LOCATED IN LAFAYETTE--THE CHRISTIAN TEACHER COMMENCED--A
CIRCUIT--SOCIETY ORGANIZED--MEETING-HOUSE BUILT--ALL ALONE--CONFLICT
IN FRANKFORT--OLD TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF PUNISHMENT--DEBATE
PROPOSED IN FRANKFORT--DISCUSSION IN INDEPENDENCE--CHARACTER OF MY
SERMONS--SLANDERS REFUTED--DEBATE IN BURLINGTON--ENDLESS WOE--SOME
VOTING--THE USE OF DISCUSSION--A TRAVELER.
A new era now commenced in my life. I made Lafayette, Ind., the center
of my operations, and commenced the publication of the _Christian
Teacher_, a monthly publication of twenty-four pages, at one dollar
per year. The first number was issued April, 1841. There were then
two other denominational publications in the West--the _Star in the
West_, a weekly, in Cincinnati, Ohio, and the _Philomath Encyclopedia_,
a monthly, in the eastern part of Indiana, the _Better Covenant_ and
the _New Covenant_ had no existence, and the _Glad Tidings_ and the
_Berean_ were discontinued. There was a large field for a publication
of that kind, and I thought it would do a good work. When the first
number was issued, I had two hundred subscribers, and at the close
of the first volume, eight hundred subscribers. I owned no printing
materials, but had the work done at the office of the Lafayette
_Journal_, published by Major Seaman, a zealous Methodist, and an
honorable man. He has been in his grave these many years.
In addition to getting out the magazine, I traveled extensively this
year, preaching, and obtaining subscribers for the journal. Wherever
I went I had no difficulty in introducing it, humble and imperfect as
it certainly was. But I was not able to make many such long journeys
as I had heretofore, for I had to be in Lafayette monthly to read
proof and mail the _Teacher_. I also established a circuit which
I traveled monthly. It included Lafayette, Dayton, Yorktown, West
Point, Perrysville, Jefferson, Independence, Rainsville, Thorntown,
Crawfordsville, Ladoga, Terre Haute, Lockport, and perhaps two or
three other places. The distance round was about three hundred miles.
In Perrysville a society was organized this year, and a meeting-house
commenced. There was also one formed in Terre Haute, and preparations
made to erect a house of worship. In Lafayette, Dayton, and Yorktown,
there were also societies established. As I was the only minister in
western Indiana, where this work was going on, I had my hands full.
The first time I visited Frankfort, I preached in a vacant lot by the
way-side, as no house could be obtained. The Presbyterian clergyman,
Mr. Taylor, told his congregation that he had rather the cholera would
come to town than a preacher of my stamp. A few months after, he
attended one of my meetings, and replied to my discourse. My subject
was the Old Testament doctrine of punishment, and I discoursed as
follows:
1. As the Old Testament contains a record of God’s first revelations
to man, it is reasonable to expect, that the whole truth concerning
the consequences of wrong doing would be there clearly stated. 2. As
that book speaks of the creation of mankind, and of the introduction of
sin into the world, infinite wisdom must surely tell the whole truth
concerning sin’s direful results--tell when and where, punishment
is inflicted, and how long it is to continue. 3. The Old Testament
contains the law of God. Jesus said, “The law came by Moses.” Examine
the statutes of any state, published by its law-makers, and you will
find that the same page that contains the law also contains the
penalty, the whole penalty, for transgressing that law. Is this
right, or is it wrong? If it is right for human legislators to write
the law and the penalty in the same book, and on the same page, is
it not right for the Divine Legislator do the same? Would not a king
be justly deemed a fool, or a tyrant, who, in publishing his laws to
his subjects, should be silent concerning the penalty, or make known
only a part of it? Has God revealed the moral law, and is he silent
concerning the penalty for transgressing that law? Is man wiser than
God? Does the wisdom of earth exceed that of heaven? All admit, that
part, at least, of sin’s penalty is revealed in the Law Book, but many
deny that the whole of it is therein revealed. But why this partial
revelation? Why was the world for four thousand years in the dark
concerning the penalty of sin? For the forty centuries before Christ,
was a vast stream of human beings plunging headlong into a bottomless
pit, and not a warning given of their impending fate, till they heard
the stunning roar of the infernal cataract? This is affirmed by many
learned divines. They admit that the Old Testament does not teach
eternal punishment, but at the same time they contend, that from Adam
to Christ, the penalty for transgression was eternal punishment, and
consequently all nations and people were during that time exposed to
that terrible storm of wrath. Away with such blasphemous imputations.
