To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant, the oath which he swore to our father Abraham, that he would grant unto us that we, being delivered out of the hands of our enemies, might serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him all the days of our life." Does Zacharias even intimate that its fulfillment is to be accomplished by the salvation of all men after death? Nothing of the kind. He explains the design of the promise, which is of course spiritual in its nature, to be a deliverance in this world from the bondage of our spiritual enemies, that we may serve God without slavish fear"in holiness and righteousness before him all the days of our life."

It has now been shown most convincingly, we think, from the word of God that that part of the covenant made with Abraham under examination, finds its fulfillment in this world by the spread of the gospel among the nations of the earth, that it is conditional, and that none can enjoy its blessings but the spiritual children of Abraham, or believers in Christ, such being Abraham's seed, and the only legitimate heirs according to promise.

At this point let us introduce the testimony of a Universalist minister. Mr. French delivered the Occasional Sermon before the Maine Convention of Universalists, at Thomaston, June 28, 1843, in which he rebukes his brethren for some of their gross perversions, and this promise among the rest; and says, "We would not with unholy hands tear down what has been so long in rearing, but you will permit us to query if the promise to Abraham, Gen. 22: 18, may have any reference to the future world? Is it consistent to quote it, especially if we deny that life and immortality are brought to view in the Old Testament? And do not Peter, Acts 3: 26, and Paul, Gal. chap. 3, both apply that promise to this life? Let our preachers be on good terms of consistency, if we would make advancement. Why should. we furnish sticks for our enemies to beat us with?”— Banner, Aug. 5, 1843.

Whether or not all the ministers of this order understand the import of this promise, is not for us to determine; but we fear that all have not the candor of Mr. French in expressing their convictions.

There is one consideration more we gather from the subject which should forcibly impress us all as moral beings. It is this: that in order to possess a good hope of heaven, all should exert their moral agency to become heirs of promise. Hear the apostle Paul upon this, Heb. 6: 17-20. "Wherein God, willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath; that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us; which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that within the veil, whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus."

In view of this scripture let us inquire,

1. Who are the heirs of promise? Not all men, but only such as are Christ's. Gal. 3: 29. All are not Christ's, for "if any man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Rom. 89. The heirs of promise are believers in Christ, but "all-men have not faith." 2 Thess. 3: 2.

2. Who have this strong consolation, and the hope which enters into heaven where Jesus is? Do all men have it? No: for "the wicked is driven away in his wickedness; but the RIGHTEOUS HATH HOPE in his death." Prov. 14: 13. Some are strangers from the covenant of promise, having NO HOPE, and without God in the world." Eph. 2: 12.

A great play of words has been made upon the oath of God, named in this passage, as though this were something in favor of Universalism, and thus taking for granted what can never be proved, viz: that the promise which is confirmed by an oath, secures the unconditional salvation of all men in the future state. This we have shown again and again to be false, and it is re

futed in this very connection; for to whom are these blessings. named secured by the promise and oath of God, and who have the hope of heaven like an anchor to the soul? Not all men, surely, but such as "have FLED FOR REFUGE to lay hold upon the hope set before them." Has the neglecter, the swearer, the drunkard, the extortioner, the self-righteous man fled for refuge? To name this is to refute it. Universalism the "Abrahamic Faith!" What a gross perversion! The extension of Christ's kingdom in the earth is contemplated by it, and the blessing of justification is secured to all believers as preparatory for heaven.

II. Matt. 23: 13. "Woe unto you scribɛs," &c.

Says Mr. Whittemore, "Jesus reproved the Pharisees for shutting up the kingdom of heaven. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.' Matt. 23: 13. These Pharisees were never charged with having shut up the kingdom of hell; that, they appear to have kept open. But they shut up the kingdom of heaven. Jesus desired to have all men enjoy his kingdom; and we are assured that at last all shall know the Lord, from the least unto the greatest. They will then all have entered the gospel kingdom." Guide, p. 44. Does Mr. W. admit that the "kingdom of heaven "here means salvation, or the place of it in the future world, or does he believe in a future hell? No neither of them. Of the former he says, 'the phrase kingdom of heaven,' in its common use in the New Testament, does not refer to the future world, but to the reign of the gospel in this world." Guide, p. 88. Would he allow that the Pharisees kept men from entering future heavenly bliss? If so, then Universalism is a fable. Yet he presents a contest between Christ and the Pharisees on these two states, confined as he will have them to this world, as evidence of the salvation of all men in eternity! Truly a man must be very ig3

norant or wicked to construct such an argument for such a purpose; for, remark, this is the whole of one of his " One Hundred Arguments," to prove Universalism, i. e. the salvation of all men in the resurrection state.

But it is not quite enough for his purpose that Jesus reproved the Pharisees thus; so it is added, that " we are assured that at last all shall know the Lord, from the least to the greatest." The passage to which Mr. W. refers, is found Jer. 31 : 33, 34. By turning to it, it will be seen that the covenant is not made with the whole human family, but with "the house of Israel." "For they shall all know me." Who? Not the whole race of man, but the "HOUSE OF ISRAEL; ever the blessings herein contained, they are promised only to the house of Israel, and the application of these words to all men, to prove that they will all be saved in heaven, is but another instance of gross perversion. The prophet is speaking of a prosperous state of things in this world, and not of the salvation of all our race in eternity.

V. 33. Now what

III. "For ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Gal. 3: 28.

"Paul saith to the Galatians, There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to promise.' According to what promise? Answer: According to the promise of God to Abraham, that in him, and his seed [Christ] all the nations, kindreds, and families of the earth shall be blessed. In Christ, therefore, none of the distinctions are known of which Paul there speaks. 'Ye are all one in Christ Jesus.' That point being settled, he adds, and if ye be Christ's, [as he had proved,] then are ye Abraham's seed, [that is, not by lineal descent, but spiritually,] and heirs according to promise."" Guide, p. 49.

Here we have the argument with all its comeliness, built upon a gross perversion of the Scriptures. It is assumed that "all"

"Ye." Who?

in the text, means the whole human race. But is it so? Look at the context, and it will be seen who "are all one in Christ Jesus." All men? No, but believers; for such he is addressing. They are those who had "put on Christ," v. 27, and such only. Taking those scriptures which are applied by the inspired penman to a particular class of men where the words all and every chance to occur, and applying them to the whole race of man, has been a very common work with writers of this school. This may deceive the ignorant, but it can never deceive the man who is acquainted with his Bible. The perversion of the Abrahamic promise, to make out the argument, is exposed in Sec. 1.

IV." Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." Matt. 12: 32; Mark 3:29; Luke 12: 10.

66

The course pursued by Universalist writers upon this text, is both evasive and sophistical. The author of the Guide labors first to contradict the Son of God by quoting Isa. 1: 18, and 1 John 1: 7-9, to show that all sins are pardonable, the sin against the Holy Ghost not excepted; " then to show that the text is a Hebraism, and is not to be understood absolutely. To sustain this, a quotation is given, purporting to be from Grotius, the correctness of which we have not the means of ascertaining. He then brings to his aid the Doway, a Catholic translation. Now we suppose the Catholic priests are about as honest as Universalist expositors, and are equally anxious to promulgate the doctrine, in opposition to the Saviour, that sins of all kinds are pardonable, since they blasphemously assume the prerogative to pardon sin and to admit that some are unpardonable, would curtail their revenues. After stating that a Catholic writer asserts that there is no sin which cannot be forgiven on repentance, Mr. Whittemore says, it is a "conclusion to which many of the