Treatise on Atonement Section 11

There is, perhaps, no passage of scripture on which more dependence is placed for positive proof of a state of punishment in a future world, and to all eternity, than the following: "There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, and desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it come to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy life time receivest thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou are tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham said unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, Father Abraham, but if one went unto them from the dead they will repent, And he said unto him, if they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead," Luke 16:19-31.  In this parable, our opposers contend, we have a very plain and literal account of the death of a rich man, and of his being in hell, after death; and the death of a poor man, and his future happiness. It is contended by the most of those who oppose the doctrine which we endeavor to vindicate, that this paragraph ought to be taken and understood in its most literal sense, and that Christ did not intend it as a parable. Though we are very far from believing this paragraph to be a literal account, yet we will admit it, for the better accommodation of the argument. For if we do not, but only give our opinion on the passage our opponent will contend, that the objection is not answered, so he rest it on the literality of the passage.

Admitting the account just as literal as our opposer views it, is it possible for him to substantiate an objection against us, from it? We think not; for were it possible to prove, that an individual, who died in the days of Noah, had continued, from that time until now, in a state of misery, it would have no force to prove, that such an individual would be miserable a single year longer, much less, to prove he would be endlessly so. Further could it be proved that a person, who recently died, would be in the worst of torments, for a million years to come, it would fall infinitely short of proving that he would suffer endlessly. If the suffering of a rational being, for a time, proves this being must be endlessly miserable, the proof stands against the whole family of Adam, not excepting Jesus himself. If my opponent be under the necessity of giving me the argument, in this particular, which I know he must, then, what evidence has he left, in the scripture under consideration, to prove endless misery? If it be argued against me that the gulf, between Abraham and the rich man, was impassable, it proves nothing with regard to its duration. Let us now examine the passage a little, taking notice of the common idea of it. It is said that the rich man lifted up his eyes in hell. Now it is believed and argued, that souls, in hell are as destitute of any principles of goodness, as the devil in which people believe; that they are fully engaged in the devil's service, and opposed to anything and all things which are favorable to the kingdom of the Saviour. This being the case, how is it that we have an account of the prayer which the rich man made to his father, Abraham, in favor of his five brothers? He seems to be anxious for their welfare, and desires that they might not come unto such a place of torment as he was in. How would such a prayer please Beelzebub, the prince of the devils? If I believed in such a being, according to the general idea which people have of him, I should suppose he would be very alarmed on hearing such benevolent prayer made in his dark domain! The prayer seems to favor the Gospel of grace, more than the vile purpose of satan, though it did not seem to dictate the matter exactly according to the divine purpose. It is generally believed that the devil is desirous of getting as many as possible into misery; if so, and the rich man desired that his brothers might not come into that place of torment, let his reason be what they might, it is evident that his desires were opposed to the devil's. "A kingdom divided against itself, cannot stand." Again it is argued, by some that those who are in heaven will rejoice, in consequences of the misery of those whom they see in torment, as the justice of God will, by their torments, be made to appear more glorious than it otherwise could, which, by the way, answers the most fervent desire of satan. This being granted, should those, who are in heaven, on seeing those in hell, who in this world, were the nearest connections, feel the smallest regrets, much more, desire to grant them assistance, it would be a complete violation of that justice which confined them there. But in our text, it is shown, that those, who are in Abraham's bosom, are desirous of going to the rich man and their object is plainly seen, that it is to relieve him from his torments. See verse 26, "So that those who would pass from hence to you cannot." It is very evident that those, who were in Abraham's bosom, were desirous of assisting the rich man; and according to the common idea, it must have been deemed a rebellion against the will and justice of God, in consequences of which, if the devil deserved to be cast out of heaven, for his disobedience these undoubtedly deserve the same condemnation! If we look impartially into these things, it is easy to see, that something wrong has been entertained in the common idea. By a little attention to the introduction of this paragraph, the reader may easily see the whole was intended as a similitude, to show the adultery which the high priest would commit, in rejecting the Gospel, and endeavoring to obtain justification, by attending to the law in the letter, and also the situation of the part of Israel that was broken off through unbelief, which is represented by Saint Paul in Romans 11:7-10 "What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it but the rest were blinded (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of remorse, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumbling block, and a recompense unto them: Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway." Matthew 21:43, "Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."