Wisdom, goodness, justice, assure us, that the great Lawgiver kept
nought back of sin’s penalty, but revealed the truth, the whole truth,
and at the same time he gave the law. And here it is in such plain
language that a child can understand it. I will read from Deuteronomy
xxviii.:
“It shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the
Lord thy God, to observe to do _all his_ commandments and statutes
which I command thee this day, that _all these curses_ shall come
upon thee, and overtake thee: Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and
cursed shalt thou be in the field. Cursed shall be thy basket and thy
store. Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy
land, the increase of thy cattle, and the flocks of thy sheep. Cursed
shalt thou be when thou comest in, and cursed shalt thou be when thou
goest out. The Lord shall send upon thee cursing, vexation and rebuke
in all that thou settest thine hand unto to do.... He shall smite thee
with consumption, and with a fever, with blasting and mildew; and the
Lord shall make the pestilence cleave unto thee, _until he shall have
consumed thee from off the land whither thou goest to possess it_.”
“Moreover, all these curses shall come upon thee, and shall pursue
thee till thou be destroyed; because thou hearkendst not unto the
voice of the Lord thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes,
which he commanded thee. Because thou servedst not the Lord thy God
with joyfulness, and with gladness of heart, for the abundance of all
things, therefore shalt thou serve thine enemies which the Lord shall
send against thee, in hunger, and in thirst, and in nakedness, and
in want of all things. And thine enemy shall besiege thee in all thy
gates, until thy high and fenced walls shall come down, wherein thou
trustedest. Thou shalt beget sons and daughters, but thou shalt not
enjoy them; for they shall go into captivity. And thou shalt become an
astonishment, a proverb, and a byword, among all nations whither the
Lord shall lead thee.”
This language cannot be misunderstood. No lawgiver ever stated the
penalty for transgression in plainer terms. The Jews, if they sinned,
were to suffer in body and mind, in head and heart, at home and
abroad, till they were consumed from the land. But _beyond the land_
there is not an intimation that endless woe would be their doom. That
the apostle Paul understood the consequences of sin to be temporal,
is evident from these words, “For if the words spoken by angels was
steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience _received_ a just
recompense of reward; how shall we escape if we neglect so great a
salvation?” Heb. ii. 23. The apostle here speaks of _past wickedness_,
and says it HAD RECEIVED A JUST RECOMPENSE OF REWARD, and the countless
millions of the dead consequently were not TO BE receiving it through
the ceaseless ages of eternity. They had received a just recompense of
reward, and were at rest. All the moral elements of the law are as much
in force to-day as they were when they were revealed to Moses, and the
penalty is the same now as it was then. Good men are blessed _now_, and
wicked men are cursed _now_. Goodness blesses the one, and vice curses
the other. It is as true now of all who have lived, that they _have_
received a just recompense of reward, as it was in St. Paul’s day and
generation. The Old Testament, from beginning to end, reiterates the
same lesson concerning the present blasting effects of vice in all its
varied forms.
Mr. Taylor, in reply, admitted that the Old Testament teaches, that the
wicked in _part_ are punished in this world, that they have a foretaste
of hell this side of the grave, a morsel of what is in reservation
for them beyond the tomb. He also admitted, that Moses did not teach
endless punishment, but the prophets did teach it, though not in as
clear language as did Christ and the apostles. A future life was only
partially revealed during the Law Dispensation; it was reserved for
the Son of God to fully bring life and immortality to light. So with
regard to hell; it was obscurely revealed by the prophets, but clearly
revealed by the Savior of man.
