IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

1 1.0

I.I

IS IS

2.0

1.8

1.25 1.4

.4 6" -

►

//A

Photographic

Sciences

Corporation

23 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, N.Y. 14S80

(716) S72-4503

.«

CIHM/ICMH

Microfiche

Series.

CIHM/ICMH
Collection de
microfiches.

Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques

Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques

The Institute has attempted to obtain the best
original copy available for filming. Features of this
copy which may be bibliographically unique,
which may alter any of the images in the
reproduction, or which may significantly change
the usual method of filming, are checked below.

D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D

Coloured covers/
Couverture de couleur

Covers damaged/
Couverture endommagde

Covers restored and/or laminated/
Couverture restaurde et/ou pelliculde

Cover title missing/

Le titre de couverture manque

Coloured maps/

Cartes gdographiques en couleur

Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or bl^ck)/
Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire)

Coloured plates and/or illustrations/
Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur

Bound with other material/
Reli6 avec d'autres documents

Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion
along interior margin/

La re Mure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la
distortion le long de la marge intdrieure

Blank leaves added during restoration may
appear within the text. Whenever possible, these
huve been omitted from filming/
II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes
lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte,
mais, lorsque cele 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont
pas 6t6 filmdes.

L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire
qu'il lui a 6td possible de se procurer. Les details
de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du
point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier
une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une
modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage
sont indiqu6s ci-dessous.

□ Coloured pages/
Pages de couleur

Pages damaged/
Pages endommagdes

Pages restored and/or laminated/
Pages restaurdes et/ou pellicul^es

Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/
Pages d6color6es, tachetdes ou piqu6es

Pages detached/
Pages d^tach^es

r^ Showthrough/

Transparence

Quality of print varies/
Qualitd in^gale de I'impression

I I Includes supplementary material/

Comprend du ms^t^riel suppl^mentaire

Only edition available/
Seule Edition disponible

Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata
slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to
ensure the best possible image/
Les pages totalement ou partiellement
obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure,
etc., ont 6t^ filmdes d nouveau de fa^on d
obtenir la meilleure image possible.

Additional comments:/
Commentaires suppldmentaires;

This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/

Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous.

10X

14X

18X

22X

26X

SOX

12X

16X

20X

24X

28X

32X

■aire
s details
ijues du
It modifier
:iger une
e filmage

The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks
to the generosity of:

Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library,
University of Toronto Library

The images appearing here are the best quality
possible considering the condition and legibility
of the original copy and in keeping with the
filming contract specifications.

L'exempiaire fiim^ ful reproduit grdce d la
gin^rositd de'

Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library,
University of Toronto Library

Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le
plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et
de la nettetd de l'exempiaire filrn^, et en
conformity avec les conditions du contrat de
filmage.

1/
u^es

Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed
beginning with the front cover and ending on
the last page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All
other original copies are filmed beginning on the
first page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, and ending on the last page with a printed
or illustrated impression.

Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en
papier est imprim6e sont film6s en commencant
par le premier plat et en termir nt soit par la
dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second
plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires
originaux sont film6s en commencant par la
premiere page )ui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par
la dernidre page qui comporte une telle
empreinte.

The last recorded frame on each microfiche
shall contain the symbol ^^- (meaning "CON-
TINUED "), or the symbol V (meaning "EN'J ").
whichever applies.

Un des symholes suivants apparaitra sur la
dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le
cas: le symbole -~^- signifie "A SUIVRE", le
symbole V signifie "FIN".

lire

Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at
different reduction ratios. Those too large to be
entirely included in one exposure are filmed
beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to
right and top to bottom, as many frames as
required. The following diagrams illustrate the
method:

Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre
filmds d des taux de reduction diffdrents.
Lorsque le document est trop grand pour etre
reproduit en un seul clich6, il est film6 d partir
de Tangle sup^rieur gauche, de gauche d droite,
et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre
d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants
illustrent la m^thode.

by errata
led to

snt

ine pelure,

a^on d

32X

BTheol

AC(

REFl

FEINTED

BTheo\

BEING

A COMPLETE ANALYSIS

AND

REFUTATION OF THE SYSTEM,

-BY —

E. STONE WIGGINS

'> »

Author of the Architecture of the Iloavons. '^

" By thy Words shalt tkou bo oondomned."

N A P A N E E :
PEINTED BY IIENEY k BRO., GRANGE BLOCK,

1867.

Entered, according to the Act of the Provincial Parliament, in tlio jrear One ThonS'
aud Eight Hundred and Sixty-Seven, by

E. S. WIGGINS,

IP. the Office of the Registrar of i&e Ikjmlnlon of Canada,

^4^.^

hOTlB'

MY WIFE,

( NOW ON A TOUR IN HER NATIVE LAND )
MY COMPANION, IN8PIRER, AND ASSISTANT,

IN HOURS
OF EARLY STUDY,

AS A MARK OP GRATITUKE,
AND
EVER-DEEPENING AFFECTION,

i WthmU tl)i9 jBook.

PREFACE,

Univcrsalimm lins, of late, become ho intrusive in our
Canadian cxjmmunitieH, in courting the smiles of that class
of men who over seek a cloak for their sins, and seducing
our youth into the higliway of folly and disregard of reli-
gion that, to say the least, the Christian j)art of the public
must feel the necessity of the adoption of Komo measures
to stom the torrent. It may be safely affirmed that with
the exception of the book of Mormon, there is no system
of religion pretending to be Christian, that is bo well adapt-
ed to encourage vice and deceive the lovers of sin. Instead
of being a fountain of reproof and warning to the sinner,
it wliis2)ers in his ear the story of the elevating power of
evil — that God is its author and man its subject, " for some
future purpose of goodness." Univcrsalism therefore, can-
not bo expected to possess any moral power or exert any
gowl whatever with the Christian, much less with tho ir-
TcligiiMA jX)rtion of the community, but on tho contrary,
must let loose every moral restraint and coolly permit ' the
indulgence of every passion which humanity is heir to, and
to w^hich virtue itself has over been repugnant.

Man in his unrogenerate state has ever played the infi-
del as regards tho future and awful character of God's judg-
ments. Tho history of the Antediluvians, Sodomites and
Jews*, is ft lamentable witness to this truth, an 1 hence the
doctrine of Punishment, as taught by Universalists, is to
the major part of mankind, not only palatable but danger-
ous in the highest degree. What men wish to be true re-
quires but little evidence to convince them of its truth.

In the following pages Univcrsalism has a fair analysis
and exposure. Throughout the system is pinned to its au-
thors and their logic is given no alternative, but to meet us
definiteljf in the field-to thoroughly canvass all their ground
and show up in the light of demonstration the fallacy of

I'UKI ACE.

thoir reasoning, their Scrijdiu'c perver.sion jiud the tleccp-
of ilioir iirgumciits. Wo liavc treated the (U)etrino of* our
opponents us we treat the Bible— mude it its own interpre-
ter; nnd not an arguniciiL or jtroof-text has cs(ai)e(l our
crucible, as we luive sent the entire theory thronu'li the or-
deal of criticism, and it will furthermore be seen that those
very Scriptures which are adduced to establish the ultimate
and unconditioiuU salvation of all men, are not only defici-
ent of such testimony l)ut alford in themselves ainjde ju'oof
of the untomablencHS and falhuy of the system — a system
in wliich there is no reason and for the support of which
there is no evidence.

A public discussion held between Dr. S. K. Lake and O.
K. Crosby, Universalist minister at Bloomtield, on which
occasion I presided as Moderjitor, also a debate afterwards
through the public journals conducted by mc^ with the same
gentleman, together with the nanifest uukindness not to
say insolence of Mr. Crosby in calling a meeting and re-
viewing a funeral sermon preached by the Tlevd. G. "R. vSan-
derson, VYeeleyan Minister at Picton, have justly subjected
Universaliem to a more vigorous treatment and we trust
will be looked upon as a sufficient a})ology fortho sharpnosB
of the book.

Here every Orthodox minister and private Christian is
furnished with a text-book on Universalism, containing a
complete refutation of every position hitherto assumed oi-
thor in the affirmative of Universal Salvation or the nega-
tive of punishment.

■V- • ■■ ".. E.'S. WIGGINS.

Bloomfield, July, 18C7. ,..

In consequence of the Author's being unable to at-
tend to the proof, he finds on reviewing the work a few er-
rors that have escaped our notice. The principal arc on
pp. 92, 133 and 240. See Errata.

OOJSTTEISTTS.

ciiAFn<:i{ I.

THE TALL.

Preface ........

Adam's penalty. Temporal death, ....

Proof from Scripture — MSS. and Univorsiilipts,

UniverHalism makes thin death eternal,

Objectionf) con^idorcd, . .....

God the Author of sin. and man its Htihjoct by necessity,
ForeknoAv ledge and foreordination not the same, .
Christ saves the World and yet saves nobody, .
Their arguments examined and refuted

CHAPTER 11.

t>AOC.

5
10
11
18
21
23
27
, 31
34

THE JUDOMKNT.

The proof that the judgment is in thin lili , ... 40

Universalists have }(>«r judgments, .... 42

Their arguments found wanting, ..... 43

Proof that Christ's second coming was not at the over-
throw of the Jewish metropolis, .... 50

All their witnesses examined, ...... 52

The judgment to be after death — Proof, ... 62

CHAPTEE III.

PUNISHMENT.

Paniahment not confined to this life, .... 84

*• He that is dead is freed from sin", Rom. 6:7, 86

Proof that men are saved from deserved pnnishment - 93

The Trinity a doctrine ol the Ghnroh in the second oentnry, 96

Their proof-texts examined, ...... 100

Universaliat perversion of the Scriptures, . . .114

Their Hell, 117

Proof that the wicked are pnniehed in the future state, . 122

Examination of John 5:2i>, and Matt. 10:28, ... 136

The " second death ", 154

The Book of Revelation — When written, 156

OHAPTKK IV.

ENDLESS PUNISHMENT.

Post-mortem punishment admitted, . . . ' . 158

Romish and Universalist Purgatory the Barae, . 159

Distinguished men claimed as UniverBaliste, . . 160

The character of BassilHdes, Carpocrates and Origen, 161

The Sibylline Oracles, ...... 163

Me ming of the words Sheol, Hades, Grhentia, and Tartarus, 168

OONTKNTS.

The " rich man and Lazaruu",

Tlio nicaiiin},' ot the pliraeo " Abbralmnra bosom ", .

Blifuiiiiig of Udiinntt in tli(^ <layH of ChriHt,

Objections to Uditnua coiiHidcrotl, ....

Future punitilmienl (muIIcbs— Proof, . . . . .

liobtorationiyni refuted ......

Univerealista ([uoto intidulB for proof, . . . .

The (iroek wordy niun. aionios translated eternal, everlasting,
Proof tluit tJH'HC! words signify («^//^.s.v, ....

Words other tlian aion adduced by Universalists,

Mr. Skinner's defeat on aldios, .....

The excouiiuuuication of 2 Pef. 2,4, and Judo 0,
The most respectable Universalists on aioyi, .

CnAPTKK V.

U.S'IVEnSAL SALVATION.

Their a ^^rzori logic exploded, ......

Their prool-texts separately examined (see List), .
Four ticoro and four coutradiotioDB, .

Erratr

171
174
178
17I>
IHf)
IDO
231
2;j:J
234
237
242
243
247

260
266
324

332

'. -i

171
174
178
171)

iHr>

190
231

2'M
237
242
243
247

260

266
324

332

'! '. J

« i

UNIVERSALIS! UNFOUNDED.

CnAPTER I.

ijT is tlio (locfrino of UnivorrtaUsm nnd to pomo ox-
tont of Orthodox}', that tho poimlty attachoil t(j
Adam'H trans<^roHBion was moral (loath — tliat ho
Bhould become ihad in sm immediately on breaking the Di-
vine command. Tho system has rejected the plain literal
account of the Creation and maintains tliat man in his spir-
itual or intellectual nature was created in Christ, that sub-
sequently he was formed of the dust of tho ground, and
that the Fall in no way affected his spiritual nature. That
our first parents became morally dead the moment they sin-
ned no one need dispute, but that moral death v/as the pen-
alty itself wo pointedly deny. TJnivorsalists are very well
aware that such an interpretation of tho text in Genesis, is
an important item in their theology, and this position they
assume meets with little opposition from popular belief. If
however they be made to surrender this ground and forced
to admit that this punishment connected with the interdict-
ed tree, was not moral but temporal death, two-thirds of
their citadel must fall at our first stroke. Nay, let our po-
sition be once fairly made out and no ingenuity or sophis-
try of man can save the system. Wo contend, therefore,
that this " death " contained in the phrase " In the day thov
eatest thereof thou shall surely die,^' was not moral but tem-
poral, because

1. — No sane man could suppose that God would institute

1.0

TTNIVERSALIS^I UNFOUNIiED.

;i forfeihire which Adam did not imdcrstniid • To accuse hrrn
of tliiHwouUl bo to impench him with injustice and doccp-
tion. But did Adum under.stand the nature of moral deatli ?
Most certainly not, for he was the first that sinned.

2.— (lod said to Adnm after ho Binned: " Diut tliou art^
and unto dust thou sluilt return." (Gen. 3 : 19) Nov/ if ho
had ])eon subject to physicjil death before his disoi>odience,
and knew it, which no one need dispute, since tlio wi)rd doitk
Avas in the denunciation, why did (lod now inf(U'in liim of
somothint;; lie ah-eady knew ? The only rational conclusion
is th.ai; Adam subjected his body to dissolution by transgres-
sion.

3 — All admit tluit this death A^as opposite in its nature to
the ^^trceoflifii in the muht of the (jnrdrii.'' i. o. if (ho //v*
Avas qnrUual so was the " death," or if tlic tro:> was tem|>or-
al so was the death also. If therefore, we ])rovc this was a
temporal tree our position will bo fairly made out. This is
evident because, l.-If the tree of life was spiritual it would
have cured Adam, and hence God was unjust and cruel in
driving him out of Eden. 2.-If this tree was spiritual
Adam must have "oaten" of it constantly before his "faU."
No one will deny this. But the tc.rt denies it. "Now lost
he take fi^- ALSO of the tree of life," (Gen. 3 : 22) /*. e., Icsti
ho put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, as
ho took of the tree of tho knowlediji:o of u'ood and evil. —
Then ho had never yet eaten of the tree of life before tho
fall, which is positive proof that it was a temporal tree. So
then was the penalty of the Divine law temporal death. 3.
The tree of life wa*. confined to the garden, for tho only rea.
son why ho was driven from the garden was that ho might
not eat of it,—" Lost he put forth his hand and take also of
the tree of life and live forever, he drove out the man." —
Had the tree been spiritual he could have eaten as well out-
side the garden as in it. It seems plain that this tree as its
name denotes, was a tree that had the remarkable prop-

rKITERSAhlSM UNFOUNDED.

iia

use hrm
(loccp-

(loiltll ?

K)u art,
V if lie

eMlieiico.
rd death
Jiim of
Illusion
iinsgros-

laturo U>
(ho tr('4i
tem|X)r-
IS was ii
I This is
it woukl
cruel in
spiritual
s ''falir
S'ow lest
/*. e., lost
life, as
d evil. —
iforc the
;ree. So
>ath. 8.
)iily re a.
;e might
ah^) of
man." —
^vell out-
•00 as its
lie prop-

<«*ty of preserving life and vigor as long as it was re.sorted.
to, and therefore it appears that the expulsion of our first
parents instead of heing an act of vengeance as commonly
Ijolieved, was, on the contrary, an act of mercy, for hail
tbey remained thej must have lived forever upon the earth
in their fallen state. Dr. Kennicott and other learned com-
mentators strongly contend that this is the doctrine of the
original Hebrew text.

4. — If the penalty threatened was moral or spiritual death,
a.s Adam died that death wlion he obtained ''the knowledge
of good and evil", Satan asserted and contradicted himself
in the same bre.atli, for he said " Ye shall not surely die
but shall know good and evil ;" but to " know good and evil"
was to die moral death : then it was equal to saying " Ye shall
not surely die but ye shall die." \Yo are of opinion that this
ancient genileman would scarcely risk the success of his
fraud upon such a palpable contradiction, or else Eve had
less judgment, sense and j)enetration by far than our modern
hidies. As big a devil as Satan is, he has nover yet been
accused of being a fool 1 !

Suil'ering is the inevitable result of man's constitu-
tion, and can only be attributed to sin -, for with our present
views of the Divine character we could not suppose that God
would permit sinless beings to suiter, otherwise we have no
Hccurity against the endless sulfering of the wicked, or even
of the righteous. "Let it bo noted," says Luther Lee,
^' that God first threatened man with death in case ho should
disobey, and then offer he had disobeyed he announced his
mortality as the fulfilment of his threatening; ' hecausc
thou hast eaten,' &c. ; ' dust thou art and unto dust thou
shalr return.' God charges on man his mortality as a co«-
«f!f^ve;/rf' of his own disobedience." v >

5. — Tlie Mosaic account of the Fall is embraced in a se-
ries of historical events which, with this exception, are ac-
knowledged to be literal, and Is so connected with these as

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

to preclude all reasonable supposition that it wa;^ designed
to be understood in an allegorical sense. We read, "And
the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there
he put the man whom he had formed." (Gen. 2: 8). Now
if the " garden" is a figure so is the man, and if the man
was literal the garden was literal also. But the man cannot
be a figure, as this would bo ])utting a figure in the heart of
a figure, and this would leave us with no historical account
of the origin of the human species. And the garden could
not be a figure of man's heart, since it is not only said to
have been " planted" after man was created, but instead of
being put into the man the man was put into the garden.
It appears to have been some lime after Adam was created
till Eve was formed, for he had become a man and named
the animals before the Lord made the woman, (v. 22). This
would indicate that the Creator did not give Adam a heart
till he gave him his wife, and w hat seems still more strange
is that ho got his wife in his heart, for Eve is represented
in the garden. Let it also be noted that those who take this
gi'ound make God the direct author of the Fall and the ori-
gin of all sin, for if the Serpent was created in man as it
tempted Eve in the garden, God must have created Adam
immediately under the influence of Satan. It is not a little
strange that some sects that maintain this doctrine also main-
tain that every human being is holy on coming into the
world. We have olteii heard it asked, that if Eden was a
real place, where is it now ? Our reply is, that if they will
point out the land of Nod, where Cain dwelt, we will point
them out the garden of Eden ; for as Nod was " on the east
of Eden " (Gen. 4 : 16) Eden must have been on the west of
Nod.