How evidently these agree with the words of Abraham to the rich man in the parable, "Son remember, that in thy life time thou hadst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; But now he is comforted and thou art tormented." "Whether of them did the will of the Father? They say unto him, the first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, that the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you," Matthew 21:31. "But when the Jews saw the

multitude, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming. Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth." Acts 13:45-47. It seems, according to the scripture, that it was so ordered, in the wisdom of God that some of the Jews, who were first his chosen people, would through unbelief, be broken off from their own olive tree and that the Gentiles would be grafted in. "And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakers of the root and fatness of the olive tree; Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not high-minded but fear. For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, be grafted into their own olive tree?" Romans 11:17-24. This subject is, doubtless, that which the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, was designed to represent, but that the Jews were broken off through unbelief, so that they were never to be grafted in again, or that their fall was such as to preclude recovery is certainly very fully refuted by the apostle of the Gentiles. "I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles for to provoke them to jealousy. Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fullness," Romans 11:11, 12. Read the remainder of this chapter and particularly notice verses 15, 25, and 26, "For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?" "For I would not, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceit; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall

be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:" Observe how the following passages correspond: one from the parable, the other from the history of the fact: Abraham says, "Besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed; so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot: neither can they pass to us that would come from thence." Blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in." This blindness which happened to Israel constituted, between them and Abraham's faith called in the parable his bosom, an impassable gulf. "But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: That the saying of Isaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? And to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their hearts; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him. Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God," Saint John 12:37-43.

If our opposer contend that what we here call the parable of the rich man and Lazarus ought not be called a parable, because it is not so called where it is recorded.

We deem it sufficient that we refer to a passage which we will not hesitate to call a parable, but which is not said in the scripture where it occurs, to be a parable. See Judges 9:8-15. The passage begins thus; The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them; and they said unto the olive tree, reign over us. The olive tree refuses. They next apply to the fig tree, and that tree refuses. They next apply to the vine, and the vine refuses. They at last go to the bramble, where they succeeded in obtaining a king. If we are told that the cases are by no means parallel because every body knows that trees never talked to each other, and that they never wanted a king to reign over them, we reply; these well known facts are no better known than it is known that the eyes of a dead man in the grave see nothing, and his ears hear nothing, and that his tongue feels nothing, and that his lips say nothing.

If our opposer says that the rich man was not in the grave, but in hell, he is informed that the word which is here rendered hell, is the same word which is rendered grave in 1 Corinthians 15:55, "Oh death where is thy sting, oh grave where is thy victory?" Now if we contend that this hell is a place of torment in the invisible world, we must grant that it will be overcome; for the Apostle adds," The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law, but thanks be to God which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." But we would have it distinctly understood that we do not believe that the parable has any reference to the state of man in the future world.

There is a passage in Matthew 12:31,32, which has been contended for as an unanswerable objection to universal salvation. The text reads thus, "Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And 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." The common idea of this world and the world to come, is the present life of man on earth, and that state which man exists hereafter. Could it be proved, that this was the right meaning of the word `world' there would be something more in the text than we can see.

Some, who have ably defended the doctrine of universal salvation, have admitted the common idea of the passage, so far as it goes to prove future misery, yet, have abundantly proved it would come to an end; but if the word `world' have the signification of an age or dispensation, as will not be disputed, it will be impossible to prove, that anything, beyond what may be experienced by men, if this mortal state, was intended, in this text. We are informed, that Christ came once in the end of the world, to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. The world, in the end which Christ came, was undoubtedly the dispensation of the legal priesthood, according to which idea, the `world' which was then to come, is the dispensation of the Gospel light which rose on the Gentile `world' for the purpose of bringing them to the knowledge and worship of the true God.