I rejoined thus: “Hell obscurely revealed by the prophets!” And yet,
Mr. Taylor tells us, that from Adam to Christ, multitudes were daily
dropping into the infernal regions. Hell should have been revealed
more distinctly than death or the grave, for it might have been
shunned if timely warning had been given. Only think of a God of love
imparting existence to human beings, knowing, that by day and by night,
from the cradle to the grave, they were in imminent danger of falling
into a fathomless gulf, there ever to writhe in immortal agonies, and
having his omniscient eye on them during the whole of their earthly
pilgrimage--yet only OBSCURELY HINT to them of their danger. What kind
of a God, sir, do you worship? But then heaven, he says, was only
obscurely revealed under the law. I am amazed that a good, intelligent
and learned man should deceive himself by such sophistry. It may be
consistent for a parent in his last will and testament to withhold
knowledge of a great _good_ for a given period from his children,
but he must be a monster to withhold for a moment knowledge of an
_impending evil_, especially if he knows they may escape it by timely
warning.
It was nearly midnight when the discussion closed, and I spent the rest
of the night at his house, by his request. The next morning, he prayed
that I might be converted to the knowledge of the truth, and then
proposed a public discussion in Frankfort. The propositions were agreed
on, but the time was not specified, and I never could, subsequently,
induce him to name the date for the debate to commence. He put me off
from time to time, and finally the matter was dropped.
About this time, I had a discussion in Independence, Ind., with Mr.
Campbell, a Methodist minister, and that was my first regular oral
debate. I had often had _skirmishes_, but this was my first regular
pitched battle, and I went into it with much fear and trembling. I
had confidence in the _truth_, but feared I should fail in defending
it. And to this day, I never commence a discussion without similar
fears; but when I get excited, and have the measure of my man, I feel
tolerably bold. The subject of discussion was endless punishment. Mr.
Campbell was a Scotchman, and pretty wiry. The discussion elicited much
interest, and large assemblies listened to it. The following is the
substance of one of my speeches:
The consequences of sin were revealed to our first parents in the
following words: “And the Lord God took the man, and put him in the
garden of Eden to dress it, and to keep it. And the Lord God commanded
the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat,
but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of
it; for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Gen. ii.
15-17. Here is the first commandment, and the first penalty, and we
may expect that a wise, just and merciful God would inform our race in
its very infancy, of the whole results of wickedness. If eternal woe
is the penalty, it should have been then and there, at the very gate
of Eden, proclaimed in distinct and unmistakable language. This the
welfare of man, in time and in eternity, required. If man’s everlasting
weal or woe depends on his choosing evil or good in this world, that
tremendous fact should have been announced in Eden in such thundering
tones, that its echo would reverberate down all the succeeding ages,
through every valley, across every plain, over every mountain, so that
all the living, yea, the dead, should hear it. If belief in endless woe
is the conservative of virtue, and the denial of it infidelity, that
dogma should have been proclaimed so loud and so distinct, it should
have been so stamped on every heart, that a blazing hell and terrible
devils, would have been the first thoughts of childhood, and not to be
forgotten till the eyes were closed in death, and the heart ceased to
beat.
But what saith the passage: “In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt
surely die.” Is that all the penalty? Every word of it. Not a syllable
about endless death, endless misery, endless hell. Mr. Campbell, who
authorized _you_ to put _endless_ before death? You _add_ to the
word of God, and you know what is said of those who do that wicked
thing. The punishment was that they should _die_. The Bible speaks of
national death, temporal death, death to sin, and death in sin. But
here it cannot mean national death, or death to sin; neither can it
mean temporal death, for Adam lived hundreds of years after he sinned.
Reference, without doubt, is to death in sin, a moral death--death
to purity, innocence, virtue, happiness, which is symbolized by his
being driven out of the garden. We were all in that garden once.
Jesus took little children in his arms and blessed them, saying: “Of
such is the kingdom of heaven.” But Adam was cast out, and most of us
share the same fate. Adam in Eden represents our childhood, and out
of it our sinful state. This death in sin, which Adam suffered, and
multitudes of others suffer, is often spoken of in the Bible. Said
Jesus, “Let the dead bury the dead;” that is, let the dead in sin bury
the temporally dead. “You hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses
and sin.... Even when we were dead in sin hath he quickened us together
with Christ.” Eph. ii. 1, 5. This moral death means a great deal. It
includes sin itself, and all its moral consequences--degradation,
debasement, condemnation, darkness, hell, and ultimates often in
temporal ruin. This soul-debasement results in jails, penitentiaries
and gallows; in slavery, war and tyranny; in premature graves,
desolated cities, and ruined nations.
