Mr. Fuller had resided but a short time in Boonville, when he engaged in public controversy with Rev. Edwin Barnes, the Presbyterian clergyman of that place. It seems that Mr.

Fuller invited Mr. Barnes to preach with him on the subject of Universalism, on equal terms. After some little delay Mr. B. consented, provided he could preach last, and his opponent have no time to reply-though he was assured that he should have reasonable time to reply, if he would preach first. The parties met, Mr. F. preaching in the morning, and Mr. B. in the afternoon, after which nothing further was spoken on either side. Mr. Fuller was however perfectly satisfied with the result of the meeting, and did not consider a formal reply necessary. He was willing to leave the whole matter with the hearers, and let them judge for themselves. But Mr. Barnes seemed to think otherwise; and his sermon was soon printed, and circulated in neighborhoods where it was not known that any reply had ever been made. Mr. Fuller therefore deemed it his duty to send forth a reply, that the readers as well as the hearers might be made acquainted with both sides of the controversy. This reply abounds in sound reasoning and irrefutable arguments. And I am persuaded that the reader will be interested and profited by a perusal of the extracts which follow. In giving a brief, and we think, a correct exposition of the case of the Rich Man, upon which his opponent founded his principal argument against Universalism, he says:

As want of room will not permit me to give

a full illustration of the parable, commonly called, the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, I must content myself by giving a brief explanation, or by making a brief statement of my own views of it; which are as follows:-I believe that the rich man figuratively represents the dominant, or ruling sect of the Jews, who, in our Lord's day, had the law and the prophets, and whose business it was to instruct the common people, or dispense to them the word of God-the spiritual bread of moral life. The Scribes, Pharisees, rulers of the synagogues, and priests, held all the honorary and lucrative emoluments and offices, both civil and ecclesiastical that were held by the Jews at that time. But, instead of properly instructing the people, they so mingled their own traditions with the law and prophets which it was their business to read in public, that they might be said to give the common people nothing better than crumbs, to sustain their moral life. The common people, therefore, who looked up to their religious instructors for truth and direction, were left in the pitiable condition in which they are represented by Lazarus, in the parable under consideration; morally in a starving condition, full of sores, and yet looking to no other source for assistance than to their spiritual guides who were making void the law by their own traditions.

"But our Lord, through the medium of this parable, informed them that this state of things would be changed. The death of both is therefore mentioned as a simultaneous event;

but with very different consequences. The death, I understand to be national; which death the Jews all died. They have not existed as a nation since they fell by the Roman arms. When the Pharisees and rulers lost their national existence, with all their adherents, they were buried or overwhelmed in captivity, and tormented by their oppressors; and though they ardently desired to return to their former privileges, no way has yet been provided for their relief.

"On the other hand, all who died as Jews, by believing the Gospel, were conveyed to the bosom, or rest, of Abraham. Like the dominant sect, those who were induced to believe the Gospel, lost their national life, when they became Christians; for "there is no Jew in Christ."

"This, sir, is a brief statement of what I believe to be the meaning of this parable. If you still persist in contending that it is not so to be understood, I am, nevertheless, ready to meet you on your own ground, and admit, for the sake of convincing you of the impossibility of sustaining your doctrine by this portion of Scripture, that it is to be understood literally. You well know, that the original term for hell, in the text, is hades. And you equally well know, that the ablest critics of your denomination, hold that hades is to be destroyed at the general resurrection of the dead; and, I believe, nothing but a want of candor and honesty on your part, prevented you from allowing the fact, in your sermon You, sir, know that Professor Stuart,

of Andover, in his late "Exegetical Essays," allows-nay, proves, that hades is to be destroyed at the general resurrection. But you

have neither honesty nor courage to teach it in public. That hades is to be destroyed at that time, is susceptible of the plainest proof from the Bible. (Hosea xiii. 14.) "I will ransom them from the power of the grave, (hades,) I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, (hades,) I will be thy destruction." (1 Cor. xv. 55.) "O death, where is thy sting? O grave, (hades,) where is thy victory?"

66

"Thus you see that the very place in which the rich man is represented as being, if the passage be understood literally, is to be destroyed at the resurrection to immortality. There is no appeal for you from this truth, unless you make lies your refuge.

66

But, allowing your own application of the text true; what can you prove by it? No more than this-that one rich man did go to hell, and, there is a prospect that five more, either have gone, or will go there, also. But this, sir, is so small a number to be endlessly miserable, that I presume it will not satisfy your pious soul to believe it; and will come far short of gratifying your love of prospective misery for your neighbours.

"What you say, of the importance of your subject, deserves a moment's notice. You say, "the question which relates to the state of the soul beyond the precincts of time, is a question of the deepest interest and solemnity." And

66

you ask, "is there a state of eternal woe?" But, solemn and important as this question is, in your apprehension, it is a question never asked by any sacred writer. No inspired penman ever asks the question you do, "is there a state of eternal woe?" No; vast as this question is, with you, the total silence of Scripture on the subject, shows that your deepest interest" was passed over in silent contempt by the sacred writers. But this terrifying manner is made use of, to secure popular prejudice in your favour. I will only give you a passing hint that such stuff, call it by what name you will, either argument or fact, has not, with me, the force of "a spider's web," in support of your sys

tem."

Mr. Barnes had undertaken to explain several passages of Scripture usually quoted in proof of Universalism, and to show that they are not incompatible with the doctrine of endless misery. In this work he was also closely pursued; and his reasoning was ably and successfully confuted. The following is here presented to show the facility with which Mr. Fuller overthrew the arguments of his opponent:

"What you say (p. 7) on 1 Timothy ii: 4, "Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth," deserves a moment's attention. You say, "the argument of Universalists is this: God wills the salvation of all men; his will must be done; and therefore they will all be saved." And you add, "by the same rule I might say, God wills the immediate repentance and continued holiness of