6.— Paul imderstood the death over which Satan obtained
power at the tree of transgression to have been temporal
death,—" Forasmuch, then, as the children are partakers
of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the

UKlVERiALISM UNFOUNDED.

iesigned
, "And
nd there
. Now
he man
n cannot
heart of
account
en could
y said to
Lstead of
garden.
s created
d named
2). This
L a heart
D strange
)resentod
take this
1 the ori-
lan as it
id Adam
)t a little
Iso main-
into the
m was a
hey will
ill point
the east
) west of

obtained
temporal
Eirtakers
rtofthe

same, that through d6ath (physical) he might destroy him
(Satan) tSf that had the power of death, that is the devil ;
and deliver them who through fear of death Avere all their
lifetime subject to bondage." (Heb. 2 : 14, 15). This death
of which Satan had power was temporal and not moral death,
because, 1. The death that was feared is spoken of as future
at the end of life — they feared this death ^'•(dl their lifetitne.''
2. This death over which Satan had power was the same as
that w4iich was feared, and we cannot imao-jnc how it could
be said that they spent their lifetime in bondage through
fear of iTiOral death. 3. Moral death is nowhere in the
Scrijjtures represented as being subject to the power of Sa-
tan, for in that case he could compel men to ftin ; neither is
there an instance where it is said moral death is to be dcs-
troi/ed. We only read, " O death, I vv-ill bo lliy plagues. O
GRAVE, I will be thy destruciiun." (IIos. 13 : 14). 4. Uni-
vorsalists are bound to admit tint; (lie death over which Sa-
tan had power was not moral (leatl). for they deny the doc-
trine of original sin, i. e., that tlie (loath which Adam died
was entailed upon his posterit}', and Paul here testitioy that
tiiis death then in the power of Satan extended to all. 5.
This text shows that Satan, tliout;'li ho once had the power of
this death, has not that power now, for it says that " he might
destroy him that HAD the poirer of death, f/inf is, the deed.''
Then it could not have been moral death, for Satan has the
tj-anxo pov.'or nov/ over that death Hint he ever bad.

Before the death of Christ manlvind liad no practical evi-
dence that they would ever be raised from the dead, since
no one had ever yet bui-.-^t llie barriers of the tomb, as

..Christ was "the Mr.'t fruits of them that slept.'' Ilenco
thoy looked upon death as the invincible monarch of the

: tomb, and jis a consequence " llirough fear of deatli were
all their lifetime subject to bondage." ]3ut now is Christ

. rison from the dead : he has broken the ])Ower of Satan and

.exclaims ; "lam he that liveth and was dead, and beliold

UNIVEESALISJt UNPOrWIH©*.

I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the KEYS of
hades and of death." (Rev. 1: 18). The word key denotes
power, and is proof that Satan lost that power at Christ's
resurrection. Dr. Adam Clarke, in his comment on this
passage in Hebrews, says that the Jews whom Paul ad-
dressed had a tradition that " the angel of death should be
destroyed by the Messiah." "N^ow if Satan had the power
of i^hysieal death, he only obtained it through Adam's trans-
gression — for in Adam all died — and this must therefore
have been the penalty that was coupled with the Divine
command.

7. We must suppose, in the very nature of the case, that
the penalty made known to Adam was the most appalling
and forbidding. There is nothing that thrills such terror
through the human heart as the thought of the death of
the body. The mosL villainous and profane, who are noway
torrilied with moral wretchedness, but continue to sin with
impunity, are kept in restraint by the laws of capital pun-
ishment. The meaniug, therefore, of the phrase, " dying
thou slialt die," as it is in the original, is plainly this: "As
you see the lower animals die, so. shall y^ou die, Adam, if you he
disohedientr No other view can satisfy this text.

8. That the penalty of Adam's transgression, as made
known to him, was temporal death is proved from the most
authentic and reliable copies of the Old Testament. The
Greek translation of Symmachus, in^^tcad of " thou shiU
surely die," has "thou shdt he mortal." TJic Syriac, the most
genuine of all ancient MSS., gives the same !^ensc, and is
accepted as the true by Jerome and the learned {Irotius.
The Arabic renders it, "thou shalt (Icsrrve to die." The par-
aphrase of Jonatlian, " thou shalt he snbjeet to death." Xearly
all great commentators contend that the original Hebrew
corresponds in sense to the Syriac and the translation of
Symmachus.

9. The most prominent and learned of the early Chris-

UNIVXKSALIfiir tJNPOUNBEB. •'*-

. IT

tians contended for this sense. Theophilus of Antioch, who
belonged to the school of Justiiv Martyr, (A. B. 150) says —
" Some one will ask, * Was Adam by nature mortiil ?' By
no means. 'Immortal?' Not thus either. 'What then?'
I answer, neither mortal nor immortal; for if the Creator
had made him from the tirst immortal, he would have made
him a god. If mortal, then God would appear as the au-
thor of death. He made him, then, capable of becoming
eitlier; so that by keeping the command of God he might
attain immortality as his reward, and become a god. But
if he should turn to mortal things and disobey God, ho would
be himself the author of his own death. For God made man
free, and with power of self control." (Ad Autolycum 1, 2,
c. 37). This I regard as a perfect exposition. Man's body,
though earthy, would nevertheless continue to live forever
by partaking of the life-giving tree. Augustine, " the great
light of Orthodoxy," A, D. 400 leads off the same idea: —
" Before man's sin the body might be called mortal in one
respect and immortal in another : that is, mortal because it
was capable of dying , immortal because it w^as not able to
die." (De Genesi ad literam 1, 6, c. 25).

10. Universalists themselves have made public testimony
which we adduce to favor our position. Mr. Abel C. Thomas,
the compiler of the Universalist Hymn Book, in his discus-
sion with Dr. E. S. Ely, Avhilo commenting on the much
disputed passage, I. Cor., 15 ; 22, remarks: "By dying in
Adam I understand dvin<>- in the mortal constitutioii of the
first man, who was of the earth earthy. * * That the
death in Adam is a natural death you will admit." (Discuss,
p. 50). Mr. Thomas plainly says all die temporal death in
Adam. Novr, tlie preceding verse reads : " For since h/
Dvin came death hy man came also the resurrection of the
dead;" /. c, according to Mr. Thomas, temporal death came
b}' man ; or in otlior words, Adam subjected himself and
posterity to mortality by transgression..

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

Dr. J. B. Pods, a prominent Universalist writer, says : —
" The taking away tho i^in of the world by the Lamb of
God, who is the resurrection and the life, is through denth
(pjjysical). Through death to our faith and hope he has
'destroyed him who had the power of death, that is the
devil.' " Here he claims that the death of Avhich the devil
bad power was physical death, and was hence the death
Adnm died by disobedience. (Dod's Sermons, p. 107).

11. Uziiversalists repudiate the doctrine of original sin —
that Adam's sin was entailed upon his posterity — and ridi-
cule the idea in a manner approachin o; to blasphemy. They
must thci-efore admit, for the foUowirg considerations, that
Adam's penalty was temporal death. 1. Paul says, " Death
ruigned from Adam to Moses, even over them J8@" that had
^'0T SINNED." (Eom. 5 : 1-i). Here we are explicitly told
Ihat the death pronounced upon Adam reigned from \dam
to Moses over them that never committed sin ; and as this
death could not, even according to Universalism, bo spirit-
ual or moral death, it must be temporal. There is no twist-
ing out of this conclusion. We must remarlv, however, that
with all their denunciations against the doctrine of original
sin, they nevertheless teach it in the strongest manner. To
l)rove that all will be saved they quote : "For as by one
man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obe-
dience of one shall many be made righteous." (Eom. 5 : 19).
Austin, in his del)ate with Holmes and Cobb with Hudson,
strongly contended that this text is proof of universal sal-
vation. In tliis they tell us tho word "many" means all
mankind, and that this text is proof that all Avill be saved ;
l>ecause the Apostle here rays, " by tho obedience of one
{Clxrht) the many SIIi\LL BE MADE RioiiTEOUS." But stop
a moment. The same text says these many "were made
sinners hy on,- win's (Adam'.'^) dimhedience." Do Universal-
ists belie^•o tlio words they quote? This is the plain, un-
varnished doctrine of original sin. 2. The strongest pas-

ITNIVERSALISM UNPOUNDED.

says : —
Lamb of
^'h death
he has
at is the
the devil
ic death
07).

ml Bin —
and ridi-
'. They
ons, that
" Death

riAT HAD

:'itly told
m idam
id as this
bo spirit-
no twist-
n- or, that
' original
liner. To
i by one
r the obe-
n. 5:19).
Iludson ,
ersal sal-
Tiean.s all
3e saved ;
ce of one
But stop
)ro made
Iniversal-
)lain, un-
gest pas-

8£Vge that is cited as proof of the final happiness of all men
establishes our doctrine of the Fall: "As in Adam all die,
even so in Christ shall all be made alive." (I. Cor. 15 : 22)
And here we find Universalists again adopting the hated
"dogma" of human depravity, for the moment they adduce
this to prove that all men will be saved from sin, that mo-
ment they admit that all were lost through the sin of Adam.
But tj^iis is not all. In making this admission, and still
clinging to their exposition of the passage as having refer-
on(!e to the spiritual and not the mortal part of man, they
turn tops^'-turvy their entire system ; for mark the fact —
" As in Adam all become morally dead — dead in sin — EVEN
SO in Christ shall all be made alive." That is, if they die
in sin, EVEN SO shall they be in the resurrection state —
still morally dead. But Universalists tell us, as did Flan-
ders in his debate with Strickland, that " all men die in their
sins," therefore all will be raised in their sins ; and as the
same authority informs us that misery and moral wretch-
edness go hand in hand, hence all mankind must certainly
and inevitably be eternally lost. There is no alternative.
Universalists must give up their exposition of this text,
and admit its reference to temporal death, and that it is sim-
ply a proof of a general resurrection of the dead ; i. e., As
in or through Adam's transgression all go down to the grave,
even so in Christ shall all be brought up from the tomb —
be mode alive again ! But these theologians have a method
of disguising their contrarieties by raising a dust against
their opponents. Accordingly, when confounded on their
doctrine of the Fall, they immediately accuse Orthodoxy of
teaching that the Divine mandate to Adam was coupled with
eternal death — that he forfeited final happiness by transgres-
sion. This, however, will not relieve their case, for Uni-
versalism predicates the selfsame penalty. This is appa-
rent from their great proof-text that we have just noticed,
(I. Cor., 15 : 22), which they contend teaches that what was

UXIVEllS VLISM UNFOUNDED.

lost in Adam was •.•aiuod in Chi'i.st, or convcrsoly, what wan
gained in Christ was lost in AcUim. JJiit according to Uni.
vors:\li-n\, avc gain linal holiness and happiness in Christ,
invu we lo,>t it in Adam, or were subject to rtrrmd deatli.

Dr. Cohi), in his Xew Testament withKotes, roaches thin
conclii; ion in another way. In his comment on I. Cor., 15 :
IS, whei-e Paul ^ays, "]f Christ be not raised then they
which have fallen aslee|) iti Christ are jynslal," (through
tl)0 Fall), he remarks: "As the M'ord prri'sJnJ is in oppod-
tton to the {!/<' Immortdl, it means <t loss of cxlsk'no'.' Why
did not IViend Cohb, when he admitted that Die svord " pcr-
i.-hed" is put in opi>(it<i(io)i to the !!/<■ imniortai, say " it moans
(irath c.tivnid,'' the op])osito of immortal life ? Because this
would not suit the gentleman, for it would look too much
like " the soul-withering and Cod-dishonoring doctrine of
endless misery." But as it stands, it proves our point that
i\dam's tran^grc^;sion subjected him to death eternal, for " a
loss of existence" is eternal death. Dr. Dods also says that
'•perished in tliistext means annihilation. (Sermons, p. 87).
3Ir. Auj^tin., in his discu>si(>n witli Kev. David Holmes, con-
tends that " the lake of fire," IJev., 20 : 14, imjilies utter de-
^.trv.ction. [p. T08]. Kvery wi'iter upon Cniversalism main-
tiiins that the casting of hnhs^ (translated hdl), into the
hike of tire means the end of its being. IFence those that
^hall ''have their part in the lake of tire" will be blotted
from exist once j that is, tlie punishment of sin is eternal
death.

The great dogma of Universalism, that the sinner inust
inevitably suffer the full punishment of his sins, also proves
tluit the penalty of the "forbidden tree" was death eternal;
for as that punishment was dea^h, and as Adam could not
according to their doclrino be saved from that punishment,
it follows as a legitimate corollary that he will remain dead

aturo eternal. And if

forever, since death is in its o

\vn n

this death was moral — a death in sin as they with equal for-

UNIVEBSALISM UNFOUNDED.

vhat was
X to Ilni.
1 Christ,

(l.-itli.
ic'hos tluH

Cor., 15 :
hen they

(through

in oppoi^l-
Why

orn " pcr-
" it moanH
caiu this
too much
octrinc of
point that
lal, for " a

says ti\at
,ons,p.87).
jlmcs, con-
es utter do-
ilism main-
), into the

those that

be blotted

is eternal

inner must
also proves
ith eternal ;

1 could not
lunishment,
■emain dead
lal. And if
:h cfj^ual fer-

vour contend — and as nothinp^ can shield from just and de-
served punishment, ami death being in its nature etei-nal,
therefore Adam is now and forever will be the slave of sin ;
and a •' they likewise teacdi that misery is the necessary con-
comitant of evil, therefore our first parents must sutler end-
less misery.

But Univcrsalists commit themselves even nu)re palpm-
bly to the doctrine of the endless nature of the penalty of
sin. To prove that all will be saved, they cite IJom. G:
24, " For the wag-es of .sin is death, but the gift of God is cter-
nnl life through Jesus Christ our Lru'd." Here eternal life
they tell us means the life immortal ; then we must in turr,
tell Univcrsalists that the death which is put in antithesis to
it must, according to their own showing, be death in the
future world — dvjtth etcriud. And that they arc correct in
this the preceding text is evidence for this eternal (aioniony
life is there said to be reserved beyond this life — ''the
END everlasting Qiionion) life." Let us therefore, hear no
more of this Universalist blustering about tlio orthodox
doctrine of the inlinity of tlie punishment connected with
Adam's transgression.

But it is asked : If Adam and his posterity were in dan-
ger of eternal death, how is it that ii is never once mooted
in the Pentateuch ? This they deem a triumphant int^^r-
rogatory; but Ave might ajsk, in reply: How is it that tlie
nature of heaven arid the immortal world were concealed
from man till Christ '' brought life ond lmmorf<dltij to light
through the gospel.'' (2 Tim., 1 :10J? Will Univcrsalists now
t-ell us that the ancient Jews believed in the doctrines of
the resurrection and i'uture life? 8o also d\d thev in the
doctrines of future judgment and punishment, and these
are as plainly taught in the Hebrew scriptures (the proph-
ecies and Psalms) as the doctrine of the resurrection. It
is well known that the Jews in ancient times claimed eter-
nal life for themselves, and regarded all nations as outcast.^

UNIVER8ALI8M UNFOUNDKD.

from the ])losHings of final salvation and ]iap])incss. Tndood
Univorsuii.sts no sooner deny that the ancient Jews had the
Kliirhtest idea of eternal death till after the times of Mala-
ehi the last of the ])ro]>hets, and that endless jmnishment is
a doctrine of the Old Testament, than they turn around and
quote i)iissa<^eH from Isaiah and the I'salms to prove the final
holiness and luipjiiness of all mankind. How could Isaiah
and JJavid contradict future punishment without admitting
that such a thing as future punishment exists? Hero they
virtually admit the very thing they deny. But we reply,
that the Mosaic dispensation dealt only in temporal punish-
ment, and it could not be expected that Moses would logi.s-
late outside his province. If such a place as Hell existw,
and men are in danger of it, wo are not to suppose that God
was bound to reveal it to our first parents, and write it in
flaming, immutable characters upon the heavens, as Univer-
salists assert. He has written it upon a more intelligible
and a less changeable record — tqwn every man's heart — a fact
to which oven the dying infidel assigns his testimony. What
Universalist will road the death of Yoltaire and then toll
us there is no hell, when oven he who boasted that with one
hand he would overturn that edifice of Christian it}^ that re-
quired the hands of twelve apostles to build it, and " crush"
the son of God — when even he in the struggles of death
cursed the existence of his maker, and with all the horror
of perdition exclaimed, " I shall go to HELL ! !" If the ex-
istence of a place of future punishment was not made known
to the Hebrews, the same ground was covered by the penal
denunciation of the Divine law. The threat of the death
of tho body was brought to their own faces as an assurance
of the awful nature of sin. The inflictor stood before their
eyes to execute the punishment, while even Jehovah him-
self was soon forgotten and blasphemed, notwithstanding
he revealed himself in lightning and thunder. If the ter-
rors of temporal death should fail to guard the law, the

tNlVKRSALIflM UNFOUNDED.

^. Tndcpd
vs lijul tho
•s of Mula-
ishinont Ih
irouiul and
:v tlio final
)iiUl Isaiah

admitlin^
Here they

we reply,
ral puniHh-
ould legiH-
[oll oxiHtu,
Q that God
Avrite it in
as Univer-
intclligible
art — a fact
my. What
1 then toll
it with one
iy that re-
d " crush"
s of death
the horror

If tho ex-
ade known

the penal
'the death

assurance
efore their
ovah him-
thstanding
If the tor-
e law, the

threat of eternal death could be no more eft'ectnal Univor-
salist doctrine is that of tho rich man — if one should riHO
Ironi tho <lead and declare with a vehement tongue tho ter-
rors of future woo, men would certainly repent ; but Chrint
myn, "If they hear not Moses and tho ])rophets BST" neither
will they be persuaded though one rose from the DEAD." —
(Luko 16:31.) This is, we think, sufficient to forever si-
lence Universalism upon this objection.

It is said, however, that if the death threatened to Adam
was temjwral, ho died physically the day ho sinned, whereas
we tind that ho lived nearly 930 years afterwards. This is
generally considered a valid objection, but there are several
ways of explaining this ai^parent difficulty. Many very
learned men regard the phrase, "In tho day" as a proleims,
or anticipation of tho future as if present. When the iirst-
born of I'^gypt were cut otf the Egyptians cried, "We be all
dead men." AVe are not to supjiose they were that moment
dead, surely, but merely that their death appeared to themi
certain. The Avords of Korah were somewhat similar,—
" Behold we die, wo perish." Grod said to Abimelech, " Be-
hold, thou art but a dead man." Hence in this light the
Creator's words to Adam were equal to saying " In the day
thou eatost thereof thou shalt be considered as a dead man."
We have a parallel passage in Exod. 10:28, where Pharaoh
said to Moses "Get thee ft'om mo; taUeheed to thj^self, see
my face no more ; for in thit d/ti/ thou soest my face thou
ehalt surely die." If Moses had appeared immediately be-
fore the king would the latter be considered as slighting his
woi-d even had the execution of Moses been deferred for
months or years ? Also, in 1 Kings, 2,: 36, 37, Solomon says
to Shimei, " It shall bo that on the day that thou goest out
and passost over the brook Kedron thoti shalt know for
certain that thou shalt surely die." Now by the context we
learn that Shimei did go all the way from Jerusalem to Gath
and then from Gath to Achish, several day's journey and

1 ':

tfNlVEIlSALIfiM UNFOrNDEI).

