Dr. Chauncy's arguments in favor of Universalism {Salcation of All Men) are these: 1. Christ died not for a select number of men only, but for mankind uni- versally, and without exception or limitation, for the Sacred Scriptures are singidarly emphatic in expressing this truth (John i, 29 ; iii, 16, 17 ; Hom. v, 6 ; 1 Cor. xv, 3; 1 Thess. v, 10; Heb. ii, 9; 1 Pet. iii, 18; 1 John ii. 2). 2. It is the purpose of (iod according to his good pleasure that mankind universally, in consequence of the death of his son Jesus Christ, shall certainly and finally be saved (Rom. v, 12, etc.; viii, 19-24; Fpli. i. 9, lO"; iv, 10; Col. i, 19, 20; 2 Tim. i, 4 ). 3. As a means in order to men's being made meet for salvation, (iod will sooner or later, in this state or another, reduce them all inider a willing and obedient subjection to his moral government (Psa. viii. 5, 6; Matt, i, 21 ; John i, 29; 1 Cor. xv, 24-29; Phil, ii, 9-11; Heb. ii, 6, 9; 1 John iii, 8). 4. The Scripture language concerning the reduced or restored, in consequence of the mediatory in- terposition of Jesus Christ, is such as leads us into the thought that it is comprehensive of mankind univer- sally ( Kev. V, 13). The opponents, however, of Dr. Chauncy and this doctrine observe, on the contrary side, that the Sacred Scriptures expressly declare that the punishment of the tinally impenitent shall be eter- nal (Matt, xii, 31, 32; xvii,"8: xxv, 41, 4(1; xxvi, 24; Mark iii, 29; ix,43; Luke xii, 10; Eph. ii. 17; 2 Thess. i, 9; Heb. i, 4. (>; x, 26, 27; 1 John v, 16: Jude xiii; X.— T T
Rev. ix, 3 ; xiv, 11 ; xx, 20).— Henderson's Buck. See Hkll.
In short, severe as may seem the doctrine of eternal punishment, and however much we may naturally wish to avoid its acceptance, this is not a question for us to solve according to our inclination. We must ask, with reference to all matters connected with the future world, What has God revealeil? wiiat has he declared? The Scriptures are the ultimate appeal, and these to candid and thoughtful minds have ever been plain and positive on tiie subject. iMoreover, the same abstract arguments which are often adduced against the eBerlastiny punish- ment of sin apply to its present pimishmenf, and, indeed, against the fact of sin itself. If God loves man and loves holiness, why does he suffer him to sin at all? We arc thus brought back to Butler's immortal argu- ment, and constrained to bow to the sovereign will of the Almighty. The following judicious remarks are from Van Oosterzee, Christian Dogmatics, ii, 438 :
"The duration of future punishment is most detiuitely represented in Holy Scriptuie as absolutely endless (Mark iv, 44-50; Rev. xiv, 11, etc.). Even if the word eternal does not in itself denote absolute endlessness, it is surely a different matter when eternal pain is without any limi- tation associated with eternal life (Matt, xxv, 40). We will here only call to mind the fact that those who mairi- tain the contrary of restoratiouism can bring forward nu- merous and plain statements of the Lord and his wit- nesses; at any rate, the possibility of an endless misery is most distinctly declared in Matt, xii, 31, 32; and such words as those in Luke xvi, 26; Matt, xxv, 10, 41 ; xxvi, 24 could hardly be vindicated from a charge of exaggera- tion if he who spoke tliem had himself seen even a ray orii<j;ht in the outer darkness, and been able and willing to kindle it before others' eyes. In no case could such a ray be seen without previous contrition and conversion; but, viewed even psychologically, this latter is certainly nowhere to be looked for less than in a hell of sorrow and despair, not to say that the Gospel nowhere opens up to us a certain prospect of thecoutinuance of the f^racious work of God on the other side of the grave. He who here talks of harshness must by no means fori^et that sinful man is a very partial judge in his own case ; that nothing less than the highest grace is boldly and stubbornly set at naught in the case here supposed ; and that there always will be, according to the teaching of Scripture, au equita- ble distinction in the rewards as well as in the punish- ments of the future (Luke xii, 47, 4S ; Rom. ii, \i sq.). Ay, even if men mi^dit flatter themselves with a diminu- tion or postponement of the punishment, tliere still would always be a remembrance of the incalculable mischief which they had done to themselves and others, and this would be a daik cloud l)efore the sun of an eventual hap- piness. Least of all could they hope for such an end whu have known the L'reat salvation, and all their lives un- gratefully despised it (Matt, xi, 24; Hel). ii, 3). As to the heathen and others who, entirely without their own fault, have missed the way of life. Holy Sciipture nowhere com- pels us to believe that these should summarily, and on that account alone, be the victims of an eternal damna- tion. While there is only one way of salvation (Acts iv, 12), the Merciful One will make it known to men in some way (1 Pet. iii, 19). We can safely leave to God the justi- ticatiou, even in this respect, of his own ijovernmeut of the world ; but we must take careful heed that we do not try to be more merciful and wise than he to whom sin, as liina; as it continues to be sin, is thoroughly damnable. Even in preaching the Gospel, his servants are not free to leave this daiker side entirely unmeutioned. The state- ment of it should always be joined with that of the friend- ly light of gr:ice,and let I he preacher t.ike care that he does not lead his heaiers in the way of despairing fear or unl)elieving doubt by yieldini; to the desire to paint hed as black as possible. The best statement of the prospect of the sinner is that of 'goins; to his own place,' i. e. to the land of his own choice, where he may still continue to dwell."