C 218.39 tfarard beverceseen ee ely Ihadmy x“ . Entered according to act of Congress, in the year 1839, By Rey. Anprxw Royce, In the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the Ver mont District.PREFACE. ‘Tax history of the following work is briefly as fol- jows :—In the summer of 1837, I prepared and preach- ed to my people two discourses, in which I attempted to prove that Universalism is entirely a modern inven- tion, and in its tendencies entirely opposed to godli- ness. These discourses, by the unanimous advice of ‘the Association to which I belong, were, in the sum- mer of 1838, given to the public. Their favorable re- ception, the advice of several prudent and enlightened men, together with the necessity of publ thing in reply to certain “ Reviews” by Universalists, h juced me to publish another edition in the pres ent form—a form in which it was thought they would be more acceptable to readers in general. TiSecond Part, it will be seen, consi tain reviews of the First. The First Part is, in sub- stance, the same as when originally published. A few paragraphs, with some notes, have been added : two or three which were deemed unnece punged, and such other rev’ quired. A. ROYCE. Williamstown, May, 1839.: UNIVERSALISM, 3 A MODERN INVENTION, NOT ACCORDING TO GODLINESS. BY ANDREW ROYCE, acTING PASTOR OF THE CONG. CHURCH, WILLIAMSTOWN, YF. SECOND EDITION, With an Examination of Certain Reviews. WINDSOR: PRINTED AT THE CHRONICLE PRESS. 1839.g2y. 37 HARVARD COLLEGE LIBRARYPREFACE. ‘ ‘Tax history of the following work is briefly as fol- lows :—In the summer of 1837, I prepared and preach- ed to my prople two discourses, in which I attempted to prove that Universalism is entirely a modern inven- tion, and in its tendencies entirely opposed to godli- ees. These discourses, by the unanimous advice of the Association to which f belong, were, in the sum- mer of 1838, given to the public. Their favorable re- ception, the advice of several prudent and enlightened men, together with the necessity of publishing some- thing in reply to certain “ Reviews" by Universalists, have induced me to publish another edition in the pres- ent form—a form in which it was thought they would be more acceptable to readers in general. TiSecond Part, it will be seen, con tain reviews of the First. The First Part i stance, the eame as when originally published. A few paragraphs, with some notes, have been added: two or three which were deemed unnecessary; have been ex- punged, and such other revision made as criticism re- quired. A. ROYCE. Williamstown, May, 1639.vores Googlevoixesw Google. ! 6 INTRODUCTION. gap Wraced as. truth, and according to the scrip- © ie it is our duty to “prove, or test it, and it fast if it is good, and reject it if itis evil. To aid the reader in the discharge of this “very important duty, is the design of the fol lowing work. T desire to remark, however, by way of pre- liminary, that, though with plainness L endeavor to oes the falschood of Univer salism, yet I indulge no unkind feelings to- wards those who have embraced this heresy. ‘There are among them many. whor I regard as men of integrity and valuable * zens. Some of them T rank among my ‘ae est friends. And if, in the discharge of what I deem to be my duty as a minister of Chris Jam called to aim at the heart of their beloved system, I beg they will remember that it is not because I love them the less, but because I love their souls and the truth more, T have no sectarian feeling in relation to this subject. I rejoice to sce the kingdom of righteousness extended, by whomsoever. the truth may be preached. I rejoice to see souls flocking unto Christ, no matter by whose in- ‘strumentality,—be it by Methodists, Baptists, or Presbyterians. I love to extend my fellow= ship and my sympathies 10 ofery Christin der nomil whom I deem serviceable in Yerting an apostate world to God. And, reason why I must. oppose ‘Univeral, ie iINTRODUCTION. 7 that I perceive all its ¢xndencies are ppposed to righteousness. The reason why I cannot extend to Universalists the hand of fellowship, is, that I never see them useful in leading souls by faith and repentance unto Christ. And however much I may love thems how- ever much I may wish them success in’ other things, I must oppose them vigorously in their deluded efforts to promulgate that doctrine, under the influence of which men never re- pent, but are led to continue in rebellion, “treasuring up wrath against the day of wrath.’ In prosecuting the design I have in view, it will be necessary, in the first place, to show what Universalism is. It is not practicable, however, within my present limits, to make a statement of all the peculiar doctrines of modern Universalism. It would require a volume. As now preached, it in nothing, scarcely, with those doc- trines held by. whaz we cal Evangelical de- nominations of Christians. It differs in rela- tion to the character of God, the character and offices of Christ, and the Holy Spirit. It dif- fers in relation to the nature of the fall, the degree of man’s present sinfulness, and the desert of sin. It differs with respect to the whole plan of salvation ; the resurrectign, a future judgment, and the future condition of man. It hasa different God, a different Christ, a different Spirit, a different sinner, a difer- ent sin, a different atonement, a different Gece,8 INTRODUCTION, resurrection, a different judgment, a dif \t punishment, a different hell, a different heaven,—in fine, a difference with respect to. all the essential doctrines of Christianity.