Mtill no one would wuppoHO that SoloinonV tlircnt wasthoro-
foro out of date. The lust wonln oxtjUiin hin moaning', *'Thy
blood hIiuII ho upon thine own head." Other learned men
with Dr. Greontield, contend that the word translated " in "
(Gen. 2:17) should have been rendered by "from" or "after"
as it has a variety of meanings in the Seriptures. This
would preserve the veracity of the text oven if Adam luul
escaped (ho penalty ft thousand years after the (h(i/ men-
tioned. In Num. 28 : 2t], tho same word is translated " <i/-
tcr — "after your weeUs." There In. could not have been
used vrjthout destroying the sense. But admitting the cur-
rent translation as true and the dealh to be tem))Ofal, tho
objection is easily removed by considering that the word
(hill has in some places in tho Scriptures a very extensive
meaning. Peter says " One day with tho Lord is as a thou-
sand years (jjcrhaps referring to this very place) and a
thousand years as one day." Tho illustrious Hugh Miller
and other eminent Geologists give the opinion that each of
the "six days " of Genesis Avere geologic periods consisting
each of ^everj. I thousand years. To the most careless read-
er it must bo ')luiu that the tli'ird day was more than twen-
ty-four hours, nay consisted of years, for the trees grew
out of the ground and bore fruit before tho close of that day.
And what is it that measures the day ? is it not the sun ?
What then measured \\\o first, second and third days when
there was no sun ; for he was not made until tho /r>«r^A day ?
And it is admitted that the original text does not, strictly
speaking, moan twenty-four hours but a regular period. Bnt
we will let Universalists tell ns the scriptural meaning of
the word 'day.' AVlien wo quote Acts 18:31 "Because he
hath appointed a da}^ in which ho will judge tho world in
righteousness " they tell us in order to keep a future judg-
ment out of the Bible that the word ' day ' here moans tho
Christian dispensation. Now over 186G years of this day
have already passed and Adam could have lived, eaten and

di*

\:NIVERaALI8M L'NFOUNDED.

at WRH thoro-
5anln/j^, "Thy
leariKui tiu'H
ishittMl '' in "
i" or "aftor"
turcH. Thirt
f Adam litul
10 ddji mon-
Tishitoil " <if-
t luivo boon
tinjij tlio cur-
' m POT'S! 1, the
at the word
•y cxtonHive
I is as a thoii-
)Ia('o) and a
Huoh Miller
that oat'h of
ds consisting
laroless reati-
D than twen-

troos grow
c of that day.
not the Bun ?
I days when
fourth day?

not, strictly
L- period. But

meaning of
"Because he
ho world in
I future jud^-
!*e means the
3 of this day
d, eaten and

died twice in this day.

That Adam's punishment was not moral death even Uni-
vorsallsts themsolvos must admit, or recant from the senti-
ments of the loading writers upon the subject who contend
with the sect of the Manichces, that An resides in and is
the nocossary concomitant of matter. IJoad what Univor-
sjilist authoi- you nuvy you will find the sentiment of (loorge
liogcrs who says, Pro and Con page 290, " The notion of a
free will iw a chimera" that " (Jod is tJio autlior of sin " and
that" all events take place agreeably to the unalterable de-
cree of Jehovah." Mr. Ballon the First says on the Atone-
ment, page 81, " moral evil or sin owes its origin to natural
evil ". On i)age 04 ho adds, " man is dependent in all his
I'olitious and moves by necessity.'' llcnco on page 104 con-
sistent with himself and his causo ho remarks that "the
Almighty had no occasion to dislike Adam afkr the trans-
gression ay)y more than he had oven before ho made him."
The Hov. E. E, Guild on page 309 of hi« "Universalist book
of Kefercnco " a book that is found in the possession of every
frater of the society, is still uioro explicit in making Adam
a subject of. moral death at his creation as scon in the fol-
lowing logic, " Go<l cannot ftrcate a being equal to himself
If therefore, ho creates beings at all they must bo inferior
tx^ himself. Im[)erfection is an evil, and as imperfection ex-
ists necessarily hence God could not exclude all evil from
the universe ". These are the gentlemen who are* no Umi-
tarians and that make man -a pirt of God. How long, read-
er, have you ever talked with a Universalist upon the na-
ture of holiness, before you were told that man is in his
natural constitution a sinner, and that the apostle taught
this doctrine to the Romans when he said that ^'the creature
was made subject to vanity" (eh. 8:22). Now if Adam was
STibject to sin in creation how did he subject himself to mor-
al death by transgression ? There is no alternative. Our
opponen+s must either relinquish their dogma of sin having

^ ^

UNIVERSALISM UNPOUNPED.

! f^

■■i

''•

its source in the flcHh, an admisfsion which would prostrate
their entire Bystcm, or yield the point for which we contend
that Adam's penalty was temporal death.

One of the most glaring and anti-scriptural assertions de-
manded by any doctrine in Christendom is made by Uni-
vcrsalists — that God is the author of sin — the first cause of
that which of all that can exist is the most repugnant to his
nature. No wonder our Universalist friends are so uncon-
cerned about the most holy obligations and so regardless of
the Divine commands, although we must confess it is only
showing their faith by their works, and he Avho refuses to
enjoy the pleasures of sin and yield to the prom])ting8 of
our carnal nature may very properly be looked upon as not
being a practical Universalist. We arc informed by those
philosophers or rather philosophists that man would be un-
qualified to participate in the glory and joys of the future
world if he had not undergone the drill of sin and the pangs of
contrast. " It is only by contrast," said " Alpha" in his de-
bate with "Omega" (p. 346) " that we can know when we
are happy ; and we could not enjoy the pleasures of holiness
and purity had we never committed sin." Wo#aro subject
to a dhciplinan/ course to be trained and fitted for the king-
dom through the medium of that all-elevating agent sin !
It follows then that the greatest sinner will be the happiest
in heaven. Korah and Balaam will have a higher scat in
Paradise than Moses, and Judas than John. Infants will
enjoy but a glimmer of glory, having never experienced the
corruptions of terrestrial evil, and even the angels will find
thonselvos unable to string as loud a harp as the toper that
has chanted his hi-iddle-didd'-: over his grog at the bar. But
when the drunkard is a long while in heaven he will forgot
how he used to feel when he got drunk and will require
something to jog his memory to kec]) up the happiness of
contrast.. This would call for a distillery in heaven. Uni-
yorsalist ministers are frequently heard tQ say that thp great

lid prostrate
I we contend

ssertions de-
de hy Uni-
Hrst eauHO of
ignant to his
ire so uncon-
i-egardless of
S8 it is only
o refuses to
omptings of
L upon as not
Qed by these
kvould be un-
f the future
[ the pangs of
a" in his de-
3\v when we
s of holiness
#aro subject
br the king-
agent sin !
the happiest
^hor scat in
Infants will
orienced the
els Avill find
e toper that
the bar. But
s will forget
\ill require
appiness of
Ifiven. Uni-
,at tlip great

UNIVERSAL ISM UNFOUNDED

object of their doctrine in opposing Orthodoxy is to do away
with the '' tormenting fear of hell." But why not let us pro-
claim endless misery and make people frantic and die rav-
ing lunatics, as our maligners assert they will feel all the
better and will obtain a higher seat in glory when they get
to Heaven and find their mistake. There seems, however, to
be more than one inconsistency. They jn'oach that God made
man subject to sin with the view of elevating his moral n?,-
turc, (notwithstanding his being a part of God) and yet that
he "gave his onlv begotten Son " to save all mankind from
sin. This would indicate that God was disappointed, which
they deny being possible. They teach also, that all will be
saved because God is love, a phrase which they boast in largo
capitals and 3^et that ho " made the creature,''^ (which they
translate creation) " subject to vanity not willingly," i. e. made
all mankind subject to sin against their will. Further, that
all will ultimately be saved because God is the Father of all
mankind, and yet that the more we disobey him in breaking
his law and committing sin the more will he eventually love
us, even should we be doomed to be driven away in wickedness
from his presence, and from the glory of his power. Let us
not therefore be like Enoch who "walked with God," and
thereby frustrated his objcctof healthful discipline, but "let
us," in the words of Paul,"go on in sin that grace may abound"!
Universalists resort to the following arguments to sup-
port the assumption that God is the author of all evil, and
that all will be saved.

1. — They contend that God must have known before
he created man that ho would sin, and that to foreknow a
thing is to decree it, or as Mr. Rogers expresses himself 'to
appoint it.' The author of the Pro and Con after asserting that
'God is the author of sin,' exclaims, page 286, "Convince me
that my Maker can do what is wrong or omit to do what is
right at one time, and I shall at once despair of his doing
otherwise at any time." The gentleman then may already

tJNIV'ERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

-t;

*fi

! I

I
.1

begin to despair, as he is bound to admit, according "to his
own logic, that God will continue to do wrong to all eterni-
ty, or deny that wrong exists in the universe, for he net only
repeatedly says that ' all events take jilace (igretahh/ to the
unalterable decree of Jehovidi,' but that ho is unchang'c-
ftble. His reasoning on page 187, also makes sin eternal,
for he says '' Life must be absolutely eternal, (why?) hav-
ing its well-spring m the eternal God,'" J3ut his "unalterable
decree of Jehovah " is scarcely diy before he stultifies it
and literally denies the foreordinacion for which he contends,
for on page 172, speaking of Christ he observes, ''lie would
have enraged the people against him, and the catastrophe of
his death would have been hastened lefore the other great oh-
jectsofhismimionicerefuljilkd.'' Similarlj', on page 190,
we read " We are directly inlbrniM that the common peo-
ple heard him gladly (Mark 12:87); but for them he would
have fallen a victim to the malice of his foes before he did.'' Hero
friend Eogers tells us that Christ only just saved himself
from altering •• the unalterable decree of Jehovah " by his
mysterious language. And these circumstances it appears
were possible, hence it was possible to break that unaltera-
ble decree ; and if one unalterable decree can be broken
why not another? Where ihen is the certaintv that all men
will bo saved, even had God dcci jed it? We therefore see
that even George IJogers, who stands as one *)f the most
prominent advocates of the doctrine that what is forelcnown
is decreed, actually does not believe the sentiment himself.
But admitting that foreknowledge nnd fore ord in at ion arc
the same, then it follows that tho-e was a time when God
foreknew nothing, as there must have been a time when
nothing was ordained. For instance ; if a thing l)e ordain-
ed there is a lime when it is demo, and if a time when it is
done there must have been a time Infore it was done, and
if a time before it was done then it was not <lono from all
eternity as Universalists assert, unless eternity bad a be-

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED,

rding to his
to aH eterni-
>i" ho iK.t on]y
eeaUfj to the
is unchaiig'C-

sin eternal,
(why?) hav-
" unalterable
i stnltities it

he contcndiJ,
s, "He would
atastrophe of
licr great oh-
n page 190,
ommon peo-
cm he would
? duly Hero
ived himself
vah " by his
es it a})pcars
bat unaltera-
m 1)0 broken
' that all men
therefore seo
of th« most
is foreknown
nent himself,
'dination arc
e when God

time when
n g be ordain-
e when it is
IS done, and
>ne from all
Y bad a be-

ginning; and as there was therefore a time when nothing
was oraaincd or decreed, then it follows logicalh', that there
was a time when nothing was foreknown. Orthodoxy has
been accused with making God a fool in teaching that He
did not necessarily foreknow the certainty of man's fall, but
hero is a similar conclusion from their own premises.

The scriptures plainly teach that foreknowledge and fore-
ordination are not the same. Why did Christ try to prevent
the overthrow of Jerusalem if its fate was decreed, for no
one will deny that he foreknew that event, even was he ' a
created dependent being,' as Universalists maintain, for ho
emphatically declares it. The only reasonable conclusion is
that he foreknew it but had not ordained it, Wc read, "And
the Lord repented of the evil that he had thought to do un-
to his people " (Exod. 33:14). Did God think to do evil un-
to his people? The text saj^s so. Did he know it ? No,
for he did not do it. Then certain it is that God decreed it
but did not foreknow it. »

It is worthy of note that the word foreknow in every place
it occurs in Scripture misrepresentft the meaning of the or-
iginal text, notwithstanding its being a literal translation,
Mr, Campbell in his preface to the New Testament in no-
ting similar difficulties in other words observes that Rom.
11:2 ; " God hath not cast awaij his people which he foreknew "
is "literal enough and yet not the meaning of the passage.
The transUitors" he continues, "have rendered Acts 26:5,
quite ditt'erently, ^'■TheJews which knew me from theheginning''
i\ot foreknew me. In another place they have rendered Fro-
eireka very properly, " T have said before " because it would
have been absurd to render it literally, " I have foretohV.
In the phrase "depart from me, I never knew you," it ought
to have been rendered, I never approved or acknovhdgcd you.
The passage in Romans therefore means "Godtluis not cast
away his people whom he acknowledged ", or a])])r<>vod.

Universalists very frequently I'uuise themselves with

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

quoting what they call Orthodox scripture : " As the tree
falls so it must lie ; as death leaves us so judgementVill find
us " expressions wjiich they smilingly tell us are not in the
Bible, but aj^pear to have been taken from Josephus' dis-
course on Hades, nevertheless they in an oppressive debate
on foreordination will quote a passage which we have heard
cited scores of times, and which does not contain a scriptu-
ral idea : " God foreknew from all eternity whatsover Com-
eth to pass". Flanders quoted this in his debate with Dr.
Strickland. There are some passages that teach a very ex-
tenssive foreknowledge, but there are none that extend it
back anterior to the creation of the world. The strongest
that can be mentioned is Isa. 4fi:0,10, "lam God and there
is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and
from ancient times the thuit!:s that are not vet done ". But
why t^ixy "the beginning" if it was from all eternity?
Because it was not from all eternity. Where did
he declare Ihis ? Th<j very next verse tho}'' quote
ansAver.s, " Known unto the Lord are all his works from
the hcgmntufj of the world ". To what does this have
reference but to the promise to Eve ? And even this
text does not tell us that God knows all man's works,
but simply " His works ". The only warrantable position
that can be assumed upon the foreknowledge of God is tliat
he has power to know and ]30wer not to know, just as he
pleases, but to say that God must know all things because
he has wisdom to know, would be similar to saying that God
must do all things because he possesses infinite power.
That there are oiijects foreknown and also decreed we do not
presume to dispute,but it is equally true that there are others
that may exist or they may not, i. e., while some are abso-
lute, others are conditional. The sacrifice of Christ was
absolute because predetermined ; the salvation of man in
this life is conditional ; he may be saved or he may
not be, the issue is with himself Now the absolute are ne-

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

As the tree
nentVill find
are not in the
osephus' dis-
•essivo debate
^e have heard
ain a scriptu-
latsover com-
)ate with Dr.
ch a very ex-
iiat extend it
rhe strongest
od and there
iginning, and
t done ". But
all eternity ?
Where did
thoy quote
s works from
58 this have
nd even this
nan's works,
able position
)f God is that
w, just as he
iiigs because
ring that God
inite power,
eed we do not
re are others
me are abso-
f Christ was
tn of man in
or he may
olute are nQ^

cessarily known to God but the conditional not always. The
very idea of a moral Liw being given to Adam precludes
the supposition that God willed to know the future of his
conduct when he constituted him a free moral agent — en-
dowed him with power to do and power not to do just as it
pleased him. But Universalists accuse us with " limiting
the Holy One of Israel", while they pronounce themselves
as being no Ilmitarians but in the same breath will tell us
what God must do and what he am not do, — that b}' some
irresistible necessity over which lie, even the Diety himself
could not prevent the awful future of the human creation
from entering his mind. The following passages seem to
teach that all things are not necessarily known to God, and
I think we may bid defiance to Universalists to explain
them.
'" And they built the high places of Baal which are in the
valley of the son of Ilinnom, to cause their sons and their
daughters to pass through the fire unto Moloch : which I
commanded them not neither came it into my mind that they
should do this abomination to cause Judali to sin " Jer. 32:35

And the Lord said "Because the cry of Sodotn and Gomor-
rah is great, and because their sin is very grievous, I will go
down now and see whether they have done altogether ac-
cording to the cry of it which is come unto me ; and if not
I will know ".-Gen. 18:20,21.

" And thou shalt remember all the way which the Lord
thy God led thee this forty years in the wilderness to humble
thee and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart
whetlier thou wouldst keep his commandments orno".-
Deu. 8:2.

" Howbcit in the business of the ambassadors of the prin-
ces of Babylon who sent unto him to enquire of the wonder
that was done in the land, God left him to try him that ho
might know all that was in his heart ".-2 Chron. 32:31.

" And it repented the Lord that he had made man upon

UN1VER8ALISM CNPOUNDED.

the earth, and it grieved him at his heart".-Gen. 6:6. Here
iri positive testimony that God was disappointed in man's
creation, for if he foreknew that man would sin why did he
not grieve from all eternity as well as when he actually saw
his wickedness ? If seeing man's sin would grieve him, why
should not foreknowing he would sin prevent his creation ?
We must conclude, if the Bible be true, not only that Crod
did not choose to know the future fall of man, but that if
he had known he would not have created him.

2. — They talce the ground that the remedy for sin was
provided before our first parents were created, and therefore
that God intended that Adam should fall. To support this
they are a1»le to bring up but a single passage, 1 Pet. 1:20,
''"Who (Christ) was verily foreordained before the founda-
tion of the world ". Here they tells us that the Greek word
rendered world is not (lion which has a variety of meanings,
but kosmos\xhk'}\ never means anything but the literal earth.
"JS'ow", says Mr. Flanders, " If God before the foundation of
the world ordained Jesus Clirist to l)e a Saviour, as the apos-
tle here declares, tlion it follows that God must have known
before the foundation of the world that man would need a
Saviour, and this could not po.ssibly have been had he not
knoAvn that man would commit sin in order to have some-
thing to bo saved from ".

"God nnist Ikivo foioordaii.cil that mankiinl sboulcl 3'n,
Tliat Clirifit iiiiglit pcrfo in wliat was ordained for him ;
As Christ vas oulaiiicd jijul Lis work he must do,
Tlieu mankind muU nia t > carry it through I"

But are Universalis! s sure that Peter means that Christ
was slain in promise before Adam's transgression ? We
think hardly, for this would be arraying the Bible against
itself, for the apostle John says not " before the foundation
of the world," but " fiwti the foundation of the world ", —
Eev. 13:8. We must therefore let Peter explain himself.
Let us now ask if there was a literal earth existing before
the one we now inhabit ? Peter replies : " For this they are
willinirly ignorant of that by the word of God the heavens

UNIVERSALI§M tJNFOUNDED.

m. 6:6. Here
ted in man's
n why did he
actually saw-
eve him, why
his creation ?
)nly that God
m, but that if
lim.

i for sin was
and therefore
) support this
3, 1 Pet. 1:20,
e the founda-
le Greek word
: of meaning* ,
e literal earth.

foundation of
ur, as the apos-
st have known

would need a
)n had he not
to liave somo-

ms that Christ
ession ? We
Bible against
the foundation
the world ",—
plain himself,
existing before
3r this they are
3d the heavens

wore of old and the earth standing out of the water and in
the water whereby the world (Jcosmos) that then was being
overflowed with wnier perished, but the heavens and the earth
which are now by the same word are kept in store reserved
unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of un-
godly men " (2 Pet. 3:5,0). Here the apostle is speaking of
the world or ko.smos he/ore the Flood, in contradistinction
with the world after it. The kosmos before the Flood per-
ished; then " before the foundation of fheyvorld," which can
only be understood of the present earth means in the lan-
guage of Peter before the Flood, and very plainly refers to
the promise made to our first parents. Thus John and Peter,
though in difterent language, both refer to the >ame event,
and according to our interpretation perfectly agree.

