save natural life at the expense of conscience and casting aside the cross, they should lose eternal life in the world to come. He then, to set it home with force, inquires, “What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul," (life,) i. e. his eternal life. It will require but little attention to the text and context to see that the loss of eternal life is indicated here. Indeed, no other construction can be given without reducing it to nonsense. But admitting, as Universalism contends, that the death of the body is intended, then the text lies with weight against that theory; for a question in this form is a strong negation. The sense is, that if a man in his avaricious pursuits were to gain the whole world and die in the effort, he would in reality gain nothing. Now all unite in the sentiment that heavenly bliss is inconceivably greater than everything enjoyed in the present life, even by the most holy; hence, the apostle says of himself "to die is gain." Universalism says, this gain is for all; even though some gain the whole world by their wicked and avaricious schemes, yet by death they shall gain as much as Paul, for it teaches heaven for all and hell for none, that all shall be equal. (Sec. XC.) It goes farther. It teaches that the more wicked men are here, the more will they gain by death, inasmuch as the wicked suffer more in this life than the pious, therefore escape more by death, and enter into the same bliss with the most exalted saints. The Saviour speaks of a character which shall gain nothing by the death of the body; but Universalism says all, whether holy or unholy, shall be gainers by death. As Christ is to be considered a competent teacher in these matters, the conclusion is, Universalism must be false. The Saviour is speaking either of the loss of future and eternal life, or of the loss of natural life; either of which is fatal to Universalist views.

XIII. “And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it." Isa. 2: 2.

We here give one of the "One Hundred Arguments," entire. "It is said that all nations shall flow unto the mountain of the Lord's house,-a figurative representation of the covenant of the gospel." Guide, p. 39. Well, suppose it is such a representation, does it prove the salvation of all in the future state? A man must be brought to a great strait to construct such an argument to prove Universalism. The connection, as all may see who will consult the chapter, shows that the glorious triumphs of Christianity over heathen nations in this world is prophesied here, and not the salvation of all men in eternity. But, then, the word all is in the passage, so it must mean Universalism !

XIV. "I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the ends of the earth." Isa. 49: 6.

This is brought in argument by Mr. Whittemore to prove his favorite doctrine; and he says of it, (Guide, p. 41,) "In this verse the prophet affirms that the blessings of the gospel should not be confined to the Jews. "I will give thee for a light to the Gentiles;" for what purpose? Answer: "That thou mayest be my salvation unto the ends of the carth." Mr. W. then asks, "Is this consistent with the supposed fact, that countless millions of the human race shall never hear of the blessings of the gospel?" To adopt the same method with another text, it can be proved that the whole human family were made holy and happy nearly three thousand years ago. The Psalmist says, (Ps. 98: 3.) "All the ends of the earth HAVE SEEN the salvation of our God." Is this consistent with the supposed fact that millions of the human race are this moment sinning and suffering to an alarming extent? Now if by "salvation unto the ends of the earth," we are to understand the holiness of all in heaven, and if the Psalmist declared three thousand years ago that "all the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God," it is quite clear that the whole human race were saved in heaven at

1

that time! The passage under consideration declares the general spread of the gospel in the earth, and giving it a future state reference to serve Universalism, is a gross perversion.

XV. "Our Father which art in heaven." Matt. 6: 9.

As the question of divine paternity involves several texts, it will be considered somewhat at length in this section. It is worthy of remark that those our Saviour taught to pray were his disciples, which is destructive to the idea that this prayer teaches that all men are the children of God. But it may be replied that Christ said to the multitude, (Matt. 23: 1-9,) that "one is your father which is in heaven." Admitting that the Saviour meant to teach that God was the father of that multitude, then there is nothing gained to Universalism, unless it can be shown that this relation secures the salvation of all men in the future state. This, then, is the point at issue: is God the father of all men in such a sense as to secure their final holiness and happiness? We admit that there is a sense in which God is the father of all animate and inanimate creation, and of course the father of all men. He is the father of the rain, (Job 38: 28,) that is, he produces the rain. The prophet inquires, (Mal. 2: 10,) "Have we not all one father? Hath not one God created us ?" Said a heathen poet, and Paul adopted it, (Acts 17: 28,) "For we also are his offspring." These passages us that God is a father in the sense of creator. Frequent appeals are made to human sympathy in connection with this subject.