But where and when was the penalty to be inflicted? Mark the words:
“IN THE DAY thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Sin and its
penalty are bound--chained together. It does not read that they would
not be punished till the judgment day, thousands of years hence, at
the end of time. That is Mr. Campbell’s theory; but the truth is, that
sin and punishment go hand in hand, at all times, and in all places,
and if he can prove eternal sinning, I will prove eternal suffering.
Notice also, that the punishment was _sure_. In the day thou sinneth
thou shalt _surely_ die. If you jump into the sea, and cannot swim,
you must suffer the consequences; if you swallow a dose of poison,
and it penetrates your vitals, you must abide the result; so he who
transgresses the moral law of God, must suffer its blasting, damning
effects. “Ye _shall surely_ die.” Repentance may mitigate the result
in _part_, but the curse cleaves to the sinner till there is an entire
transformation of character. But the penalty is not _endless_, else
who can be saved from sin? It was not termed endless when it was first
revealed, neither is it called endless in any part of the Bible. The
gentleman will have to hunt up evidence outside of the book to make out
endless woe for the sins of this life.
Mr. Campbell replied: “That the death threatened Adam, was death
temporal, death spiritual, and death eternal; and although it was not
termed _eternal_ in the passage, it was clearly implied there, and
distinctly taught all through the Bible.”
I answered: Here are two assumptions. 1. That the death was threefold.
There is no such intimation in the passage or elsewhere in the Bible.
2. That the death is _eternal_. It is not so termed from Genesis to
Revelation.
But I have not room for more of that discussion. Mr. Campbell seemed
satisfied with his defense of ceaseless woe, and we parted in
friendship.
I got along better with this discussion than I expected, and was more
willing afterwards to engage in such debates. Many well meaning persons
oppose the public discussion of religious subjects; they think it does
no good, but much harm; but they do not properly discriminate between
the abuse and proper use of discussion. That it may be, and often
is abused, there can be no doubt; but what good thing can be named,
that is not liable to be abused? And it seems that the best of God’s
blessings, when improperly directed by erring men, are the greatest
curses. Fire, water, air, steam, electricity, when legitimately
employed, are vast benefactors to man, but when illegitimately
employed, they deal death and destruction all around. Man, when he
answers the end of his being, is almost an angel, but when his noble
faculties are prostituted to base purposes, he becomes a fiend. The
gospel is the power of God unto salvation, to all who cherish it deep
in their hearts, but in the hands of wicked men it may deluge the world
with blood and tears. So religious discussion, where truth and error
grapple, if conducted with proper motives, and in the right spirit, is
a lever of reform; it opens the eyes of the blind, unstops the ears of
the deaf, and often takes away the heart of stone and gives a heart of
flesh; hence reformers in all ages have courted discussion. Socrates
was a famous debater, Jesus traveled from town to town, and Paul from
nation to nation, discussing with the people, and turning the world
upside down. Luther, by his controversial tongue and pen, sent the Pope
of Rome, and the Catholic Church, headlong to the gates of their long
home. After that tongue was silent, and that pen dry, they rallied,
and prolonged their existence. Let every subject of human thought be
discussed freely, but kindly, honestly, wisely. It will do no harm, but
much good. But I have observed that it is the advocates of established
theories, exclusively, that oppose discussion. They do not want their
slumbers disturbed by noisy debate; they might wake up and see and hear
something new. Cry aloud, reformers, and spare not; do not be afraid of
making a noise in the sleepy hollows of the earth. Say to all, Awake,
think, investigate, judge. The divine injunction is, “Prove all things,
and hold fast that which is good;” “Come, let us reason together.”