We cannot pass this criticism without informing Univer-
salists that they do not even believe the doctrine of their
own proof-text, that Christ was the Lamb slain '' before the
foundation of the world " to redeem us from sin. Mr.
Thomas in his discussion with Dr. Ely says, " I reject the
doctrine of the vicarious atonement ". So Iloshea Ballon,
Dr. Thomas AVhittemore and every Universalist of note now
living. ArA this is not all. Universalism denies that Christ
is a vSaviour at all, but is simply as Ballou has it ^' a created
dependent being". Surely if Christ was foreordained be-
fore the foundation of the world to be a Saviour, he must save
from something ? How does he save ? Does he save by Om-
niiDOtent power? No, for he has none — he is "a created de-
pendent being ". Does ho save through the merit of his
atonement? No, for he never made atonement for any
man's sin. Does he save by example ? No, for in that case
he would not save all mankind, for millions have died and
never heard the nam6 of Jesus. Does he save through me-
diation ? No, for mediation is unnecessary, besides accord-
ing to Universalism he is now judging, and therefore can-
not act as a mediator. Then from what does he save ? Does

.It

I
mi

UNIVEKSALISM UNFOUNDED.

he save from condomnation ? No 1 To bo saved from con-
demnation is to be saved from punisjimont. Docs ho save
from (sin ? No, for then he could not be the Suvknr of the
World, for thousands have lived and died in sin, besides all sin
arises frcmi our fleshy nj^ture. It is only " he that is dead is
freed from sin " (llom. 0:7). Does ho save from inward defile-
ment ? No, unless one could be undetiled when he is in
sin. Does he save from punishment? No, for every man
must suffer the full penalty of his sins. Does he save from
hell or eternal death ? No, for there is no hell, and as for
eternal death, no one was ever in danger of it. Then how
is Christ a Saviour ? Who can tell ! All this pedantry and
flourish of trumpets about Christ being "the Saviour of the
W orld " when tested vanishes into thin air, and instead of
proving universal salvation expunges all salvation from the
Bible. Hence J. Kid well in his debate with E. Eay, and in
perfect consistency with his cause, says that he "discovered
that to collect the system of salvation out of the Bible was
like collecting jewels from a heap of rubbish "! (page 11).
Before closing this subject let us briefly review this logic
of Mr. Guild, which makes God the author of sin — " Imper-
fection is an eviV\ What kind of evil ? Sin! If so then
the angels are sinners, and so every martyr of the Christian
religion, for all are imperfect compared with the Deity,and
as misery is a concomitant of moral imiicriection, hence all
in heaven are now and eternally will be miserable, and all
this fuss about universal salvation or salvation at all, is an
empty parade. Again, Christ was not God but a "dependent
createdha'mg," and hence this Saviour of the world instead of
securing through his merit, eternal happiness for all man-
kind is doomed himself to be endlessly miserable, because
God cannot create a being equal to himself," and " imper-
fection is an evil ". It will nevertheless be admitted how-
ever humble or imperfect Christ may have been, that he
was a person of truth, and Ave find him saying " Be ye

VjNiveesalism unfounded.

ed from con-
^oc8 ho save
^((vkur of the
jcsidcH all sin
hat i« (k^ad is
inward defile-
dion lie is in
r every man
he save from
I, and as for
. Then how
pedantry and
laviour of the
ind instead of
ition from the
5. Eay, and in
e '' discovered
the Bible was
"! (page 11).
iew this logic
sin — " Imper-
! If so then
the Christian
he Deity,and
ion, hence all
rable, and all
at all, is an
a "dependent
)rld instead of
for all man-
able, because
and " imper-
Llmitted how-
3ecn, that he
ying ''Be ye

theroforo perfect even as your father Mdiich is in hoaven is
perfect " (Matt, 5:4S), God said to Abraham '' Walk before
me and be thou perfect". (Cicn, 17:1) and commanded the
children of Isrnel, "Bo yc holy for 1 am holy ". (1 Pet. 1:1G)
Universalists Iiave two or three texts which they adduce as
proof of this doctrine. The ever ready one is Isa. 45:7, " I
form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create
evil, 1 the Lord do all these things." Very good; but what
kind of evil? Certainly not sin, b}'^ any means, for this is
the very object of the Divine dis])]oa.sure. The original
word means vengeance, judgment, chastisement. God said
"■ I am bringing ('?u7 on Jerusalem" (2 Kings 21:2) ; but the
context explains it to moan judgment or physical evil. He
surely did not bring sin into Jerusalem as a punishment for
sin. God also threatened to bring evil upon the Ninevitos,
but this was only the evil Jonah ])reached — the destruction
of their city. '' And God saw their works that they turned
i'rom their evil way and God repented of the evil that he
said he would do unto them, and he did it not " (Jonah 3:10).
Another text from Isaiah is also used freel}'" to support their
argument that ''Whatever is is right," viz, Ch. 46:10, " My
council shall stand and I will do all my pleasure." Well,
is it his pleasure to create sin ? Then can you think of any-
thing that incurs his <Z/'spleasuro. The Psalmist says, " Thou
art not a God that hath ])leasure in wickedness " (5:4.) But is
it his pleasure to destroy the Avicked ? It is or it is not.
If you say it is not then he does what is not his pleasure, for
all admit that he destroyed the Antediluvians and Sodom-
ites. But if you i^fxy it is then he will always destroy them,
for God is unchangeable. That is, according to Universal-
ism, God took pleasure in creating men sinners that he
might have the pleasure of destroying them. The text
however, does not say that all that happens is according to
the will of God, neither does it say that man does his will,
nor tliat all God does is his pleasure, but simply that all

UNIVEIiSALISM UNFOUNDED.

tliat i.s Jiis plousiiro he -will do. How the Creator can bo
oxocatiiiijj Ills vongeanco upon the wicked and at the Kamo
time be doin^ his pKjusure wo leave with Mv. Universalism
to explain.

A ])assagc IVoni Ronums (Cli. 11:80) is also considered
8trong* proof of the l)i vine origin of .sin: ''For of him and
thi'ough him and to iiim are oil things." Sin is Hupposod by
I'nivorsalists to he one of the all things mentionc;! by tho
Ai)ostle, ill consideration of which he added, " fn wlimn he,
gf'tn/ forci-c)-" \ J\fr. J'ogei-s c|Uotes this not only to prove
the doctrine under notice, but the fiinil salvation of all men
([I. 81). But there are parallel texts which show hy tho
use of the word " all"' that it is to be regarded in a limited
KMise. The same apostle says, " Charity believethaZ/ thingn '
(! Cor. 18:7): that is all true or good things ; so tho 'all
things ■ Avliich arc of (iod must mean in the language of tho
same ])('v>o\\. all good things. But John will c oar Paul of
teiuhiiig tliat Cotl is Hie author of all the evil in tho world.
Listen to him, "All tliat is in the world, the lust of the flesh,
the lust of the eye, and the pride of life are vot of the
/other'' (1 John 2:10.) AVlio shall we believe, John or
Cooige? If we were to adoj^t Uuiversalist logic wo could
prove that God is not the author o? an jj thing in tho world,
for John says. " all that is in the world is not of the father "
as plainly as Paul says " all things are of God." But their
position here is consistent with their theory of man being a
part of God, for if a part of him commits sin the whole may
on the same ]»rinciple.

Tlie most important text which is quoted upon this point
shall now be examined, Eom. 8:19-23, " For tho earnest ex-
pectation of the ci-eature waiteth for the manifestation of
the sons of God ; for the creature was made Bubject to van-
it.y not willingly but by reason of him who hath subjected
the same in liojie. Because tho creature itself also shall bo
delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious

1 I

Use

tTNIVEnSAtilSM ITNPOUNDED.

fitor can bo
at (ho Hamo
iiivei'Kalisim

» ooiisidorocl
ofliini and
sii]ij)Oso(l by
f)iK;l ])y tho
fo whom be
ily to ])rovo
n of all men
lio\\- I)y tho
in a limited
h'lll tliingH '
so tlio ' all
^ungo of tho
oar Paul of
II tho world,
of theflosh,
3 71 at of the
ve, John or
;ic we could

I tlie world,
'the father"

But their

II an being a
) whole may

)n this point
> earnest ex-
ifestation of
)ject to van-
th subjected
ilso shall Ix)
he glorious

liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole
creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until
now; and not only tliey but ourselves also who have the
first fruits of the siiirit, even we ourselves irroan within

[ttion,

lie reaeiUDtion

ourselves, waiting tor tho n
of our bodies."

This is said to bo tho strongONt |;assago Universalistscan
summon, and indeed some have gone so far as to say that
if this were the only text in point witliin the l>ible that ap-
peared to favoiu' their doctrine they would nevi'rtheless be-
Iiove it; but we arc of opinion that a very slight comment
will be sutlicient to show not only that they have a tlimsy
foundation for their faith, but that it contradicts the very
doctrine it is adduced to prove. This passage has puzzled
more biblical critics than perhaps any other in the Bil)le,
and it will be found that it is its mysrt.icism rather than its
doctrine that favours Universalism. But whatever mav be
its import, we shall at least wrest it from the service of
those who cite it to u'ull the iicnorant. A Universalist is
never heard to quote farther than the word vanih/, as they
aro ashamed to add the 'not willingly' which would show
that God made man a sinner .against his will. They tell us
that the Greek word ktlsls, here translated creature signities
the whole human family, for it is rendered creation in v. 22.
Mr. Flanders took this position in his discussion with Di-.
Strickland, but immediately contradicted himself by saying
it did not mean infant!^.. Dr. MacKnight, vrhom they cite
as authority, says the word here means " every human crea-
ture, all mankind." It is to ba observed, however, that
none of them ever present this exposition unles's driven to
do so ; but ra+her quote the text in sucli a w^ay as to leave
the impression that the creature that was made subject to
vanity or sin was Adam, which leaves the conclusion that
it was God that thus subjected him. But the text does not say
BO, but only " by reason of him who hath subjected the same

UN1VEUSAM8M UNPOrNfifcO.

lOliO.

Paul ill iliU'crt'iit instimci',*; sj

(caks of'inaiikin({

i»!^

being nuulo Kul>jc'ct to Min, but never onee refers this oonpo-
tiucnco to Ciod. But let HH itKiuire wbH it in that hojusf
Surely not (iotl, for tie never hoi)es. There eaii bo no such
thing as hope with a being who does all his i)leasure, " sees
the end from the Ix-ginning," and "foreknew from all eter-
nity whatsoever tilings conieth to pass." The very next
verse to tho one (inder erilicism explainsthis hope to which
the Ajiostle refers, to be of man, and he brings it in as ft
vcasoii with the conjunction /;*/•. "For we are saved hy
hope; but ho])0 that is seen is not hope ; for what a man
seeth why doth he yet hope for." They admit that Paul
meant Adam when he said "For as by one man's disobe-
dience iiiany were made sinners, so by the obetiience of one
shall vKnnj be made righteous " (Eom. 5:10), for tliey quote
it with this sense to prove univrKjil salvation. Now Wyvany
here means all Adam's race, and crentnrc means, by their
own showing, "all mankind," that is, they mean the sau.o
thing, and if the 'nucny were made sinnersor made subject to
vanity by Adam, surely the same writer could not mean
that God subjected them to vanity for that would be attrilm-
ting the same etVects to two dif[er:^nt sources. The only
possible conclusion is that this text teaches that all havo
become the subjects of sin by Adam's fall — that is in the in-
fant creation. Those who may havo lived to accountable
years had otfers of salvation through repentance, and those
that died in infancy, the Apostle here tells us, will bo saved
— " shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption."
That he means the infant creation in particular is apparent
from his language. The creature it is plain cannot mean the
adult creation, for he says " the creature waiieth for mani-
festation of the sons of God." Then the sons of God w^ere
no part of this creation, for the creation could not havo
waited for the manifestation of itself. Again, the creature
'•' shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the

a,.

•/'iiianki'n^l

tills conso-

i.'it hfUHs f

•'(' no 8iU'h

UNIVER8ALI8M UNFOUNDED

Miro,

pcet>

ni all otcr-

v oiy next
)e to which
it in a.s a

Ha\od by
lull a man

dial Paul
II '.s (lisoljc-
'u*o of one
tlit'V quote
OM' W'mavy
^, l>y tlioir
ti (Ii'j saiT.o

Sll]»jC'Ct to

I not mean
be attribu-

The only
t all have
■i in thoin-
'counfable
and those
1 bo Baved
I'lMiption."

apparent
mean the
for mani-
(j^od were
not have

creature
1 into the

glorious liberty of the children of God." Then the children.
«/ CrO(i were not considered in this creation. Neither did
the Apostle consider himself nor tlie liomans he was ad-
dressing a part of this creation, for he adds, "and not only
ihei/, (i. e. the whole creation) but ounelve* nlso,'^ showing
that " ourselves " was not included. The word kfisls, here
rendered creature, must therofere mean the infant creation
those who are never spoken of as " sons of God '■" or " chil-
dren «f God-" They were made subject to vanity — to dis-
ease, p&im and death — " not willingly " or " of its own
choice," as the A. B. U. renders it, not by any choice, will
or disobedience of their own, as was the case with our first
parents, who willingly transgressed and brought sin and its
consequent miseries upon their innocent offspring.

Univer-alists boast that they are no Limitarians, and
warn others against " limiting the Holy One of Israel,^'
(Ps. 78:41) and yet they argue with Guild that God couM
not make man better than to be a sinner. How could God
subject man to vanity if it was out of his power to create a
perfect being? Thus we see themselves being judges that
Adam was never subjected to vanity by the Creator, for ac-
cording to their showing he was never subject to anything
«slse, and a person must be subject to one thing before it
fcould be said he was made subject to another. But if Paul
should certainly mean to say that God made man subject to
vanity, he not only contradicts himself but subverts the
Bible and Universalism to boot. He would contradict him'
ftelf where he says " Let not sin therefore reigH in your
mortal body " (Rom. 6:12.) He would eontradiet Solomon
who testifies •" That God hath made Man upright '" (Ece.7:29)
and would charge Moses with falsehood for saying that after
he had made man that '^ God saw everything that he had
made, and behold it was very good " (Gen. 1:31,) and alas
would contradict Universalism which preaches Christ as
the Saviour of the world when all must die in sin- An(il

UMVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

could God not have saved man without passing him through
this ordeal of sin ? lie could or ho could not. If you say
ho could, and might have secured man's eternal felicity
without sin you impeach his goodness and mercy and blem-
ish his love, that he did not do it; but if you say he could
not you are a limitariau and deny his infinite wisdom and
power. Jiut admittiiig that God did subject man to vanity
and foreordain that Adam'should eatof the forbidden tree, we
must draw the following conclusions : 1. That God acted the
h^'pocrite with Adam in pretoiding to prevent him from doing
what he loilled and had decreed should be done, and whidi he
could therefore no more avoid than he could reverse the moon
in her orbit ; 2. That ho acted the part of a most cruel tyrant
in punishing Adam for doing his will; 3. That Satan was
more desirous that God"s will should he done than he was
himself, for while God tried to jirevent Adam from doing his
will the JJevil iiersuaded him to do it ; 4. That God com-
muiided Adam not to eat when he had decreed that he shouhl
eat, thus uuniercifully i)lacing him between his command
and decree, so tliat ht^ should either break the one or violate
tlie other. AVlien a man becomes so far blinded to reason as
to admit the half oj^. these absurdities ho is lit to graduate
and to lay aside |us bible.

'lis one tliiiiff'iiow to read the Biljle tbroutrh
Aiiotlicr thii;^; to read, to learu and do,
"lis riiiH tiling now to read it with delight

tid qiiXk' another thing to read it right
onmgB^d it with design ;o lourn to read ;
ut trtr tlie subject i-ay but little heed,

Hut

."■'oin-. read it as thei'r duty, on>'e a week ;

But no infitniction from the Bible seek,

Whilst others read it with but litUo care.

With no reKard to how they read, or where.

Some n nd it as a history, to know

How people lived three tliousaud years ago

Konie read to br ng thtunselves into reinite.'

By showing otheis how ti^.y can dispute ;

V\ hi. St others read becaus*- their neighbours do

To see how long 'twill tano to read it througli '

Home read it for the woudeis that are there •

How David killed a lion and a boar ;

Whilst, others read, or rather in it look

Because, perhaps, they have n • other book

Some re«l the blessed Book, thev don't know w..t

It somehow hapi>eus in the way to lie ;

Whilst othi'rs read it with nucommon caro •

But all to find some contradictions there. '

•loing

UNIVER8ALISM UNFOUNDED.

Some read as though it did not sj eak to them ;
But to the people at Jeiusalem.
One readH itaH a book of mysteries,
And won't believe tho very thing ho sees.
One reads with lather's speeks upon his head,
And Hi'CH the thing jnst as his lather said.
An(jther reads tlirongh < anipbell or through Scott,
And thinks it means exactly what they tliought ;
Wliilst others read through <'(jbb or H. Ballou,
And if it cross their track it can't be true !
Some read to prove a pre-adopted creed.—
Tlius understand but little what they read,
For every passai^e in the Hook they bend
To make it suit that all-important end.
Some people read, aH I have often thought,
To teach the Hook instead of being taught ;
And son;o there are who read it out of spite :
I fear there are but few who read it right.
So many people in theise latter days,
Have read t.'iu Bible in so numy ways;
That few can tell whieh sy.stcm is the best,
Y<'V every party et)ntradict.'3 the rest !

3f)

pNiypBSALISJ? UNFOUNDED,

THE JUDGMENT.

II ■

CHAPTER IT.