What we have written on this subject will show the reader the propriety of supposing, that the sin, which the Pharisees committed, in blaspheming the Holy

Spirit, by which Christ wrought miracles, was visited upon that nation, but we see no need of carrying the meaning of these words beyond the experience of man in the natural life; therefore, admitting the doctrine of future punishment true, we cannot see it proved from these words.

Could it be proved that eternal, or endless misery was a natural production of the divine nature, there being an changeable- principle to support such misery; the argument on our part must be given up. If sin be, in a moral sense, the cause of misery; should sin ever be brought to an end, its consequences, which is misery, would also come to an end. If our opponent will tell us how Jesus will finish and make an end to transgression, and yet sin and transgression continue as long as God exist, he will embarrass us more than all of his objections have been able to do.

Having answered, as we hope, to the readers satisfaction, some of the most important objections against God's universal goodness to his creatures, we shall now turn on the other hand, and give the reader some evidence for the believing in the so much despised doctrine of universal holiness and happiness. First, we reason from the nature of Divine goodness, in which all pretend to believe, and none dare, in a direct sense to deny that God could not, consistent with himself, create a being that would experience more misery than happiness.

Secondly, if God be infinitely good, his goodness is commensurate- with his power and knowledge; then, all beings whom his power produced, are the objects of his goodness; and to prove that any being was destitute of it, would prove that Deity's knowledge did not comprehend such being.

Thirdly, there is as much propriety, in saying, that God is infinite in power, but that he did not create all things; as there is in saying, though God be infinite in goodness, yet part of his creatures will never be the partakers of it. It might as well be said that God is infinite in knowledge, and yet ignorant of the most part of the events which are daily and hourly taking place, as to say, that he is infinitely good, and yet only a few of his creatures were designed for happiness.

Fourthly, if the Almighty, as we believe him to be, did not possess power sufficient to make all of his creatures happy, it was not an act of goodness in him to

create them. If the Creator has that power, but possesses no will for it, it makes a bad matter as much worse as is possible. We then reduce our opponent to the necessity of telling us, if those whom he believes will be endlessly punished, be those whom God could save, but would not! or those whom he would save, but could not? If it be granted that God has both the power and the will to save all men, it is granting all we want for a foundation of our faith.

We would further argue, that, as man is constituted to enjoy happiness, on moral principles (to the knowledge of which principle we come by degrees) it is as reasonable to believe that all men were intended to obtain a competent knowledge of the moral principle of their nature, as that of any of Adam's race were. There is not one individual of the whole family of man, who is perfectly satisfied with those enjoyments which earth and time offered him; he is constituted for nobler pleasures, which to us, is an evidence that God has provided, for all, some better things than can be found in earthly enjoyments. There is an immortal desire in every soul, for future existence and happiness; for the truth of this assertion we appeal to the conscience of our reader. Why should the Almighty implant this desire in us, if he never intended to satisfy it?

Supposing a mother has the power of modifying the desires and appetite of her child, would she cause it to want that which she could not get for it? Would she take pleasure in seeing her child pine for fruits which did not grow in the country where she lived, and which she could not get? Or would she prefer the anguish of the child, to its happiness? If such a mother were to be found, who would call her a god-like woman? Could her child, thus tormented, rise up an call her blessed? No, surely it could not.

We further argue, that all wise, good and exemplary people wish for truth of the doctrine for which we contend; they earnestly pray for the salvation of all men, and do all in their power, by the grace of God, to dissuade men from sin, to the obedience of the Gospel; they enlist willingly into the services of virtue, to endeavor to win proselytes to holiness; their object is the distrust of sin, and the advancement of righteousness; and they believe, and we think justly, that God will bless their labors.