* Raiigis may be said that there is no more resemblance between the doctrines of modem, Universalism and those held by what we de- nominate Evangelical Christians, than between the doctrines of Mahomet and those of Christ. But in speaking of Universalism now, ref- erence will be had only to its doctrine respect- ‘ing the future condition of man. | pioinent and leading doctrine —the d which it is usually distinguished. What, jen, does Universalism teach respecting the futute condition of man? In answering this question, we shall let Unie versalists speak for themselves. ‘This is, in« deed, in accordance with their request. 'T| ask us to learn what Universalism is, from *its principal authors” (Trumpet, Vol. 11, p. 14): and our extracts, to show what Universalism is, shall be from those whom they have express- ly called their “principal authors.” (‘Trum- Pet, Vol. 11, p. 166.) tb i é a different pardon, a different salvation, a dif "The Bditor of the Trumpet, after quoting this eet ten , To this we give our assent.” Cai thenseftdnd Christian fellowship to those who Ly the being of our God, ind our Savior, and do not one of the essential doctrines of Christianity as by us? . onINTRODUCTION. 9 the gels of God in heaven.” (Trumpet, Vol. 12, 158.) | Again, “Universalsts do maintain that ment in the fulure state, is not threatened in the divine word.” Once more : sure and inevitable.” “It is a sentiment which distinguishes us from all our religious oppo- nents, that this life is a state of retribution ; that here, virtue receives an ample reward of , and that here sin meets a competent punishment of misery.”* * See Trumpet, vol. 12, p. 190, and vol. 13, p. 38; and Cobb's Sermo: Intelligencer ies quoted in the Introductory Epistle of Whitman’ ters to a Universal Both the Editor of the “ Trumpet” and Mr. Ballou make much complaint of the above definition. They say that the distinction of Restorationist should not be made ; but that all should be called Universalists. In reply }, it should be said, that in 1830, a portion of those inthis land who believe in the final ealvation of all wen, withdrew from the Universalists, because of the “want of piety in the Connexion,” the “ open oppasi- tion to the or, mn of churches,” and the “ of levity and bitterness which characterized the put ae iry,—and formed themselves into ‘adore’ of their mini inet sect, calling themselves Restorationists. They refuee to be called Universaliste, An honest writer, therefore, will make the above distinction. ‘They contend that the above extracts are “ garb They are not. They convey the truth. Universalists10 INTRODUCTION. Here, then, we learn from “its bi authors” that Universalism teaches, that all punishment is confined to this life ; and, that there is no condition for man, beyond the grave, but that in which he is as the angels of God in heaven. Tt should be remarked that this is the doe trine of Universalists, and not of Restoration- ists, who believe in a limited future pun ishment. We learn from Mr. Whittemore’s “Modern History of Universalism,” however, that the great majority of those who, im this country, believe in the final salvation of all men, aré Universalists. Thus Universalism teaches, that he who ob- stinately disobeys God during his whole life, and he who practices the most rigid obedi to his law; that he who desecrates the Sab. bath, and he who keeps it holy ; that he who casts off fear and restrains prayer, and he who continually walks with God,—in short, that the pious and the impious, all sit down to- gether in the kingdom of God. Tt teaches, that the monster who butchers ‘hey say that quotation: from their “ Confession of doctrines of Universalism. You might from the Aleoran. The present system of Universal- isin was never known till after 1803. It was invented by Messrs. Ballou and Balfour; and by them’ it was» not preached fill within about twenty years.INTRODUCTION. ll his own children, beats to death the wife of his bosom, and, to escape the gallows, blows out his own brains, instantly stands in the midst of angels, to be exquisitely happy for- ever ! It teaches, that he who died in a brothel, with a bottle in his hand, actually cursing God, went immediately’ to walk the golden streets of the New Jerusalem ;—that the very drunk- ard, who swallowed his undiluted brandy in fatal quantities, wakes from his bacchanalian songs on earth, to join the anthems of sera- im ! It teaches, that nothing a man can do will work for him the forfeiture of heaven. He may steal, rob, and murder—he may riot in finkal pleasures, and, at any moment, should he become satiated with earthly feasting, may go to eat of the tree of life, standing in the midst of the paradise of God ! It teaches, that any man may enter heaven just when he pleases. If he gets tired of his “hell on earth,” or his “hell within,” a few cents’ worth of opium will open for him the pent gates of the heavenly City; or, should prefer the water, he may obtain that crown for which Paul so long fought, without money and without price.