^HE doctrine of the judgment as taught by Univer-
salists is complicated and indefinite. Indeed I great-
' \y doubt they understand it themselves, or that if
called upon could define their position. There is, it is cer-
tain, no point of Orthodoxy more emphatically and lucidly
revealed in scripture than the doctrine of a future general
judgment, and there is none more fatal to Universalism. The
judgment is decidedly against the system, hence the system
is decidedly against the judgment. With all the daring
Universalists are chargeable in dealing with revelation;
none have ever yet attempted to deny the doctrine as apos-
tolic and scriptural, neverthless, the most sanguine efforts
have been made and the favorite sciences of perversion and.
dodgery consulted to confine the event to this world: At one
time they quote pjissages to prove, Ist-That God always has
been the judge of the world-that he was judging the world
under the older dispensation. On this iwint, Mr. Austin in
his discussion with Holmes quoted, "Verily he is a God that
judge th in the earth ", Ps. 58:11. "His judgments are in all
the earth ", Ps. 105;7. " I am the Lord which e.xercise judg-
ment and righteousness in all the earth'^\ Jer. 9:24. Observe
these passages were written nearly a thousand years before
the Christian era. 2nd.-That Christ came the first time to
jud^e the world. Proof, " For judgment am I come into this

■ IL— -

TTNIVEIISALISM UNFOUNDED.

world ", John 9:39. ^^ Now is the judgment of this world ",
John 12:31. Mr. Austin says the judgment "commenced at
the introduction of the Christian era ", Dis. p 631. 3rd
"That the judgment exists throughout the whole Christian
dispensation ". Proof, " For he hath appointed a day in
which he will judge the world in righteousness ", Acts 17:31
" For the time is come when judgment must begin at the
house of God ", 1 Pet. 4:17. "For we must all appear be-
fore the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive
the things in the body [they reject (?o?«t' rn his lodjj'] accord-
ing to that he hath done, whether it bo good or bad", 2 Cor.
5:10. " And as he reasoned of righteousness, tom])crance and
judgment to come, Felix trembled ", Acts 2 i:25. 4.-That Christ
came the " second time " at thedestructi<m of Jerusalem; and
that 1 1 'Ml and there was the judgment. It is known, we admit
the fact, that the judgment will take place at Christ's sec-
ond coming, and hence to prove he came then one quoted the
following : " Verily I say unto you this generation shall not
pass till all these things be fulfilled ", Matt. 24:.34. " For the
Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father, with his
angels and then shall he reward every man according to
his works ". Yerily I say unto you, there be some standing
here that shall not taste of death till they see the Son of
man coming in his kingdom ", ■VEatt. 16:27,28. " But when
they persecute you in this city flee ye into another, for ver-
ily I say unto you, ye shall not have gone over the cities of Is-
rael, till the son man be come", Matt. 10:23. " And this gos-
pel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a
witness unto all nations and theii shall the end come ", Matt.
24:14. This last must refer to the destruction of Jerusalem,
for Paul declares that "the gospel had been preached to
every ceeatureiinder heaven^', Col. 1:23. Christ conversing
with Peter concerning John, said, "If I will that he tarry
till I come, what is that to thee ? follow thou me. Then
went this saying abroad among th^ brethren that that dis-

tJNlVERSALlSM UNFOUNDED.

ciplo sJwidd not die. Yet Jesus said not unto him, he shall
not die; but if I will that he tarry till I come what is that
to thee?" John 21:21-23. G. W. Montgomcrj^ relied prin-
cipally upon this text to prove the Lord came the second
time at the destruction of Jerusalem. Again, the coming
of Christ, it is said, is spoken of as right at hand. " Be yo
also patient; establish 3'our hearts; f(n" the coming of the
Lord dniiveth nigh.'^ James, 5:8. " For yet a little ichile and
he that shall come will come and ivill not tcary." Ileb. 10:37.
"Behold / come quichhi, and my reward is with me to give
every man according as his work shall be." Rev. 22 : 12.
"Blessed is he that rcadeth and the}' that learn the words
of this prophecy and keep those things which are written
therein, for the time is at h(Oid." Rev. 1 : 3.

Here are four judgments. Sometimes one is argued ;
sometimes another, and when struggling against a judgment
in another world they come up " on all fours;" and it must
be confessed that to a person not versed in Scripture either
of the four positions would a])pear somewhat plausible, but
when these guards arc examined they will prove to be only
men of straw. It must be acknowledged that these are but
the desperate efforts of a most desperate system, and no
amount of reasoning would induce men to renounce their
principles who would brace themselves with such palpable
absurdities; and in exposing this sophism I have no hope
of reclaiming any man who has become so dead to truth,
so void of reason, and so impenetrable to the voice of God's
Word as to be bound up with the iron shackles of Univer-
salist prejudice and its most contradictory and inconsistent
theory; and the only good that might be expected from its
exposition is to prevent its prejudicing the uncommitted and
gulling the gnorant. Universalists are now in doctrine not
the Universalists of the days of their founder, the Rev. John
Murray. He and his coadjutors preached the judgment as
taught in the Bible, llis biographer says : " He looked for-

he shall
it is that
lied priii-
10 second
e coming

"Be yo
ng of the
; u7a7eand
:cb. 10:37.
10 to give
)v. 22 : 12.
the words
'0 written

i argued ;

judgment

d it must

ire either

:sible, but

o be only

sO are but

and no

nco their

palpable

no hope

to truth,

of God's

Univer-

onsistent

from its

itted and

trine not

lav. John

^ment as

oked for-

t^NIVERSALlSM UNFOUNDED.

ward to a judgment to come;'' nor did his successors become
suiKciently reckless to deliy his teachings till they were
convinced that if tolerated they would U2)set the whole the-
ory of a universal salvation; for it is plain, if there is to be
a judgment in the future state, then the future state is a
state of retribution, and as punishment always follows con-
demnation, the condemned will receive subsequent punish-
ment. If wo admit the Uuiversalist views to be the fi-ue, we
cannot admit four judgments which would involve an absurd-
ity; hence there are three of the positions that are untena-
ble and must bo abandoned, and the loss of any throe of
them will oft'ectually U])root the fourth. We will now ox-
aminu the i)roof, and show that neither of the four is the
true.

1st. ]\lr. Austin, one of the most prominent and able Uni-
vcrsalists now living, as has been observed, quoted the texts
under this head to prove that God was judging the world in
the time of the Psalmist and the Prophets, but in one min-
ute after said that the judgment " commenced at the intro-
duction of the Christian era." But if it commenced then,
it did not exist before, and therefore God has not alv/ays
been judging the v»'orlJ. " By thy words thou shalt be con-
demned '! The lirst text, " Verily he is a God that judgeth
in the earth," is shown by the preceding verse to refer to
the " vengeance" of God upon '' the wicked." The idea of
the original word is not decision but punishment. So " His
judgments are in all the earth " can, with the context, only
be inter]>reted to mean reward. A parallel passage occurs
in Is. 20 : 9, " For when thy judgments are in the earth the
inhabita!its of the world will learn righteousness. Let fa-
vour bo shewed to the wicked, yet will he not learn right-
eousness." Mr. Paige, in his Selections, quotes from Cappo,
who says, " the word judge signifies to rule." So, Mr, Aus-
tin, " To judge men is to rule over them as a Prince or So-
vereign." Discuss, p, G30. But this idea can have no weight

UNIVERSALISM UNP0UND:3D.

with this pas.sayo. It Hays, when thy judgments, &c., show-
ing they are not always. It is jnmishment that is referred
to, fur the wicked are sjioken of " who Avill not learn rightr
eoiisness." Why? Because his judgments [punishments]
are not always in the earth ; " for when thy judgments are
in the earth the inhabitants will leani righteousness.'' The
iiihahltuiits means the wicked, for it is only they who have
not learned ri^,hteousness, if the righteous are righteous ;
and V it means the wicked, then these judgments are not
always in the earth ( they would be righteous, ''for when
thy judgments are in the earth the inhabitants of the world
will learn rigliteousness." The judgment could not have
been going on in those ai.cient days, for hundreds of years
after it is spoken of as still future. Solomon says — "■ But
kno.v thou that for all these things God will bring thee into
Judgment.''' Ece. 11 : 10. Paul reasoned of righteousness,
temperance, and a jadgnunt to come. Act-^ 24 : 25, '' For he
hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in
righteousness." Acts 17 : 31.

2nd. Christ came the tirst time to judge the world.

1. ''For judgment I am come into this world." We be-
lieve this as much as Universal ists. Christ did come into
this world " for judgment, ' that is, to he judged. The pro-
phet Isaiah says: "lie was taken from prison and from
judgment." ch. 53:8. Do you say Christ meant by this
text that he came to judge the world ? U you do, you im-
peach him with falsehood, for he says : "I came not to judge
the world." John 12 : 47. Universalists to buy a seat in
Paradise could not reconcile this discrepancy, yet this is
only a sample of the havoc they make with the Bible. I
will not omit to observe here, that Mr. Austin, in his dis-
cussion with Mr. Holmes, fought to maintain that Christ
came to judge the world at his first advent, and quoted,
" For judgment am I come into the world " ; but marvellous
to add, when struggling to cary the doctrine of Universal

cc, hIiow-
1 referred
irn rightr
shmente]
nents are
88." The
who have
ighteoiis ;
8 are not
" for xclien
the world
not have
s of yearw
ys— '' But
jf ihce into
loousneHH,
<' For he
world in

rid.

We be-

omc into

The ])ro-

and from

t by this

), you im-

T to judge

a scat in

et this 18

Bible. I

n his dis-

lat ChriHt

1 quoted,

larvellouH

Universal

YjNTVEttSALIS'a tTNt'OU"NDET).

salvation he adduced as proof John 12 : 47, " [ came not to
jmlgt the world but to save the world." 3Jark the word
judge in both instances is in the original identically the
same.

2. " Now is the judgment of this world," exemplifies the
tinith of the above ex])osition. This might very properly
have been rendered with the possession. Now is this world's
judgment. Let us read the whole of the passage and it will
explain itself. <' Now is the judgment of this world ; now
shall the prince of this world Ixj east out." 8omo suppose
that the ])hi*ase '* Prince of this world " refers to Stitan.
This is the way Dr. Cobb and all who contend for the judg-
ment being in this life, explain it. This however we reject,
1. Because the same phrase occurs in ch. 14:30, which
Wakefield explains to mean Christ. Dr. Clark,e as may be
seen from his note on the latter passage, sanctions the view
we have taken. 2. The Saviour told his disciples Hint he
would send the Comforter, and '* he will reprove the world
of judgment, because the Prince of (his world is judged," ch.
16:8-11. That is, he will reprove the Jews (says Clarke)
because they have condemned Christ. Will TJniver alists toll
us that Satan is the Prince of this world, and in the same
breath argue tlia.. all will be saved because God is •' the
lather of all men." 1 ask, does not this judgment refer to
the casting out or condemnation of Christ before tlic trib-
unal of Pi lat-e ? Acquittal or condohmation follows judg-
ment, but '' God sent not hi;-; son into the world to condemn
(this should be to J^dije) the world, bnt that the worl "1
through him might be saved," John 3:17. The Greek word
for "judge," "judgment," krincin, krineos, cannot mean here
" to rule," or give the idea of dominion, ns Mr. Austin as-
serted, for Christ says, " I came not to judge tlic world,
when " God had given him dominion over all the works of
his hands." Donegan, an author who is reliable and much
quoted by XJniversalists, says krinein i'fi from Jcrino " to judge.

t • N I VERSA L I SM CNFOt N D^KlV.

1 ij

to sopuraio, t<> put a-sftndcr, to discriminate, to decide a dif-
ference, ,i;ivo .1 verdict, pass a sentence," 3. That the Jud^'-
ment exisis ilu'Mtio-Jiout tlie Christian dispensation. '-The
times of tliis j^i^iioraiiccGod winked at; but now commandeth
all nuMi rvory\\ h<-re to repent, l)ecause lie hath appointed a
day ii\ whiili lie will judge the world in righteouHness."
When we wtvl that Christ i« " the Saviour of the "world,"
Univei'salists tell us the word ^corld means all mankind that
liave ever Ii\(.'(|. that live now or will live. The word here
cannot lie le-s limited else some will oscajje the judgment,
and if Chri^ 1 is to judge this same world, and if this judg-
ment hegins '• witli the Christian era," then those millions
who lived Ix't'oiv tluit era arc now being judged. Here is
judgineiil at'tci- death. But the apostle speaks in the ftatuixj,
a day in w!iich He will JniJge. One of two conclusions is
evident. Ijiher Paul was not a TJniversalist and did not
underNlaiid tlielr ju<lgmcnt hobby, oi- the judgment was still
future. To evade these meshes the passage is then shifted
to l)ear ujion the destruction of Jerusalem. AVell let us see,
'' (ii)d corrimands all men everywhere to repent, because he
hath aj)j)ointed a <lay in which he W'ill" destroy Jerusalem.
All 3'()ii riontiles here in Athens must rojient, for in about
twenty years from now a fuss is to be kicked up some eight
liundi-ed i>v a thousand miles from here, down yonder at Je-
rusalem. l»c-iween the Jews and the Eomans ! ! What a
wondei'ln] inducement this was to persuade the Greeks to
repent I !

2. ••Yuv tlietime/.s'co?nf:- when judgment must begin at the
house of Cod."' This certainly proves the judgment was
ihon i:-oing on. for the time is come when judgment must
l)ogin. But Universalists have been kind enough to tell us
that those Avords which arc italicised are not in the original'
(ireel:. but were supjilied by the translators to make sense
in the text. Hence the little word '' one " in Isa. 45:24 has
been *' tiirust out " by friend Ballou and his coadjutors, be-

do ttdif-

:he Judtc-
1. 'Tho
iiandeth
»ointod a
lUHnesH."
wovld,"
:ind that
oi'd here
ilgmcnt,
lis judg-
m ill ions
Here is
e fiituiv?,
iisions is
did not
was still
1 sliiftcd
)t us (see,
[•ausc he
ra^alem.
in about
ne eight
cr at Je-
Whut a
rocks to

in at the
10 nt was
nt must
:o tell us
original
vo sense
5:24 has
tors, be-

UNIVERffALrSM UNFOVNDKIK

cause with it this sweeping Universalis! proof text could
not evidence that all men will be saved. So in the passage
below, 2 Cor. 5:10, the words " doiu! " :iiid '' his " are ex-
communicated, because it' allowed to remain the ])assage
would teach a judgment after the death of (he body. Now
I will pay these gentlemen back in their own coin by say-
ing the words tit Mine in this text wei'C supplied by the
translatora, and I reject them for this infaliibjo reason.
Thephrase" is come" cannot harmoni/e -Ailh the remainder
of the text. The time is i-vme when judgment must hi rj in.
Here must heglu, which is in the Greek, is in the future
tense ; how then can '^ is come" agree with itAvhen it is in
the present ? It should read " For the time a- I/I come when
judgment must begin at the house of God." The transla-
tors made the very same mistake in Romans 11:11, " T say
then, have the}'- stumbled that they should fiill ? God for-
bid ; but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the
Gentiles to provoke them to jealousy." The words rafhcr
and is come are su])plicd here, and, as any one can see, is an
incorrect translation. It should read, '' but tlint through
theli" fall salvation might come uuto the Gentiles " But if
*' is come" were in the original the Universal ist idea of the
judgment could be ottset l)y examples from the New Testa-
ment, whore the jiresent is u.>ed voi'v lVe<iuently for the fu-
ture. " Ye know that after two days is the feast of the
Passover, and the Son of Man is betrayed," IMatt. 26:2.
'' By which also ye are saved //'ye ki'op in memory what I
preached unto you," ICor. 15:2. Hero is and are both stand

for the future.

3. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of

Christ, that every one may i-eeeive the things done in his

body according to that he hath done, whether it be good

or bad," 2 Cor. 5:10. The words time and his, as I noticed

above, have been rejected. The text without them teaches

tlie Universalist dogma that the j-ighteous and the wicked

.'?

UNIVERSALISM tTNFOtTNDED,

will bo recomponsod horo. Then tlicro in no reward in
heaven for the Christian. The Saviour was mistaken when
lie said to his diseiples " Rejoice and be oxcoedinj? gbid for
great is i/our rmard in hedvm.'' So was l^aul, " kiiowini^ in
yourselves that y© have in heuveu a better and an ondurmg
substance.. Cast not away therefore your oontidence which
hath ^rm^ recompmise of rewanl,'' Xleb. 10:34-35. Now wo
see why the translators ditl sujiply those two words, bucanse
without thein the passage would controvert the very doc-
trine of Christ and his Apostles. But here the usual fato
awaits Universal ism. We must is future, which shows the
Christian dispensation has nothing to do, in point of ♦inio,
with the judgment, for it had then been going on sixty
years, yet the Ajjostlo still puts it in the future. When ho
was condemned to die he wrote to Timothy, "I am now
ready to bo oll'ered, (i. e. to die) and the time of my
departure is at hand. 1 have fouglit the good tight, I have
lijushcd my coui'so, I liave kept the faith, Henceforth there
is laid up for me a ei*own of righteousness ". WhcTi will you
get that crown, Paul ? "which the Lord the righteous jttdgb
SHALL give me ai that daj/ (the day of judgment) and not to
me only but unto all them also that love his appearing ", 2
Tim. 14:G,7,8. Here, when he was about to die,, he speaks
of the judgment as still future, which can only be under-
istood as a judgment after his " departure " or when " ab-
sent from the body." In the above text we see that the re-
ward takes place at the Judgment. "We must appear before
the judgment seat" that voe m.ay receive the rewai-d. Sylvanus
Cobb,the only Universalist who iraaginal he could succeed in
giving a commentary on the Now Testament, says that "the
crown of righteousness" which ix)mainod unto Paul is "the
honor with which his name should go wreathed down to the
after ages." Now, when Paul said " they strive to obtain a
corruptible crown, we an incorruptible", 1 Cor. 9:25, the
crown was corruptible after ail. Pretty soon when we come

UNIVER8ALISM UNPOUNDED

owai(i in
:on when

glad for
nv'wir in
>ri(liirfn|^
c© Avhich
Now wo

booanse
ory (loc-
unl fnto
10W8 tho
r)f <^imo,
»n sixty
V'Jien ho
iin now
) of my
, I have
^h there
II you

a JITDGB

not to

nir ", 2

Hpoaks
uiKier-

the re-
before
Ivanus
:recd in
at "the
fs ''the
to the
>tain a
5, the
3 comd

jto treat of endlosB punislimont we will be told that the word
aphthartots which ih here rendered corruptible, means rw(7-
less, but liero means nidiug. Strange indeed that Paul all
the while was seeking Avorldly honor ! But the textsays ''and
not to me only" will this crown begiyen, "but nnto all them
^Iso that loye hi:^ appearing." Thousands of Chi-istians wlio
3iyed in the days of l^aul haye died and gone into the region of
forgetfulness. Will Mr. Cobb tell us how tlieir names came
" wreathed down to after ages?" He again says " that day"
means '' tJK daj' of his departure." Then all those who
jiaye loved or eyer will love Christ's uppcdrlng roceiyed their
" crowns of i-ighteousness," when Paul died ! ! What a beau-
tiful sense Mr. Cobb makes with tlie Scripture. Yes, what
a beautiful nonsense ! But this text refutes Universal ism,
which teaches that punishment immediately follows trans-
gression, whereas this text makes tho rewaj-d future. These
difRcultics are seen howeyer, and as a last resort it must
refer to the destruction of Jerusalem. Allowing all those
persons to haye liyed till Jerusalem Avas destroyed it is
quite probable the Corinthians were all taken to Jerusalem.
4. — " And as ho reasoned of righteousness, temperance
and judgment to come, Felix treml'lcd". Acts 24:25. Paige
and Cobb tell us that Ilaryeis renders this "the judgment
which is ready to bo reyealed ", and Sawyer, "the judgment
,9bout to come". But this does not help their civ,e, for those
vciy words so rendered do not7nean an impcruKng judgment,
but something distant. Cobb explains this judgment as
referring to the expulsion of Felix from his office, which
took place short 1}' after; but this cannot be entcrtainofl. for
Paul was reasoning with him " concerning the faith in
Christ", y. 24. Mr. C. here renounces his fayorite hobby
that the Christian dis])cnsation was the day of .judgment,
for he makes out that the judgment only had reference to
Felix, and hence there is no " all men " in the case. For
thirty years the judgmei:it of Christ had been going on, and

UNIVKIISALISM UNFOUNDED.

yet Felix had not Loon jiul^'ocl, and after all had to go to
Homo before tlie judgin«'nt weat of [not Christ l.-iitj the Ro-
man Emperor, Nero. Jose])hus Hayn of him, " iio had ccr-
tandy hoen broii<i:ht to liunishmmt xuA^ii^i^ Noro had yielded
to the importunate Holititutions of his brother Pallas, who
was at that time had in the greatest honor by him ". Hero
ho came before Mr. Cobb's judgment seat, and yet escaped
the punishment. Ah ! this text must have reference to the
desU'uction of Je)•u^Mlem. But Felix was a Eoman Gover-
nor, and would Paul's preaching to him about the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem by the Roman soldiers make him trem-
ble ? Felix, to all appearance at that time, might have been
the very man to lead on the Roman legions, and yet he was
BO frightened he tnmhkd ! 1 1 This Roman governor, who
had Jonathan, the high-^jriost of the Jews, killed, because
he hated him, and led a band of Roman soldiers against the
Jews, who '' slew man}^ of them and took more of them
alive, and i)ermitted his soldiers to plunder the houses of
the citizens", (assays Joscphus) was seized with a terrible
ague, when ho found they were soon to destroy Jerusalem ! !
4. — That Christ came the second time at the destruction
of Jerusalem, and that then and there was the judgment. We
have found that the other three judgments are without a
single particle of evidence. The last resort is tho destruc-
tion of Jerusalem, and should we succeed in defeating the
large army of Scripture texts which Gen. Univoivalism has
rallied round Jerusalem, tho old gentlem.an will bo obliged
to seek a place elsewhere to locate his judgment seat, and
this can only be in eternity, for ho has boon driven from
every point in time, and hence must either deny the judg-
ment and have none at all or else admit it is after death.