None, but very wicked men, would wish for the endless duration of sin; were it left to the carnal mind, it would wish for nothing but the privilege of drinking in iniquity forever. But those, who truly love God, and holiness, desire, night and day, to overcome the vile propensities of their own deceitful hearts, and pray for the reconciliation of others to holiness and happiness. Now, why should we suppose that God is more of the mind of the wicked, than of the righteous? If it be God's Spirit in us which causes us to pray for the destruction of sin, is it reasonable, to say, that this same Spirit has determined that sin shall always exist? Are we not right in the judging of the nature and character of God, from the dictates of his Spirit in us? If so, does this Spirit teach us the necessity of endless transgression and misery? We wish the reader to keep in mind, that we hold sin and misery inseparably connected, and holiness and happiness so likewise. We further argue, if any of the human race be endlessly miserable the whole must be, providing they all know it; for, reasoning from that Spirit of benevolence which is necessary to a conformity to the principles of holiness, we prove it impossible for a well disposed man to see another in misery without bearing a very sensible proportion of such misery. If it be argued, that this idea is wrong and that the spirit which dictates it is of the evil one; we say, in answer, all good men in the world feel it to be a truth; and no man ever exhibited more of it than the Saviour of the world.

If any one be so particular as to query, asking, If the Almighty himself be not desirous of the salvation of all sinners; and if so, how can this happiness be complete? We answer, a being to whom events do not take place in succession, nor time pass away, with whom an eternity is a present now, whose knowledge is intuitive, and who can neither hope nor anticipate, can neither increase nor decrease in happiness. But when we speak of God, abstractedly, our words should be few and chosen.

Those who are the most devout on earth, are the most desirous for the advancement of the Redeemer's kingdom, and the deliverance of themselves and their fellow-man from sin and misery.

How the idea ever got a place in the human mind, that even fathers and mothers, in the world to come, would rejoice, to see their own offsprings in endless flames and hopeless torments, we can hardly conceive; though the probability

is, it was first invented, to shun, in theory, those difficulties not otherwise to be avoided. We wish to use this error as prudently as possible; but we wish to have it rightly understood, and judged impartially. Will perfect reconciliation have this effect? We know it is contended that it will; but what evidence have we of it? Was not Christ reconciled, or in a state of conformity to God's law? Did he manifest joy, at the suffering of mankind? When he looked on Jerusalem, that abominable city, and knew that its chiefs would be his murderers, when he spoke of the dreadful calamities just ready to burst on their rebellious heads, how did he feel? Streams of sorrow breaks forth from the Innocence; in his grief he spoke of their destruction, but prophecies of their seeing him again, when they would welcome him, saying, "blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord!"

If perfect reconciliation to God will effect complete happiness at the sight of human misery, the more we are reconciled to God, the more satisfaction we should take in seeing our fellow creatures miserable! Then, those, who can look upon men in distress with the least sorrow, are the most reconciled to divine goodness; and those who feel the most sorrow at the afflictions of their fellow man, are the most perverse and wicked!

Some may say, Heaven is entirely different from this world, and when we get there, we should be totally changed from what we now are; therefore, it will not do to argue, what we shall be there, from what we ought to be here. Then the awful fact is, all we call goodness here, will be called badness there, and that which we call badness here will be called goodness there!

If the effect of moral holiness, in the world to come, should be different from what they are here, we wish to be informed on what moral principle the change is made. If these things be so, the heart of the cruel need not but a little alteration to prepare them for heaven, and that little is making them worse. Such heaven as this, does not, we hope, exist in the universe. Our opponent will urge this argument still further, on this subject, and say, it is not the misery of the wicked that affords so much pleasure to those who are in heaven, but their joy is increased in consequence of the execution of justice. This, however, is giving up what is contended for, that every degree of misery will create thousands of degrees of happiness, because divine justice be as well understood without this misery, as it is with it, the misery itself would do no good. We are willing to grant, that a good man will prefer the execution of justice, to his own private case, or the partial happiness of a criminal. But how would a judge appear who should manifest joy and gladness on pronouncing the sentence of death upon one of his fellow men? Who would not turn from such a court with disgust and deep abhorrence? To call such a circumstance an instant in which men have an occasion to rejoice, is a violation of our senses. We will say for ourselves, we neither expect, nor desire perfect happiness, while we see our fellow men in misery: we had rather be possessed of that sympathy which causes us to feel for another, than to enjoy an unsocial pleasure in a frosty heaven of misanthropy!

Section 12