CHAPTER VII.
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.
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 theChristian 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—theStar in the West, a weekly, in Cincinnati, Ohio, and thePhilomath Encyclopedia, a monthly, in the eastern part of Indiana, theBetter Covenantand theNew Covenanthad no existence, and theGlad Tidingsand theBereanwere 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 LafayetteJournal, 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 tobe in Lafayette monthly to read proof and mail theTeacher. 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 transgressingthat 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 doall hiscommandments and statutes which I command thee this day, thatall these cursesshall come uponthee, 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. Butbeyond the landthere is not an intimation that endless woe would be their doom. That the apostlePaul 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 disobediencereceiveda just recompense of reward; how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?” Heb. ii. 23. The apostle here speaks ofpast wickedness, and says itHAD RECEIVED A JUST RECOMPENSE OF REWARD, and the countless millions of the dead consequently were notTO BEreceiving 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 nowasit was then. Good men are blessednow, and wicked men are cursednow. Goodness blesses the one, and vice curses the other. It is as true now of all who have lived, that theyhavereceived 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 inpartare 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 intothe 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 onlyOBSCURELY HINTto 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 greatgoodfor a given period from his children, but he must be a monster to withhold for a moment knowledge of animpending 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 hadskirmishes, but this was my first regular pitched battle, and I went into it with much fear and trembling. I had confidence in thetruth, but feared I should fail in defending it. And to this day, I never commence a discussion without similar fears; butwhen 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 thepenalty? Every word of it. Not a syllable about endless death, endless misery, endless hell. Mr. Campbell, who authorizedyouto putendlessbefore death? Youaddto the word of God, and you know what is said of those who do that wicked thing. The punishment was that they shoulddie. 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 intemporalruin. 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 daythou 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 wassure. In the day thou sinneth thou shaltsurelydie. 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. “Yeshall surelydie.” Repentance may mitigate the result inpart, but the curse cleaves to the sinner till there is an entire transformation of character. But the penalty is notendless, 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 termedeternalin 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 iseternal. 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 notproperly 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 ofthe 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 wereno 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 ofLoveandJusticean 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 debateunder 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 toendlesssuffering 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 inone 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 multitudesof 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 byvote, 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 alie, and every Christian should call it alie, 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.”