1. — Ml'. Austin in his discussion with Holmes, p. 630,
says, "In reference to the time when he should come with
his holy angels to judge tho world, the Saviour declares,
" Verily I say unto you this generation shall not pass

til
til

DNIVERHALI8M UNFOUNDED.

I to go to
It] the Ro
httd cor-
ad yielded
alias, who
m ". Hero
3t escaped
jiico to tho
an Gover-
e destruc-
him trom-
havo been
yet ho was
u-nor, who
1, l»ecaii.so
lyainnt tho
3 of them
houses of
a terrible
rusalem I !
estruction
;ment. We
without a
destruc-
ating the
(alism has
)0 obliged
seat, and
ven from
the judg.
• death.
. p. 630,
'me with
declares,
not pass

till all these thingH be ful tilled." Hero Mr. Austin

akoH out that th

Christ

was FULFILLED Win

came at tho destruction of Jerusalem. Then we and Mr.
Austin will escape the judgment. JJut the text says "This
generation sluill not pass till all those things oe ful-
filled." All what things ? Till tho Jews be carried away
"captive into all nations," Luko 21;24. Till Jerusalem V bo
trodden down r\f the Gentiles, until tho times of tho Gen-
tiles be fuUilled," till Christ shall como, &c., &c. But wore
the Jews carried away captive into all nations before or
when Jei'usalem was destroyed ? Nay, vorily, but they con-
tinue in tho captivity referred to by Christ at the present
day. Wo have good Univorsalist authority to corroborate
this exposition. G. W. Montgomery in his sermon on the
24th and 25th Chapters of Matthow, makes tho following
remarks : "If the term everlasting reproach was applied
to TO years captivity, why may not tho phrase everlasting
punishment bo applied to the Jews when they have endured
the jniimhment for nearly 1800 years, rather over 25 times 70
years ", Sermon, page 21. Here is indubitable evidence
that this ca])tivity or tribulation yet continues. The times
of the Gentiles are not j'ot fulfilled, for Jerusalem is yet trod-
den down by them, and Christ says he will not come
till all these things be fulfilled. But Christ was not to come
at any tribulation but after the tribulation of those days "
(Matt, 24:29), This tribulation yet continues, hence Christ
has not yet come. The word generation is not employed,as Uni-
versalists would like to make out, to • press the life-time of
individuals, but the character of a class of people. " For
God is in the generation of the righteous," Ps. 14:5. " But
ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy na-
tion, a peculiar people," 1 Pet. 2:9. Again "O generation of
vipers how can ye, being evil, speak good things ? for out
of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh * *
even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation." Matt.l2:

TJNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

34,35. The ■u'ord genea, rendered generation in the text
under conf<id< -fition, is translated by Martin Luther and Dr
Georu'c Campbell race.'' " This race shall not pass away till
all those things bo fulfilled," The same word is translated
"nation " in Phil. 2:15, " In the midst of a crook<?d and per-
verse nation^ but the Fi'onch translation of Ostervald has
the latter passan'O " au milieu do la race." Dr. Clarlve, re-
marking on iho p]n"asc, " This generation shall not pass," ob-
serves, '^E g<-nea avte, this race, i. e., the Jews, sluill not cease
from boi^ig a cUstiiict people till all the counsels of God rela-
tive to them and the Gentiles be fulfilled" — Com in loco. —
Also the phrase, "This is an evil generation," Luke 11:29,
he translates, "This is a wicked race of men." Ho remarks
the same on the word " generation" in 1 Pet., 2 : 0, Lukp
11:3^.32. Th? Dean of Canterbury says, " generation of
vipers" (Mtxt. 3 : 7) " O generation of vii)ors," (ch. 12:34)
"ye generation of vipers," (ch. 23:33). "O generation,"
(Luke 3 : 7) should bo rendv'i-od " race of." The Jews, though
now scattered among all nations, are yet a distinct people;
this race or generation has not passr(^ awai/. but will exist
till Christ comes again "to judge the world in righteousness."
2. " Yerily I say unto you, there be some standing here
that shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man
coming in his Kingdom." Universalists contend that this
"coming in his Kii;gdom" is the same as his "coming in
the glory of his Father to reward every man accordin«- to
his works." But this is not coi-rect. Yerse 27 refers to the
coming of Christ spoken of in the passage wo have just ex-
.aminod, while verse 28, the one now under notice, rotors to
his coming from the dead. This is proved by the fact that
the whole subject of his discourse is his sufferings and death.
ITo has never yot said a word of the impendin- ruin of
the Jewish caj.ital. The mere fact that the two versos
stand together in Matthew, is no proof they refer to the
same subject, for in Mark they are separated' by chapters.

tioi
tha
qnf
yoi
des

sak
nan

tl'NlVEftSALlSM UNFOUNDED.

But did not the kingdom of God come before the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem ? I have heard Universalists more
than a dozen times, to keep the kingdom in this world,
quote " Behold the kingdom of God is within (or among)
you ", and Christ said this long before Jerusalem was
destroyed. Christ said before his ocatli, he was a king.
"I am the king of the Jews". When he rode into Jeru-
salem they cried, " Blessed is the king that comoth in the
name of the Lord.." Now a king implies a kingdom, and
Christ came into his kingdom when lie broke llie l)ar-
rier of the tomb and commenced his mediatorial reign. Dr.
George Campbell strengthens tliis view, for he renders the
passage " Till they see the Son of man enter nponldsreignJ^
But let the text mean what it may, it does not teach that
Christ made his second advent at the destruction of Jeru-
salem.

3. — But when they persecute you in this city flee ye into
another, for verily I say unto you ye shall not have gone
over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come." But
Paul, many years before the destruction of the Jewish cap-
ital, says, that the gospel had been preached " to every crea-
ture under heaven." Then Christ came too soon for Uni-
versalism. But this coming could not mean his second ad-
vent, fw the goepel must be preached among all nations and
then shall the end come," Mat. 24:14. The text says, '' Ye
shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of man
be come." Its import is the same as that of the last and
means the coming of Christ from the dead. The gospel has
not yet been preached among all nations, then Christ has
not yet come. How then is it Paul says "Their sound went
into all the earth and their words unto the end of the w-orld"
Eom. 10:18. Wo reply that this can only refer to the coun-
tries then known. No one would argue that the Apostles
preached in America, nor in the one thousandth part of the
world. Augustus Crosar issued a decree that "All the world

CNITERSALrsif XTtiFOUSDETf.

should be taxed", Luke 2:1, yet this could mean only tlie
Eoman world.

4. — " If I will that he tarry till I come, what i« that to
thee ? follow thou me." ''Then went this saying abroad
among the brethren, ihat that disciple should not die." Yet
Jesus said not unto him he shall not die ; but if I will that
he tarry till I come, what is that to thee," John 21:21-23.

Universaliats contend' that Christ taught here that John
should not die till he came the second time — that he should
tarry till he came. Wo can see plainly that the disciples
were no Universalists, for when Christ said, " If I will that
he tarry till I come, what iw that to thee ", They all im-
mediately drew the conclusi(m that that disciple should not
die. Then they thought Christ's coming farther of}' than
the destruction of Jerusalem, for John's natural life con-
tinued thirty years after that event. Xow. mark the fact
that<.'lirist was now risen from the dead ; he had been drilling
his disciples in the great fact of liis comijig in about 40
years, to reward every man accordiiig to his works at the
destruction of Jerusalem, as Universalists contend, yet, not-
withstanding all this lliey persist in believing that (.'lirist
will not come till the end of time, for they ijnagined if
John was to tarry till he came, be would never die, and of
course would be the end of time when there woui<l be no
mvre death ". I p)-efcr the judgment of the twelve disci pies
to that of Mr. Montgomery and Mr. Ballou.

5.— "Be ye also patient, establish your hearts, tbr the
coming of the Lord draweth nigh ", James 5:8. •' For yet
a little while and he that shall come will come and will not
tarry ", Ileb. 10:37. How long is a little while ? Well, a
f%— the day in which Christ will judge the world in riglit^
eousness, is as long as the Chi-istian dispensati(.n of which
over 1800 years have ali-eady past; and this little while ex-
tended over a space of twenty-three years, according to
Universalism. Now if a day can mean 1800 years or tJie

only the

i that to
g abroad
lie." Yet
will that
1:21-23.
lat John
he should
diHcijjles
will that

all im-
loukl not
off' than
life con-
the fact
idrillini^
il)oiii 40
■^ at the
yet, iiot-
t Christ
L^'iiu'd if

and (»f

1>U JK)

isc'iplos

tl»i' (lie
F(M- yet
will not
Well, a
n ria-lit-
' which
•/( ilc ex-
ling to
or the

ti^I VERBAL IBM UNFOUNDED.

Christian dispensation, surely twenty-three years might be
made to extend at all events to as distant a period. But if
Paul used the expression a little while, as we now use it, and
Mr. U. contends it is literal, then it cannot possibly mean
lio point an event 23 years in the future. The context ex-
plains the ditficulty. Paul is speaking of the " great fight
of afflictions " which they endured, v. 32, and encourages
them to hold fast their " confidence which hath great re-
compense of reward ", v. 35, saying, " ye have need of pa-
tience ", and that soon they would find deliverance through
him that would come to relieve them, and would not tarry.
The very next words are, " The just shall live by faith,"
iis much as to sav, Believe and ve shall be rescued and com-
i'ortcd. Paul was wi'iting to converted Jews, and it is not
lilcoly he would comfort them with the idea they should
soon " receive the promise ", v. 36, because Jerusalem, their
beloved city in which were probably a number of their
friends, was to be destroyed.

6. — "Behold I come quickh/ and my reward is with me to
give every man according as his work shall be ", Rev. 22; 12.
Blessed is he that readcth and thev that hear the words of this
prophecy and keep those things which are written therein, for
the time is athdud. The phrase " the time is at hand ", is
relied upon as irrefragable proof that Christ came at the
overthrow of Jerusalem by Titus, yet it is sheer assertion,
for the text contains no such allegation. It is stubbornly
iirgefHhaUhis passage is ?iVe?v//,but strange enough when any
portion of the Book of lievelation speaks of a day of Jiidgmen t,
xind the subsequent punishment of the wicked, Oh the lan-
guage is '' highly figurative," or as Mr. Austin has it, *'a high-
ly figurative description of the Jewish people ". " Figure,
figure, saith the preacher, all is figure "I How then is this
literal f There is but one repl v, only, because it seems to
favor Universalism. But if this is literal, how will those
figurative gentlemen explain 1 Pet. 4:7 : "But the end of

TJNIVEHSAXISM UNFOTrNDHD.

fli

all things u at hand:' Did all things come to an end at the
destruction of Jerusalem ? Yes, of course, for the " at hand"
in the text is the "at hand" in the other. Historical
evidence, however, goes to prove that th'u- text was not
written till some time after Jerusalem vras destroyed,
for John wrote the book of Eevelation during the second
persecution of the Christians, wh eh was in the reign of
Domitian, successor to Titus. This is confirmed by t m
clesiastical liistory ; by the translators, and most all com-
mentators. How then can it predict an event that has
alrea'ly tvan8])ired ? But we will let Paul tell Univer-
salists whether the " at hand" referred to Jerusalem or not :
'■'■ Now we beseech you brethren that ye be not soon shaken
in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit nor by word, nor
by letter, as fi-oni ns as that the dny of Christ is at hand ?" 2
Thoss. 2:2. This was Avritten only 15 years before Jerusa-
lem was destroyed, which was not sufficient tiTJie to make
a little ivhih' for Universalists, and surely less than a little
while, is at hand ; yet Paul saj's the coming of Christ is not
at hand. Here we have Paul on the one side and H. Bal-
lon on the other.

We have now examined the evidences Universalists sum-
mon to prove Christ came the second time at the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem, and have found not only that these scrip-
tures teach no such doctrine, but rather afford the most pos-
itive testimony that that event is still future. In addition
to what has Ijccii said, we will now present the following
reasons which must, in the mind of every j)erson possessed
of candour and judgment, set the subject forever at rest.

!• — Christ warned his disciples against the xarj error in
which Universalists have fallen. When instructing tkem
in the overthrow of the Jewish metropolis his language
was, " Then (at the destruction of Jerusalem) if any man
shall say, Lo, here is Christ, or there, believe it not." Matt.
24 : 23. The only Christs he Jidvertises that would make

tlu'
and
the

dia
shaj
24:
con|

thi^

un<i
slia

cer

tini
lem

\JNW EUSALI^M 'DXFOUNDfin.

the'ir appearance wore wJiat hedcnoininated "fal.sc ChriHts,"
and if Uni verbalists still contend tliat the .Saviour in whora
they heHeve was there, then their .Saviour is a 'false' one.

2. Christ tells ii'^ exactly wh"n he will conic. "Imme-
diately after the tribiilati<m of those days and then

shall aj)pear the sig'u of the 8on of man in heaven." Matt.
24:25>, 30. Luke tells iis how lon.<>- lliis (i-ihulation shall
continue: "There shall be great distress and wrath u])on
this ])eople. And they shall fall hy the edge of the sword,
and shall be led away otpt'uv Ihio all natio/us ; and Jerusalem
shall be trodden dowii of the (iontiles indil the. tinua of flic
Gnitiirs UfdlfWrd:' Luke 21 : 24, 25. Xow the Jews wei-e
certainly )jot carried away captive into all nations at the
time Jerusalem svas destroyed. And how long is Jerusa-
lem to be tj-odden down? Until the times of the G/'ntlhn he

fiifjiUed. But Jerusalem is still " trodden dowji of the Gen-
tiles," and " the times of the Gentiles" are not }'et fultilled.
Then this tril)u]ation to which the Jews were subjected still
continues, and as Christ will not come till a^ter the tribu-
lation, his coming is yet future, Paul Jiiiderstood the doc-
trine in this sense, for he says; "that blindness iu jjart [to
a part of them] is happened to Israel vntil the fuln^^sa of the
Gentiles he come in. And so all Israel shall be saved." Horn.
11 : 2a, 26. This refers to the end of time, as Universalists
themselves contend, for they quote the last clause to prove
the universal salvaticm of Israel, From a thorough criti-
cism of this passage, Clarke remarks thai "the Jews will
continue in a state of blindness till such a time as a multitude
of nations ov Gentiles shall be converted lo the Christian faith ;
and the Jews hearing of this shall be excited by a spirit of
emulation to examine and acknowledge the validity of the
proofs of Christianity, and embrace the faith of our Lord
Jesus Christ."

