more palpable than those which are found in their modern brethren. Mr. Balfour and my opponent, at one moment, boast that these wise men reject our fables of hell; and at the next moment, accuse us of borrowing our doctrine of eternal punishment in Tartarus, from the false philosophy of the heathen. Their accusations are as groundless as their boasting is shameful. The New Testament uses their words for devil and hell; and it also uses their words for God and Heaven: but while Paul declares to them the true nature of that God whom they ignorantly worshipped, Peter teaches them the true character of that Tartarus, which they blindly derided. The Universalists reject the doctrine of revelation, and boast that these false philosophers did the same! And who are these better informed among the heathen, with whom it is such an honour to agree? They were the blind and deaf, always speculating about colours and sounds. They were always talking about divine truth, and yet "changed the truth of God into a lie." According to their own account, a portion of the truth had been conveyed to them, howsoever imperfectly, by tradition: but "they did not like to retain God in their knowledge ;" they despised alike, the fears of hell, and the hopes of heaven, and even denied the spirituality and immortality of their own souls. "For this cause God gave them up to vile affections," and "gave them over to a reprobate mind," and to a reprobate life. Indulging without restraint, in the most brutal appetites, they seemed indeed, as if they had no soul to distinguish them from the inferior creation. Let who will glory in symbolizing with such men, the Christian glories in nothing but the cross of Christ, by whom he is crucified to the world, and the world to him. The heathen generally believed in the transmigration of souls, and in certain periodical conflagrations or annihilations of souls, succeeding each other without end. From j Lel, 2; 391, 382, 383. these the Jews have received a sort of Universalism; and by these, Origen was corrupted. Besides him, my opponent can find no other example in the ancient church. "Simon Magus, Basilides, Carpocrates, and the impure Gnostics, we "do not envy him ;"k as they were, like their brethren of the present day, in the gall of bitterness and the bonds of iniquity. On this doctrine, Clemens Alexandrinus, the preceptor of Origen, was decidedly orthodox; and so was Cyprian, his great contemporary, whose superiority in piety and usefulness, the Christian world so much admires. Among the many proofs of their doctrinal soundness, I have numbered the inspired declaration concerning Tartarus. It is in 2 Peter, ii. 4. "God spared not the angels that "sinned, but cast them down to Tartarus, and delivered "them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judg "ment." The questions suggested by this text, are, 1. What does this threatening mean? 2. Against whom is it directed? (1.) What does this threatening mean? That it is a threatening, is evident, because the subjects of it are said not to be spared, but cast down, and confined in chains of darkness, to be punished, as we are informed in verse 9th. That it reaches beyond this life, as far as men are concerned, appears from their being reserved unto judgment. “It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." That the judgment will rivet these chains, appears from Jude's calling them, in verse 6th, "everlasting chains," and from his placing these prisoners, in verse 7th, with the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrha, who are "suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." Peter also, places them in the same company, in verse 6th, of the context. Of these persons it is said in verse 3rd, the immediately preceding context, that their "judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not." These words have already been examined in the original, in what was said on the subject of Gehenna. There they were translated damnation and destruction: and it was proved from the Scriptures, that these are an everlasting destruction, and an eternal damnation, in an unquenchable fire. As "fools make a mock at sin," so fools will laugh at its punishment: but let it be remembered that this is done only by Mr. Balfour and his heathens, not by the Christian Church: and concerning k Lampe, on the Eternity of Punishments, Part 2, Sect. 10. 1 Hebr. ix. 27. these scorners, God has said, "I also, will laugh at your calamity, I will mock when your fear cometh." (2.) Against whom is this Tartarean punishment threatened? It was against "the angels that sinned." In the 6th head of the first Orthodox argument, I have endeavoured to shew, that the curse has subjected sinners to a real devil, and not a mere personification. That he has angels distinct from the human race, appears from the sentence of condemnation pronounced upon unbelieving men at the day of judgment. "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." These angels, mentioned by Peter, my opponent and the improved version, would have to be men: but this cannot be for Peter, in the context, says that angels "are greater in power and might." They cannot be non entities; for such have neither power nor might. But two things are manifest, from what our Saviour and his inspired Apostle say concerning these angels. One is, that it was on account of sin, that they were cast into Tartarus, or this everlasting fire. The other is, that the same punishment awaits all impenitent sinners of the human race. In the 9th verse, Peter says, "The Lord know"eth how to deliver the godly out of temptation, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment, to be punished.” In the 1st, 2d, and 3d verses, he speaks of the preachers and deluded professors of " damnable heresies," as participating in the judgment and damnation of these angels. In the three following verses, he presents the case of these intartarated angels, the case of the antediluvian world, and that of the cities of the plain, as so many examples to warn all sinners against the same condemnation and punishment; letting us know, that" if God spared not" these, he will punish all the unjust" of our race. 66 66 When our Saviour commands the wicked to depart into "everlasting fire," or as he afterward explains it, into "everlasting punishment," his omitting to use the word now in question, may appear to weaken our argument. But when we observe on the one hand that Christ casts wicked men, and the devil, and his angels, all together, into the same fiery and eternal punishment;—and when we observe, on the other hand, that an unsparing God casts these angels down to Tartarus;-cannot a moderate reasoner see that the devil and wicked men must be in Tartarus too ?-Tartarus, then, is that everlasting fire which is " prepared for the devil and his angels:"-and Tartarus is that place of everlasting |