* * Concerning the above statement of what Univer- saliam teaches, Mr. Ballou makes quite a brandishing of smart syyings, “ But,” says he, (we aust tore back apon his own head, the dreadfal consequences12 INTRODUCTION. Such is Universalism. How gross a delu- sion! How totally at war with the convictions of every sound mind! How utterly opposed to every dictate of conscience ! 5 See ‘that murderer! ‘That knife, smoking. with the life-blood of his slaughtered wife, he plunges into his own bosom, and as his soul goes up to the abode of the blessed, he is met | his Judge, with “Well done, and ’ which he sees in Universalism, and show him that the ‘sword of satire is a two-edged blade.” He then con- eer ees te i oo jongregationalism,—thus : tionalism te ill dont the elect who dasscraine ‘the Sabbath, and he who keeps it holy; that the elect who casts off fear and restrains prayer, and he who continually walks with God short, that the pious and the impious! elect oll sit down together in the kingdom of &e, &e. Now it matters not whether the “ sword of fatire” has two, or forty edges. He has not used it,— ‘unless a tissue of gross misstatements is satire. Con grega jonalism knows of no “ impious elect’ ; but only. of the elect “through the sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.”” ae * The following lines do not burlesque Universalis In its sentially ridiculous and absurd. If reader at these lines, let him remember that Ta lism, © “Thus Pharach and his mighty host a sd. Gedlike honors given; plessant broeze brought them with ease friveuay oh te benrene ; So all the filthy Sodomites, When God bade Lot retire. DaiINTRODUCTION. 13 Having shown what Universalism is, I will now proceed to show that it is entirely a modern invention. ‘Went in a trice, to paradise, ‘On rapid wings of fire. So when the guilty Canaanites To Joshua’s sword were given, ‘The sun stood still, that he might kill ‘And pack them off to heaven. God saw those villains were too bad To own that fruitful land ; He therefore took the rascals up To dwell at his right hand.” Prox.DigitPART I. UNIVERSALISM A MODERN INVENTION, AND NOT ACCORDING TO GODLINESS. CHAP. I. UNIVERSALISM A MODERN INVENTION. SECTION I. Christ and his Apostles not Universalists. Whether Christ and his Apostles were Uni- versalists, is a very important inquiry, for if « Christ and his Apostles were not Universalists, then Universalism cannot he true. But how are we to settle this question? Certainly the proper evidence before us are the words of Christ and his Apostles, as recorded in the New Testament. By these alone, then, we may settle the question. fore we proceed to examine and weigh the words of Gnrst and the Apostles, we will hy down the following definite and just rule interpretation: Wonps AND PHRASES ARE TO BE UNDERSTOOD IN THEIR USUAL AND16 UNIVERSALIS KNOWN SIGNIFICATIONS, OF THE AGE AND COUN- ‘TRY IN WHICH THEY WERE SPOKEN OR WHIT- TEN, UNLESS THE WRITER OR SPEAKER EX- PRESSLY ATTACHES SOME OTHER MEANING 70 THEM. This rule of interpretation is founded in the nature of language, and can never with safety be disregarded. Words are the signs of ideas, and they become so wholly by common. con- sent. That meaning which a people by cus- tom attach to a word, is its meaning. No matter what it signified in other times; its present meaning is to be determined by the present use—the usus loquendi—the usual and known signification attached to it by the people of the present time. By this rule our laws are interpreted.* ‘The words of statutes and agreements, except tech- nical words, “ are to be understood in their known and usual si significations ;” and this rule is equally ‘applicable t to the holy scriptures and all other writings. ‘There is a kind of implied compact between every writer and those for whom he writes, that he shall employ words in their usual significations. He cannot oth- erwise be understood. If, then, he shall de- part from this rule without giving his readers intimation of it, he violates a solemn obliga- tion, and will certainly mislead his readers. The same may be said of a public speaker. * See Blackstone on the Interoretation of Laws.Apostles respecting the condition ‘man, at the time, and in the country in wl were spoken ? ‘first word of Christ in reference to the ition of man, which we will exam- ” (Mat. 23: 15.) To the Scribes Christ said, cute aeeenoes SRemeesboniok,vipces, how can ye escape18 UNIVERSALISM damnation of Gehenna?” (Mat. 23: 33.) « Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.” (Mat. 10: 98.) “ And I say un- ou, 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 Gehenna; yea, I say unto you, fear him.” (Luke 12: 4, 5.) There are five other passages in which this word occurs in the language of our Sav- -ior, but enough have been given for our pres- ent purpose. Now what was the known and usual sig- nification of Gehenna among the Jews in the days of Christ? Universalists have told us that Gehenna was, in the days of our Savior, the name of a valley near Jerusalem, where the filth of the city was deposited, where perpetual fires were kept burning, and where malefactors were exect- ted: and that when Christ used the word Ge- henna, he had reference to punishment inflict- ed in this valley, or to other temporal calami- ties symbolized by punishment in this Almost the ae of this statement ide But the truth is this :—The eastern section of the pleasant valley which bounds Jerusalem on the south, was anciently called the Valley oY Hinnom, in the Hebrew tongue, Ge Bie