There was so much opposition to liberal principles, that the people
wanted doctrinal and explanatory discourses, but I always dwelt more
or less on the moral and the spiritual. Mere doctrinal and explanatory
discourses, without showing the moral and spiritual bearing of truth,
do but little good. In almost every place I visited, the preachers
were fighting our faith, and slandering its advocates, and our
friends wanted me to repel these assaults, which gave my sermons a
controversial character, and some times a peppery flavor. But I always
kept the great truth prominent in my ministrations, that heaven and
everlasting life can be enjoyed in this world; that we should lay hold
on them; lay up treasures where moth and rust cannot corrupt, and where
thieves cannot break through and steal. And I had the satisfaction of
knowing that not only many minds were enlightened by truth divine, but
many hearts were improved by its saving influence.
And here I am reminded of another outrageous attack of a Methodist
preacher, Mr. Cooper, on Universalists, in Independence. “They are,”
said he, “the vilest of the vile. The jails, penitentiaries, rum holes,
gambling dens, are full of them. They defy heaven and blaspheme God.
This is their general character.”
I replied: This is all slander, and this lying priest knows it. He
knows that he bears false witness against his acquaintance, his
neighbors, the citizens of this place. He sins willfully, maliciously,
and he had better not let the sun go down on his wrath. All who live
in this community know that he poured out this day vials of falsehood;
they know that some of the best citizens of this county are of the
faith he condemns; they know also, that the wicked places he speaks
of, in this community, are not filled with persons of our faith. He
cannot name a grog-shop keeper in this county, who professes to be a
Universalist; but I can name several advocates of eternal punishment,
and some of them were once members of his church, who are in that
kind of business; and for every gambler here, who ever thought of
calling himself a Universalist, I can name ten who will swear over
their cards and bottles, that there is an endless hell; and for every
Universalist he may produce, who uses profane language, I can produce
ten advocates of eternal punishment, who blaspheme God and heaven
daily by their profanity. I want no better evidence of the immoral
tendency of partialism than the speaker has given to-day; and I am sure
that publicans and sinners will enter the kingdom of heaven before
characters of his stamp. I do not pretend, that all who call themselves
by our name are Christians in life and practice. Are all the believers
in immortal woe Christians? History says, _no_; every man and woman
living on earth will say, _no_. The persecutors and murderers of
Christ and his apostles; those who pursued the Christians in the first
and second centuries of the Christian Era, with fire and sword, were
zealous advocates of eternal burnings. The Catholics who tortured,
hung, beheaded, quartered, millions of Christians and Pagans, were all
staunch believers in hell. Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Puritans,
and Independents, who hung Quakers, burned witches, and persecuted
and murdered each other, and the Catholics, were unwavering in the
fiery faith. Ninety-nine one hundredths of all the thieves, murderers,
pirates, gamblers, rum-sellers, rum-drinkers, are believers in eternal
woe. These are facts, which history and observation substantiate. If
Universalism had been believed, and preached as long and as generally
as eternal punishment has been, and if mankind were no better than
they are now, I, for one, would be ashamed to boast of its good
moral influence. I do not say that all the advocates of eternal
punishment are reprobates. There are noble and pure Christians in all
denominations, many of them, more of that character than otherwise,
but faith in hell has yet the first Christian to make. Believers in
that cruel dogma, many of them, are Christians in spite of their faith
in it. The tendency of faith in hell is downward, while the innate
goodness of their hearts, and the many truths they cherish, direct them
heavenward. I do not contend that all believers in the Restitution
are practical Christians. Would to God they were, but I know they
are not. But give this divine philosophy time to do its work in the
world; give it time to germinate, root, bud, blossom, and yield its
fruit, before you condemn it. Belief in vengeance has had ample time
to develop itself in human character, and it has produced its like the
world over. Give the doctrine of LOVE and JUSTICE an opportunity to
yield its legitimate fruit before you cast it out as evil. Besides, the
immoral men, who hang at our skirts, were cradled, educated, and grew
to manhood, not under the influence of our benevolent faith, but under
the guns of Orthodoxy, and it, if any creed, is responsible for their
character. But because Universalism does not do in a day what Orthodoxy
has failed to do in years, it is said to be immoral in its tendency!
About this time, I had a discussion in a grove near Burlington, Ind.,
with Harper Hanna, a Methodist minister, which continued four days.