3. When weeping over Jerusalem, the Saviour made use
of the following language : " Behold your house is left un-

li ?r

( .11
i i

S ill

UNIVERSAMS.M UNFOUNDED.

to you tlosolatc ; and verily I say unto you, yo shall not seo
me until the time conic when ye shall say, Blessed is ho
that conieth in the name of the Lord", Luke 13:35. Did
Jerusalem a ly time before its destruction make use of such
language ? No, and the name of the Prince of glory is to
this very day hated within the precincts of Jerusalem. Ma-
homet is the object of Jerui?alem worship on the hill of Zi-
on, where a disciple of Christis railed as '' aOhristian dog."
But the day will come, as certain as Truth exists, when this
now abased and trodden down Jerusalem shall say '' Blessed
is he that cometh in the name of the Lord."
The circumstances in connection with his coming,
4. — Christ will come as he went away. The angels said
to the disciples, "This same Jesus which is taken up from
5'ou into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have
seen him go into heaven ", Acts 1:1L In what manner did
he " go into heaven "? "A cloud received him out of their
sight", V. 9. The angels' testimony is verified by Luke,
"And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud
with power and great glory ", Luke 21:27. Bui did anyone
see him so amie in like mawwcr at the overthrow of Jerusalem ?
There were plenty of Universalists there-did they see him ?
Xo, and echo answers no. AVas he onl}- to be seen by such
a small number that the evidence might have been lost ?
"Behold he cometh with clouds undeveri/ c^(!bhall see him "
Rev. 1:7. "When the Son of iftan shall come in his glory
and all the holy angels with liim, then shall he sit upon the
throne of his glory and before him shall T)e gathered all na^
^io«s". Mat. 25:32. " As a snare shall it como on oil them
that dwelt on the face of the whole earth ", Luke 21:35. Here
''every eye shall sec him." II(nv many eyes is every eye 1
When we read " every knee shall bow and every tongue con-
fess to God," Isa. 45:2-1, tlus.mcans every person that ever
did or will live, because if it did not the passage would not
toach a Universal salvation. Then did e^cry eye see him

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

[1 not see
od is ho
5. Did
of such
)ry is to
em. Ma-
ill of Zi-
andog."
hen this
■ Blessed

jels said
ip from
^e have
mer did
of their
Luke,

a cloud
anyone
isalera ?
le him ?
)y such
1 lost?
him"
glory
)on the

all ncv-
U them
Here

y eve'?
10 con-

it ever

lid not

e him

at the destruction of Jerusalem ? Tf so we, who now live
were at Jerusalem before wo were born. And were nil nn-
tions gathered at the destruction of Jerusalem ? Again, the
saints must have seen Christ, for when he comes " He shall
send his angels and shall gather toc/cther his elect fiom the
four winds — from the uttermost ]iart of the earth to the ut-
termost part of heaven ",Mark Mi:"!!. "Now we beseech
you brethren by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and
by oiiv gathering together unto him," 2nd, Thess. 2:L Here
we see the saints were all present from " the uttermost part
of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven," and surely
could not fail to leave some evidence of the great advent of
the Messiah. John who wrote the Kevelations, and his two
epistles, after he had witnessed the glorious asserablngc, is
mum upon the subject. Surely this silence is not attribu-
table to his not enjoying the occasion, for " When he shall
come to be gloritied in his saints, and to be admired in all
them that believe " 2 Thes. 1:10. Besides, when Christ, who
is our life shall a})pear, then shall ye also np^year vilh him
in glory '\ Col, 3:4, The saints Avo-e glorified then. But
how did he appear according to Uiiiversalism? If we can
learn this wo may have a general idea of what is called the
great heatl of the Universalist church. We are told that the
person who sliould come was Titus the Eoman general." But
general Titus came from liome, a city noted for its idolatry
and wickedness, whereas Christ was to a])pear from heaven.
The Lord /^rmsf//' (not some bodj^ else) shall descend from
heaven ", 1 Thess. 4. Christ was to appear suddenly. "As
the lightning cometh out of the East and shineth even un-
to the West, so also shall the coming of the Son of man be."
But Titus was i.'ix months getting from his heaven to Jeru-
salem, and then he came out of the West instead of the East,
And Titus came upon the ground, not in a cloud of heaven.
Ho was to be accompanied by holy beings, "holy angels."
"Behold the Lord cometh with ten thousand of his saints ",

(JO

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNI)tl»

Judo 14. " The Son of man sliall come in bis g'ory nud ail
the holij angt'h with him,'' 2^hitt. 25::U. Surely the blood-
thirsty llomiin soldiers were not intended as Univcrsiilism
touches. The saints were to be yathertd togrther unto him, but
Christ said when they saw Jerusalem eueompassvil witii
armies to " flee into the nvmntnins." .Uow were the saintn
to be gathered ? by the an;^'els 'with a jj;reat sound of:*
trumpet". "But wiio heard the sound of the trumpet?"
^latt. 2't:Sl. Paul was a not<.?(.l Universulist^antl he speaks
c>f the same trum|>et. "For theLonl himself shall descend
from heaven with a shout, Avith the sound of the archangel
and the trmnp of Cod, and the dead in Christ shall rise first"
1 Thess. 4-. 10. In 1 Cor. 15:52, he explains this to be the
seventh or last trum]), for he speaks of the same events —
the coming of the Lord — the resurrection, &c. " We shall
not all sleep but we shall all be changed in a moment — in
the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump.'" John who wjw
another great Universalist, speaks of the self same trump.
'•And the seventh angel (which souiidcil the seventh ti'ttmp)
sounded, and there were great voices in heaven, saying, "The
kingdoms of this world arc become the kingdoms of our
Lord and his Christ", liev. 11:15. W&s this fuUilletl at the
destruction of J erusalom ? The IGth and nth verses of th is
11th chapter say that "the four and twenty elders which sat
before Hod on their seats, fell upon their faces and woi'shij>-
ped, saying, "We give Th;3e thanks, O Lord God Almightj-,
which art and wast and art to come, because thmi hast takcit
Knto Thee thy great power and hast reigned." This is identi-
cally what the other Universulist speaks of in 1 Cor. 15:24,
" Christ the first fruits, afterv/aitls they that are Christ's at
his coming; then cometh the end (of time or the Christian
dispensation) when ho shall have delivered up the kingdom
to God, oven the Father." Was the end when Jerusalem
was detstroyed ? "And when all things shall be subdued un-
to him, then shall the' Son also himself be subject unto him

(pi
Til

foj

hi-1

hei

oil

TNIVERSAUSM T'NPOrNnKD

y «ikI all
lO blood-
oi'sjilism
' Idtn, but
!Vh1 viitli
lie saintH
mU of :4
mi put ?"
B speaks
clescond

Mii firtst "
> be the
)vent8 —
iVo sliall
leiit — in

! trump,
trump)

of OUJ*
d at the
sot" this
hieh sat

Qlightj,

st takeJt

identi-

. 15:24,

ist's at
)ristiari
nii^dom
usaleui
led un-
to him

=lhnt God may he all and in aU,^^ 1 Cor. 15:28. XTnivcrHali.sts
quote this " all and in all " to prove thsit nil Avill he ^aved.
Then all were sa-^'ed at the destriicticMi of Jerusalem. But be-
fore the 7th or last trump sounded, John saw a mighty angel
which stood upon the sea and upon the land "And swaro by
hi-m that liveth for over and ever * * * that there should
he time no longer", Rev. 1():(». Then the end of time was
before the destruction of Jerusalem ! By tliese texts we also
observe that if <^hrist came the second time at the over-
throw of Jerusalem, he then yielded up the kingdom to his
Father, for Paul says in the plainest of sentences, "Then (at
his second coming) cometh the end vhen he shall have de-
livered up th<3 kingdom to God, even the Father". Then
Christ reigned only till Jerusalem was destroyed. But "ho
must reign till he liath put all enemies under his feet; the
last enemy that shall be desti-oyed is<lealh ", 1 Cor. 15:25,26.
But death, the last enemy, was one of the "all enemies"
<'hrist was to destrov before he cease<l U) reiiin ; and as he
■ceased to reign vv'ieri Jerusalem was destroyed, th(;n there
has been no more dcatli since the destruction of Jerusalem ! !
We find that nearly all those passages.Avhich speak of Christ's
second coming, mention the resurrection, the judgment and
the reward of every man a< cordiiii"- to his worlvs. as takinij
j>lace simuUaneously. But to cap all, these great scriptural
and religi^ws truths are a I'ead letlei-, since they were ful-
tWled 1800 years ago! But if evrnj iwni was rewarded, then
how many are yet left that have not been ? Here Univer-
salists in their eagerness to get all men to lieaven are near-
ly eiglit<^en centuries ahead of time. This is also proved by
the vei'v sei'i])ture they quote to]>rove all will be saved. Wo
adduce Acts 3:20,21, "And he shall send J3sus Christ, which
before was preached unto you, whom the heavens must re-
ceive, until the times of restitution of all things, which God
hath s])oken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the
world l)Cgan." Who ever combatted u TJniversalist twenty-

UNIVER8ALISM UNFOUNDED.

five minutes, who did not quote this to prove that all would
be " restored " or saved? But if Chri.st came when Jeru-
salem was destroyed, then all ihi'igs wore restored at that
very time, for the heavens received Christ until the times of
the restitution — that is, when Christ came all things wore
restored. We would like to haoe had Uiilversalists among the
number !

We will now iwesent some reasons why the divine admis-
tration must extend beyond this life ; and will demonstrate
by Scripture evidence, that the day of judgment is yet fu-
ture, and will not take place till the end of time :

1. God is a just and perfect governor, therefox-e his laws
are just and perfect. But a law cannot be just and perfect
that has not an equal bearing upon all its subjects — that
will not punish the guilty and reward the righteous to the
full extent of their deserts — and God's law docs not do this
in time, and must therefore either bo unjust and imperfect
or reserves its rewards and punishments beyond this
life. In this world vice swap's the scoi)tre over virtue,
which often receives the punibliii^ont duo to crime, while
vice bears otf the reward due to virtue. There is no martyr
to the cause of Truth that does not hjolc forward with
" upward earnest eye " to an appioaching day of retribution
when every wrong will be brought to account ; when the
oi)prossed and down-trodden will bo recompensed, when evil
will be dealt with for its crimes, and when ovory man shall
be rewarded according as his work shall be. The Scriptures
everywhere demonstrate the necessity of such a day of ret-
ributiun through the imperfection of rewards and punisli-
ments in this life. "There bo jW men to whom it hap-
]xmoth according to the work of the wicked : Again, there
be v:lckvd men to whom it happenoth according to the work
of the righteous ", Ecc. 8:14. That men arc not rewarded
ill this life is also taught in ch. 9:2, '' All things come alike
to all ; there is one event to the righteous and to the wicked ;

tha

oat

life

nat

liap-

UNIVEllSALISM UNFOUNDED.

to the good and to tho clean and to the unclean ; to him
that .sacrificoth and to him that Hacritlccth not; as is tho good
80 is tho sinner, and ho that swoaroth as he that fearoth an
oath." That the day of retribution extends beyond thia
life is also conceivable from tho extending and continuing
nature of good and evil. Every good and impious act on the
part of men sends its healing or poisonous influeuv'-.o down-,
wards upon the tide as far and as long as tho stream of life
continues to flow. The good ell'ected by Paul, Luther, How-
ard and Wesley did not act only till the terminus of their
natural lives, but passed over to others, — to other coun-
tries, to other climes, to other ages. They did not seek
their reward hero but " in heaven." On tho other hand the
mischief and intidolity of Voltaire, Bolingbroke, Hume, and
Paine still breathes its baneful and blighting taint upon the
opening buds of virtue, blasts the flowers of society, and do-
moralises and jeopardises the characiei* of after generations.
Now as men cannot be rewarded " according to their work "
till the goo<l or evil of their conduct is matured, which can-
not take place till human society f^ea^es to exist, it follows
not only that there will be a da}' of retribution in the future
stale, but that tlio day of judgment cannot in tho very nature
of justice take place till the end of time. This is moreover
evident from the theory of (Tniversalists themselves, for as
the leading design of punishment is the reformation of tho
guilty, and as in millions of cases this object is not attained
in this life, it follows, if attained at all, it must be in the
future state or this theorv of tlniversalism is false.

2. Tho .lows b^liuvod in a future general judgment. This
can be undeniably proved from the Jewish Talmuds, from
which we note the following : " When Rabbi Jochunad ben
Lachai was sick, his discij)les came to visit him, and when
ho saw them he began to weep. They say unto him, ' Rab-
bi, the light of Israel, the right hand pillar, tho strong ham-
mer, wherefore dost thou weep ? ' He answered them, ' If

UNIVEIIHAI-ISM INFOUNKED.

tlioy were cai-rying nic Ifforc a kin^' of flesh and Mood, who
is hero to-(hiy and to-morrow in the gi-avc, wlio, if he was
angry witli nio, his anger woidd not hist t'orcvor, if ho i)Ut
mo in ]>rison, his ])rison would not bo everlasting, ii'he con-
domnod me to death, that death would not l>e eternal, whom
I could soothe, with words or hj-ibe with rielies, yet even in
those cirenmstanees I should weep; but now I am going
bofore the King of Kings, the holy an<l the blessed (iod, who
liveth and endureth tbrever and ever, who if he bo angry
with me his anger will last forever, if he jmt me in prison
his bondage will bo everlasting; if ho condemn me to death
that death will bo eternal, whom 1 cannot soothe with words
nor bilbe with riches. When farther, there are before me
two ways, tho one to hell and the other to Paradise, 1 know
not in which they are carrying mo, shall 1 not weej) ?' "
(Talmud, Heracotli fol. 28.) Josejihus, who wrote when
John was still living, in his discourse on Hades gives the
doctrine of the judgment as believed by the Jews: "For
all men, tho just as well as the unjust, shall be brought l>e-
fore (Jod the Word, foriT) him hath the Father committotl
all judgment, and he, in order to fultil tho will of his Father
.'.hall come as Judge, whom we call Christ. For Minos and
lihndainantlius ai-e not the Judges as you (Jreeks suppose,
but he whom Go<l the Father lialh glorified; concerning
whom we have given a more particular account for the sake
of those who seek after truth. This person exercising the
righteous judgments of the Father toward all men hath
prejinicd a just sc'iileiu-e for ovcvy one according to his
works ; at whose juihjmtnf Si<tt when all men and angels
and tU'inons shall stand, they will send forth one voice and
i>i\.y jmt is thejinhjmtnt, the rejoiner to which will bring a
just sentence u])on both parties, by giving justly to tho.se
who have done well, an everlasting fruition ; but allotting
to the lovers of wiclced Avorks eternal punishment." Justin
3Iart\T, who lived A. D. 150. a few years after Josephus,

suj

IhJ

foil

rei

eli|

1»'

and

INIVEHHAL1.SM UNFOINDED.

Hfty.s tlint '* IMuto," tho ronowned (Jroek philonoplicr, " hold
tlmt tlio wickod hIiuII sland buforo Mituw mid Uhudimiiiiiiliiis
t<> bo punisbcd by ibtMii. Wo bold ibo Humo ovont, l)Ut bo-
foro Cbi'iHt as jiid^o ; that tbo}' may bo ]ninisbo«l in tbcir
roombodiod souKs, not a Iboiisand years, as IMato Hai<l, l)ut
uternally," J)r. ('obb in bis(Ud)ato with Prof. Iliidson, says,
p. 447, " 1 was aware that the (bx-triiio of a post-inortein
jud<;'inoiit and retribution bad entered the Christian church
bet'oro the time of Justin." Our Lord was, as to bis human-
ity, a Jew, and if thjut j)coi»le to whom he was sent hml bec-ii
in error with rei^ard to the judgment lie most certainly
would have corrected them ; but we find that so far from
doing Ibis, hia discoui'ses ui)()n the subject every whei-e un-
equivocally teach the same doctrine. The learned IMiar-
8008 continually watched him that they might "entanglo
him in his talk", bi'i never oncewas he accused of violating
their doctrine of the general judgment, and to suppose he
left them in error when lie corrected errors of less im[)or-
tanco, 18 to charge the sSaviouv with negligence and dishon-
esty. The only legitimate concluaion is that bo taught the
doctrine as they then believed it. Mr. Austin discussing
with lEolines remarks, " ^[osheim says that up to the thir*I
century all the doctvines which were incidcated by the
preachers of Christianity were contained in the ' Apostles'
creed,' which it is claimed was written either by the Apos-
tles themselves, or by their immediate successors. It reads
as follows : "I believe in God, the Father,, Almighty,
Creator of Heaven and Karth ; and in Jesus Christ, his
only Son, our Saviour, who was conceivcvl by the Holy
Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary ; sutfercd under Pontius
Pilate ; was crucitie<l, dead and buried ; ho descendetl into
Hell ; the thii-d day ho i*ose again from the dead ; ho a?--
condo<l into Heaven ; sittoth on the right hand of G(xl, the
Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the
living and the dead. I bel%)ve in the Holy Ghost, the Holy

irXIVEllSALISM UNFOUNDED.

Cutliolic Chuirh. the Comnuiiii.ui ol' Saints, the forgiveness
of sins, tho rcsiirreetion of the body, niid life everhisting. '
In thin creed it will ho seen," continues Mr. Austin, " there
is not one word or oven hint of endless punishment, the
Trinity or Vicarious atonement. And as tho creed, accor-
diniC to Mosheim, contains all the doctrines incuUaicd by
the earl V preachers of (*hristianity. we have thus j)ositivo
evidence that these .sentiments were not l:elicv(>d in tho
church for over two hundred years after Christ." — till tho
days of Turtnlliaii (Di.scuf.s page 765.) With this we wish
to remark, as Mr. Austin not only admits, but jirgiu-s tliat
this " creed " was the doctrine of the ajiostles, [\vo ini})<)r-
tant })oints are }'iulded. 1. The resurrection ol'llu' l>'»dy ;
"Z. The doctrine of a future general judgmeiii, for the alxive
nay.s Christ will come agtiin '-to judge the living and t lie
dead.'' This observation of Mr. Austin perfeetly annihilates
Ids whole structure of universal salvation, and dolcats his
entire tbrces drawn up to negative the tloctrine oi' endless
punishment. But there are other forms of this iivimI. Lord
King (Primitive Church, page 207) give^ one whieh dates
back to the secon<l century, in which endless j)unis]imfnt is
di(^tinctly expressed. It begins with the usual foi-in, CnJo
ill unuTi, J.k-mn — " I believe in (jiie (iod ^ "f^ * about to
come in glory ; tho Saviour of those who sh.ill bo saved, and
the judge of tljose who shall be judged, and -ending away
into etcni'd fir>- the perverters of truth and the despi.vcrs of
his Father tmd (»f hii coming."