teach

The argument, brought into a small compass, stands thus: God is the father of all. No earthly parent would inflict endless punishment upon his children. God is better than earthly parents; therefore he will not inflict such punishment upon his creatures, but will make them all holy and happy. To make human sympathy the basis of such a conclusion, may deceive the unthinking; but those who reflect, will see that the originators of such arguments are obnoxious to the charge of making the

Almighty altogether such an one as themselves. This mode of argument lies with all its weight against matter of fact, namely, the present sufferings of the human race. It will avail nothing. to say that present suffering shall result in the good of all in the end, that it is only a disciplinary process, such as a kind father would adopt for the good of his children. A kind earthly parent may be under the painful necessity of inflicting discipline, because it is not in his power to reform his children by any other means; but, we ask, is the Almighty under such necessity? Reasoning from the attributes of God, as Universalists are in the habit of doing, and asserting that all will be saved because God has almighty power, infinite wisdom, and unbounded goodness, they cannot contend for a moment, with any consistency, that God is under the necessity of making the race of man suffer six thousand, or individuals scores of years, before he can make them holy and happy. Certainly it must have been as easy for the Almighty to have prevented evil, as it is to destroy it. He stood in the relation of father, the same before Adam fell as he now does; and if the paternal character of God is not pledged to save men from committing sin now, how can we view it as a pledge that all shall be saved from the results of sin? Again, if it is consistent with the paternal character of God that sin and misery should exist six thousand years, it may be equally consistent with his paternal character that some may suffer endlessly. (Sec. CXIV.) Making human sympathy, which is ever liable to lead us wrong, the test of the principles of the Divine government, and the true index of the future condition of man, is not only dangerous to man, but is highly dishonorable to God; for he is made by it as bad as the worst of men.

Let us illustrate this. The Lord rained fire and brimstone upon the Sodomites, and destroyed them. Would a kind earthly parent treat his children in this way? Certainly not. Then God is not a kind father! A parent has a family of children, all happy and in perfect health. If he is a kind parent, he will ardently desire to perpetuate their happiness. But what should

we think of him, if, with a full knowledge of the consequences, he suffers a disease to come among them which mars their beauty, destroys their health, and renders them wretched all their days, when he could have prevented it as well as not? We should think him a fiend incarnate. Now if human action and sympathy are to govern our views of God, what character shall we give him? The first pair were holy and happy; but God not only failed to prevent sin, but, according to some leading Universalist writers, is the author of it (Sec. LXXXV); and millions are this moment groaning with untold agonies, as a consequence. To accord with Universalist notions, how are we to view him; as a kind father, or a fiend incarnate? The latter, most certainly; and thus God is dishonored. Again, what should we think of the parental character of a man who having the power to mould the will and affections of his son into perfect love and obedience to himself, and thus render all painful discipline unnecessary, but instead of so doing should suffer his son to remain in disobedience, and continue to inflict the stripes? We should think him a hard-hearted wretch. Universalists represent God, by their arguments upon his perfections, as able, not only to have prevented evil, but to destroy it now; yet instead of doing so, he has been inflicting stripes upon his children for thousands of years. Would a kind father do so? Never. So God is not a kind father!

In view of such reflections, as a result of the reasonings of this class of writers, might Jehovah not inquire concerning them as he did of certain wicked men anciently, "If I then be a father, where is mine honor?" Mal. 1: 6. The sympathies of our nature can never be a just rule by which to determine what is right in the Divine government; for earthly parents are not always governed by true mercy nor strict justice. The son of a former governor of Kentucky was clearly convicted of murder, but was saved from the gallows by a pardon from his father, when it is evident he would have withheld pardon from another man under the same circumstances. Here paternal