I had not been in the neighborhood before the discussion commenced,
neither had a discourse on the Restitution been delivered there,
consequently, the people were totally in the dark concerning our faith,
and strongly prejudiced against it. On the other hand, Mr. Hanna was
in the midst of his friends, and had all their prejudices in his
favor. It was a daring thing to debate under such circumstances, but
I went through with it, and had the satisfaction of knowing that I
did not labor in vain. I had afterwards monthly appointments in the
neighborhood. It was amusing to see the people scan me, and watch every
motion. If I had been an elephant, I would not have been a subject of
more curiosity. The themes of discussion were endless punishment and
universal salvation. In my first speech I said:
Put a man in prison and keep him there one year--that would be a severe
penalty. Keep him there ten years--that would be an awful infliction.
Keep him there his whole natural lifetime--that would be dreadful
beyond description. But what is one year, what are ten years, yea,
seventy years of imprisonment, compared to _endless_ suffering in
hell? Let all the suffering of head and heart, soul and body, that
all mankind have endured in all ages, and all climes, be combined in
_one pang_, and that one pang would not amount to as much woe as one
soul will suffer if doomed to endure ceaseless misery. The fires in
which the damned will live and move, will be in full blast when this
earth shall be gray with age, when the flames of the mid-day sun shall
flicker like the dying taper in its socket, yea, they will continue
to burn deep into the souls of countless millions while heaven shall
stand and God exist. That is endless misery; and that is what Mr. Hanna
affirms, and is trying to prove, will be the doom of a large part of
mankind. It is a dreadful work to charge the God of heaven with doing;
to stand up in this beautiful world, amid the manifestations of God’s
love, and charge the Author of all these blessings, with inflicting
an eternity of woe on worms of the dust. I believe in punishment--in
righteous, just punishment--but I do not, dare not, believe, that the
Father of all mercies, and whose name and nature is love, will, for the
sins of a day, doom innumerable multitudes of his offspring to blow
the fires of hell forever.
At the close of the debate, he adopted a little expedient, that he was
sure would be a perfect success--to him. He wanted the assembly to
decide by _vote_, which party had triumphed in the discussion. Being in
the midst of his friends, and relying on the prejudices of the people,
he doubted not that an overwhelming majority would crown him victor.
I was of the same opinion for the same reasons, and hence opposed his
crafty maneuver. But being determined that the assembly should vote
that he was the hero of the day, he requested all to rise who thought
Harper Hanna has sustained his propositions. About one fourth of the
congregation heeded his call. He looked the picture of amazement at
so few voting that he was the conqueror. “Get up,” said he, “you
misunderstand me;” and he again called on all to rise, who thought
Harper Hanna had sustained his cause. Not another one was added to his
voting friends. Finding he could drum up no more, he requested all to
stand up, who thought Mr. Manford had proved that Universalism was the
gospel. Two thirds of the assembly bounded to their feet. Poor Hanna
turned pale as death, and uttering not a word, sunk into his chair.
On my way back to Lafayette, I rode in company with a man who had heard
of the debate, but did not know me.
“There has been a discussion,” said he, “in Burlington, on
Universalism.”
“Did you attend?”
“No; it is wrong to hold such discussions. Universalism is a _lie_, and
every Christian should call it a _lie_, and have nothing to do with it,
or its advocates. It is the devil who induces Christians to debate with
Universalists. It is one of his schemes to lead souls down to hell.
Several of my neighbors came home from the discussion, advocating that
wicked doctrine. They were Christians, but I fear they are ruined. Two
of them say they shall withdraw from our church. Mr. Hanna did wrong in
debating with that Manford. He has introduced a viper into this county,
and I fear some are already stung to death. Well, I did my duty. I
stayed at home, and did all I could to keep my neighbors at home. But
they were possessed with a desire to hear the debate, and the result is
even worse than I expected. Our minister is going to try to undo the
evil in our neighborhood. Next Sunday he will preach a sermon against
Universalism.”
“Did your minister attend the discussion?”
“He did; and he says he went there to learn what could be said in favor
of such a doctrine. He is sure he can convince all that it is as false
as sin. One of my neighbors says he shall send for Manford to reply to
him. But he cannot preach in our church. He may be sure of that.”