^\v. T. H. Thayer in a late work, written in l^'tlli. whieh
lie entitles " the Theology of Universalirjui," in v,hieh he
makes the most sanguine efforts to show thai, tho two ])ass-
ages, one in 2 Peter 2:4, the other Judo v. <i, weiv only cita-
tions from a traditionary book, and therefore that the doc-
trine of" fallen angels "' is not taught by those texts, says,
page 401, "About the time of our Saviour's birth, or just
before, it (the Iradi^ion) appeared in full dramatic costume

II.

fl-l

givcnesH

orlastinff. '
tin, " (here
Imioijt, the
ced, aocor-
uk-aied by

i!^ j)')i^»itivo
veil in ilio
"-ti:i the
is we wi.-^h
'^•iK's that
\v<> inipor-
the hotly ;
the alxivo
H' and the
nniliiiates
efeats i.is
'T endless
-'0(1. Lord
ieh dates
slinu-nt is
Ml, Credo
;.i»out to
IV ed, and
ii.i;' away
|»i>er.s oi'

-. wliifh
.hieJi he
i.\o pas.s-
•i:iy cita-
tiic doc-
:is, say.s,
or JLiist
eo.stiuue

r.VlVERSALieM UNFOUNDED.

in the celebrated ' Rook of Enoch,' written by some foreign
Jew." ]\rark, Mr. Thayer says this book was written about
the time of the birth of Christ, and of course the sentiments
it contains being the jn-oduction of a "Jew" would fully
represent the then prevailing doctrines among the Jews.
Mr Thayer then to serve his pui-po.se cites from tl)is book
these passages : " Then tlie Most High, the Great and Holy
One spake and said to Raphael, 'Bind Azazyel hand and
foot ; cast him into darkness, and in thegrmt day ofjudvieut
lot him bo cnst into thv fire,.'' To Mi(diael the Lord said, 'Go
and an?iounco this crime to Samyanya and to the others
who arc with him ; and when all their sons shall be slain,
when they shall see the perdition of their beloved, bind
them for seventy generations underneath the earth, even
t^) the day of judgnuMit." Here Universalists themselves
j)rove tliat thedoclrine of a " great day ofjudgment " insome
future distant period, ])revailed among the Jews in the days
of Christ.

o. The .Scriptures speak of the judgment only in the fu-
ture ten^e. " Rojoico, O young man, in thy youth, and let
thy heaj-l cheer thoo in the days of thy youth ; and walk in
the ways of thy heart and in the sight of thine eyes, but know
thou tliat for all these things God will hri,ig thee into judg-
ment,'^ Ecc. 9:0. "Because lie hath appointed a day in which
he will Judge the world in righteousness by that man whom
he hatii ordained," Acts 17:3(I-'U. "And fts he reasoned of
righteousness, temperance and <t Judgment to come Felix trem-
bled," A cts 24:-5. " But I say unto you that every idle word
that men sliall speak, they sh'dl give an account thereof in the
day ofjudgment." These are Christ's words and he is speak-
ing to those who believe in a future general judgment.
"God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down
to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to he re-
served unto jvdgmcnf,'^ 2 Pet. 2:4. LT^niversalists, however,
say Peter was not aflirming that such a judgment would

Ill

UNIYERSALISM UNFOUNDIfcD.

take place, but was on]y repealing thcdoctrinc whicli those
lo whom he wrote believed, for lie nse.'i the word trrrtaros,
translated hdl; be.-(id(is the Apostle say.s, ^^ Fori/ Gud spared
not" &c,. This passage, however, has not all the force of
the Greek text, and hence tlie Ainei'ican Bible Union ron"
der it thus: "For if Crod spared not angels, having Binned,
but casting them down to hvll, delivered them over to
cluiJns and darkness reserved unto Judgment", mei'ely assent-
ing to draw from their own premises the conclusion that he
would not spare them. But this text has a ])arallel in Jude,
which will admit \\n such dodgeiy, " And the angelswhich
kept not their own estate, but left their own habitation, he
h'ifh reservid in everlasting chains undei" daj'kness nnto the
great (lai/'\ Judo (J. -'Ihit why dost thou judge th}" brother ?
oi' why dost thou set at naughl thy hroihei", for we must all
st^UMl beioju' th(; Judgment serai of Christ ; fo)- it is Avritten
tis I live saith the Loj-d, ev<'ry knee shall lio\5' to me and
every tongue shall confess to tJod," J? )m. 14:10. IL When
Paul says " it is wntten", ''As I live,(,V:c," he^quotes Isa. -45:
23., whicli Univcrsalists rely u])on moj-e thanany othe:- text
in the J3i hie, as teaching a Universal salvati(ui. They de-
clare aJso, that this will be fulfilled at the end of time.
Very well then, " every knee shall bow and every tongue
shall confess ", Paul says, " befoi-e the judgment seat of
Christ" at the end of time. "The Lord knoweth how U>
deliver t3&e godly out of temptation and to reserve the un-
just unto the day of judgment to J)e punish-ed," 2 Pet 2 :0,
Job taught the identical doctrine here reiterated fifteen con.
turies before the tin.e of Peter, "The wicked is reserved to
the da> of destruction; they shall be brought forth to the
day of wrath," Job 21:30. These pasj ages are ko direct
and specific in proving the doctrine of a future general
judgment, that no comment is necessary to make them plain.
4.— The scripture most pointedly teaches a judgment in
the future wtato. The apostlcH F^jcak ot Christ as the Jndge

Dniversalism unfounded.

;h those
fartnroSf
(I spared
force of
ion ren'
sinned,
over to
,' a«sent-
tliat he
in Jude,
is which
iion, h4'
nnto the
u'othe)'.''
must all
■wi'illcn
me and
Wlien
1 Isa. -15:
hc!' text
icy de-
)f time,
tonii'ue
seat of
liow to
the un-
et 2:0.
L>encen.
rvcd to
to the
direct
gtMiei'al
n i)lain.
ncnt in
judge

nf quick ami dead. "I charjjjo thee, thoroforo, before God, and
the Lord Jesus Clirist, who shall Judge the qiiiclc and the
dead at his appearing and his kingdom ", 2 Tim. 4:1. "Alfd
lie eomraandiHl us to [>reach nnto the people and to testify
that it 18 he which was ordained of God to be the judge of quick
and dead,'" Acts 10:42. "Who sliall give account to him that
is ready to judge the quick and the dead ; for for this cause was
the gospel preached also to thcin that are dead, that they
might bo judged according to men in the flesh, but live ac-
cording to God in the spirit ", 1 Pet. 4:5-6. Univorsalists
Lave but one loopdiole by which to evade this positive doc-
trine of th*^ apostles, namely, by falling back upon the au-
thority of Dr. Clarke on the latter ])assage, where the Dr.
ex])lain.s the })hrase "quick and dead " to signify the Jews
and Gentiles ; but we object to this for the following rea-
sons : L The Jews were dead as well as the Gentiles
"■ Even when wo ", says Paul, •' were dead in sins,"Eph. 2:5.
2. The text says, " The gospel loas preached (not is preach-
ed) to them that are dead." Here the preaching is in the
past tense, " was preached, " while tJie death is present, " are
dead." This could not be said of the Gentiles, for the gos-
pel wa.s only then being preached to them ; and surely
those who had already beconie Christians in Rome, Corinth,
ColoBse, Thes8alonica and Ephcsus were not then dead (in
sin); 3. The object of this preaching was "That they might
be judged according to men in the flesh." This could not
mean the Gentiles for the gospel w;is not preached " that
they might be judged accoitling to men in the flesh", and
according to Universalism they were judged before they
ever heard the gospel. 4. If the judgment M\as at the de-
struction of Jerusalem those (rentiles ^^ who shaU give accotint
to Him", escaped the judgment, as none but Jews were in-
volved in it. 5. Peter, as Mr. Cobb opines, was writing to
converted Jew8 who believed in the judgment of "the quick
and dead ", in tho literal sense of that phrase, and no one

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

could imagine that Potor would use such an expression when
he onlj' meant the Jews and Gentiles then living, lie was
liii^self a Jew, and could certainly have avoided this phra-
seology if the Saviour had taught him a doctrine dittbrent
from that of his ancestors, unless he meant to deceive.
0. Uni verbalists urge with e(|uul vehemence, that the phrase
the " Lord of hoth the dead and the living," Rom. 14:9, can,
as the context shoAvs, only he acknowledged in the literal
or common sense, 3^et the reference to the dead hero and in
this pa,«»sage is precisely the same. 7. In Acts 10:42, this
same Pelci- uses the (jukh and dead immediately in conneo-
lion with the death of Christ, whore no rule of interpreta-
t ion I'ould make it mean the dead in sin. In Peter it ia " ike
(juick and the dead", in Ads it is " quick and dead ", the
article heing tihsent, and Jioiu'C in the latter instance most
refer to the death of the body. 8. j'aul says, " who shall
judge the quick and the dead at his < i /) pet t ring." But Christ
as \\v have shown will not appear till the end of time, then
the quick and the dead will nf)t he judged till tlie end of time.
Hence if this means the Jews and (icntiios, as all the doscen-
dants of Adam will then he dead, except tlie com })aratively
few then living upon the earth, they will nearly all escape
the judgment. 9. But granting that Peter meant the Je\ns
and Gentiles, Universalists are not entitled to the conclusion
that he meant only the living, for in that case many would
escape the judgment by deatli, for it was future — "who
SHALL give account" — besides it would a])pear that he
taught that Christ had no claim upon the dead, And even
admitting the point, lie must have considered the entire
posterity of Adam, the dead as well as the living, in those
two dkisions, and here again we have the doctrine of a
judgment after death. But we will let Mr. Cobb, who is
current authority among all Universalists, tell us who are
n\eant by thcdund, v. G. On this passage he makes the fol-
lowing sage remarks ; ''This verse (v. 6.) is closely con-

UNIVERSALISM UNPOUNBSD.

the

Hected with the preceding, and the same people are refcnml
to by the dead. Accordingly the subject here in the same as
that of the 10th verse of the ju'cceding chapter ", vide in loco.
We will read that 19th verse, " By which also he went and
preached unto the 8])irits iii prison, which 8f~«metime were
disobedient, when once the long sultering of God waited in
the days of Noah." Here, as Li. Clarke and all good author-
ities opine, the antcdiluviuns are int(uided, for certain it is
no others *'wero disobedient in the days of Nouii"; hence
Mr. Cobb, wlih all his sagacity, must acknowledge from his
own interj)relalion that "the dead " refers to })ast genera-
tions. "The gospel was preached to them that are dead,"
f< " Paul says it was preached to Abraham, Gal. 3;8.

The judgment after death is most lucidly taught in the
following t<^xts of scripture: "And Jesus said unto them,
Verily I say unto you, that ye wliicli have followed me in
the regeneration, when the Son of Man shall sit in the throne
of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging
the twelve ti'ibes of Israel", ]\ratt. 19:28. Noone could say
this was fultilled in this life. Paul says, " Know ye not that
we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain
to this life ", 1 Cor. 6:3. The word judge is cavilled at by
Univorsalists, and twisted into ail sha})es to prevent its
meaning distinguishing or decision; but in this ])lace no
sudi jumble is ])racticable, for the apostle is chastising the
Corinthians for going to law with each other, lie says,
"There is jiot a wise man among you, no,, not one that shall
be able to Judge between his brethren ", v. 5. Here the
favorite hobl)y of making judge to signify to rule was the
cause of the a])Ostle's complaint, for while he wished them
to judge among themselves, it was this Universalist judging
or nz/nf^f pro] tensity that kicked up the dust of going to law.
Mr. Cobb seen\s to succeed admirably in his work of garbling
truth and scri])ture perversion, but seems nonplussed on
approaching this passage. " 1 am v/riting a commentary,

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDfifi.

and tlie dodrine this text teaches is one of the most hated,
and op])osud to my theoiy ; nevertheless, to preserve my
credit, as 1 (iare not ])uss it silwiitly, as I have done in
many otiier instances which seemed of less importance, at
all hajsards sonietJiiniij must be said " ; and after thiw solihv
quy, or somethint>- sin\ihir, he eonchides that Dr. Chirko's
inter])retation is \vi-on^, for lie inter]>ivts the word oggehus
to mean fallen angels or evil spirits. " The idea is in ray
mind," says Mr. C. '• that the apostles were capacitated and
privileged to jndgo, /. e. to examfno,. to di>iGv-)rn, to pass de-
cision ui)()n (yes to judge, Mr. C, for this is in the tuxt) the
claims and the doctrines even of those who presented them-
selves as messengers from God ". Com w lor. But, Mr. Cobh,
Paul says, "Know ye not that we shall Judge angels " ? Then
according to your intei-jiretation tliey could judge as well
as Paul ! This is exactly what they thought. One ima-
gined he had jis good an idea of right as any person, and
well he might if he vva^; to judge angels in this life ; another
had an equally great idea of his ca]>acities for judgment,
and the result is they go to law. Jhit the text finishes,
" how much more things that pertain to thin life." IFere, if
there is any sense attached to words, the angels did vot \)eY-
tainto this life, as Mr. Cobb would like to make out, yet
knows better, but to the next life.

'' And del ivore<l just Lot- vexed with the filthy conversa-
tion of the wicked: the Lord knoweth how to deliver the
godly out of temptation, and reserve the unjust unto the
day of judgment, to bo puiushed ", 2 Pet. 2:7-9, Univer-
salists generally have adopted the evasion of George "Rogers
on this text, p. 202. Ue says, "Peter evidently speaks of
the time of the latter visitation (Hodom's destruction) under
this appellation (day of judgment), lor he a<l(luces the faets
of Lot's deliverance and the overthrow of the Sodomites."
But were the Sodomites reson^ed unto tlio temporal judg-
ments that befell them ? No. They were destroyed imniQ.

UNIVERSAL ISM UNFOUNDED

diatoly on Lot's leaving the city. Then they arc hUII ro-
Borvod unto judgment. Peter was addrestwing Jews who
had been eonvorted to Christianity, and it becnis very im-
probable he would speak of the Sodomites being reserved
unto judgment when he only meant the one that befell them,
and when his re:iders then and thousandfl after, believed
that they were then reserved to a day of judgment at the
end of time. An idea to have Aveight must have common
sense.

"Woe unto thee ChoraxJn,woe unto thee Bethsaida; it shall
bo more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the dty of judg-
ment than for you. And thou Capernaum whicdi aj't exalted
to heaven shalt be brought down to hell ; it shall It more
tolerable for the land of Sodom, in the day of judgment, than
for thee ", Matt. 11:21-24. Upon this George Eogcrs re-
marks, " It must be evident this judgment was temporal.
to I./ not too manifest for argument that nothing more is here
meant than that in the lime ofviMitation it should go harder
with that eity than it had with Sodom and Gomori'ah ? Well,
did it go harder f Xo Sir. Xo such terrible judgment ever
fell upon Capernaum as that which destroyed Sodom and
Gomorrah, and Friend George is very careful to avoid the
after historical state of (/apornaum to ])rove his assertion.
The unvarnished force of this te-\t bids defiance to
all the sophistvy of Universalism. Here is plain
testimony from the lips of him who cannot lie., th*t th>e men
of T>Te, SidoiL, and Sodom are all to be in the day of judg-
ment They, though long dead, '' shall be*' wiih the peo-
j)Iie of Ohorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum, in th<? day of
Judgment. To suit Universalism Christ should hav<^ said,
" it was more tolerable for the land of Sodom than it shall
bo for you in the day of your judgment."

"The men of Nineveh sliaW rise in Judy incut with this gen-
eration, and shall condemn it ; because they repented at the
proachingof Jonab, anj behold a greater than .Jonah is here.

-^ 'i

UNIVEUSALISM UNFOUNDED.

i i

The <iitcoii o ' 'ho Svjiilh .-hull riae up iu jiRlgiiioiit with this
^;(.'Ut'rati()u i'. Ai\\\ cundonui it, tor slio c.'iiiio li-oni the
nttonuo.-'t ]);u*i i" tl o ^Mrth to hojir the wisdom ot'Solomoii ;
ami DoJiohi a <j;f(!ator th ' .Solomon \a here ", Matt, 12:11-42.
Uogoi's and Cold), two loadini;- oracles of Univorsnlism, malcc
no crilici.sm on this text. Thoy very well know that what
r:tn he said ha.s hcon said already, and a.s soon refuted. The
|)sssa;^e is invii'nerahle. Tlie only remark Mr. Cobb makes in
jiassiut;- is th.it it is '• a rhetorical tiaure by which the example
of till' deud is represented as appealiii^j to the liviiiij;." There
was Wixtppcnlltuj in the matter, for Ciirist speaks in the future
k'ii.-<-. -The Queen of the South .<ha/( rise up in judicment", not
is risiiuj up. ilow wiirthe (^uoen of the Soutli condemn " this
ueiieration ". ? \*jy example ? No. not in the senso of the
iSaviour's words, for that exam])!e tliey Intd then. The
<irei.'K'. luTc rendered "rise u[)", is 'nj-'i-sia, the very word
<'nig)loyed by Paul in 15th 1 Cor., wlii'-h Tinivorsalists con-
l(Mid roiers to the liit-ral re^urrc/tion. T!;is t''xi unc'iuivo-
cally trarhcs Itiat the Ninevites a!id the (^iieen of Shebu
shall rise uj) iii juiln-nient. Dr. Clarke's translation of the
|»:i»sai;c makes this still more ]»!ain, " .1 Qi/.e.rn of the South
<iii<l thi )},:'ii nf this nirr sJuif! rii^r i/p in Juilijt unit ttv ", ("!oni.
on Luke 11:31. Mr. Austin, in his discussion with Rev. Da-
vid Holmes, says, " In the Bible the day of judL'-ment; and
(he literal !'esurrection of the dead are never represented
as oecurriuic at the same time, or in any wa.v connected,
but they avo invariably described as events which will take
place at ditlerent times, and at perio(is far anari ", discuss.
|v •580. '-Whenever", says Mr. Whittmore, "the sacred
writers mention a retribution, they are silent in wiriivd to
r>'Ann'cction. And whenever thoy mention a rosnri'cction
they are silent in re,:i:ard to u retribution ". (Plain Lruide to
Univorsalism, p. lt)4). But we ask whether the jud,i.-ment
and the literal resurrection spoken of in this text are not
connected and simultaneous I ! Read also John 5:28-9, where

UNIVEIISALISM UNFOUNDED.

the Saviour Hayn, " The hour is coming in tho which all that
arc in the (jravcs shall hear his voice and shall como forth ;
they that have done gooil unto the resurrection of life, and
they that have done evil \n\'M i\\ii resurrection of ditinnation ".
Does not foudeinnation imply or rather in this <^oach u
judgment ?

" For as luaiiy as luivo sinned without law shall IsopCv'ish
without law ; and as many as have sinned in the law shall
he Jutlg'cd i>y the; law in the day when God shall j' ige the
secrets ol"meii, hy Jesus Christ, according to 'ly gospel ",
Rom. 2:12- U). I have quoted the connection, leaving out
the parenlhesi;'. Mr. Cobb is very uneasy about this pa-
renthesis, i<)r the way the translators have placed it Uni-
versal ism [\'d:^ no alternative but to lie down and die, for
Paul here teaches that those who sinned under the law, in-
cluding oi'coui'so those who fell in the wilderness, shall be
judged by tlu; law at some future period-in the day " in which
he will Judge the world in righteousness " ; hence Mr. C.
says, -'It is better (for the cause of Universalism of course)
U) embrace iw the parentliesis all between verses G and 16.
Vou can then read the essential doctrine (of Universalism)
of the chapter in its entity in these few words, ' Who will
render to every man according to his deeds, in the day ^^'^len
GckI shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ'".
VVhat a shilling and changing would Universalists have
made had ti\(^ scriptures but gojie through their luinds on
its revclatioJi to the vv'Oidd. What a reformation it would
have made with its hue and crv of tigure! allegory! meta-
phor! 1 Bui Mr. Cobb need be no more easy now than be-
fore, for if we grant his own reading, which is only an im-
position on common sense, the same doctrine is still there.
Let us read it to accommodate the sagacious gentleman, and
then ask, why "will he render to every man according to
his deeds, in the day when God shall judge the secrets of
men ?" The answer is " For as many as have sinned in tho

UNIVEUSALISM UNFOUNDED.

luw shull also he judged by the law " When ? " In t ic day
when God bhiill judgo iho secrets of men by Jesun UhriHt.
Hero then there is no alternative ; the Jews who hiul been
dead a tlii^unand years were yet to be judged.

"Jiiit iheheavenband thojeai-th which are now by the same
word are ivej)t in Mtore reserved unto Hre against the day ol'
judgment, and the perdition of ungodly men ", 2 Pot. 3:7.
This text of Hcripture clearly and emphatically pointn out
the day of judgment as fsimultaneous with the end of time,
and the di.SHoluticm of the earth. The only attempt Univer-
.salists have ever boeti able to conjure up to explain away
this most [)ositive testimony of th«} judgment, is on the
ground n>.-5umed by Cobb that it refers to the destruction of
Jorusalcni and the dissolution of the old disj)ensation. Very
likely ; •• Jiut the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the
night, in the which the heavens shall pass away with a
great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent '• :♦,
t-iie earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned
up" V. 10. Yes, the Alosaic dispensation was burned up at
the desti-uction of Jerusalem, and its elements molted with
fervent heat ! This day of the Lord it happens did not come
then as a thief in the night, foi- the Jews were fully apprized
of the approach of the Komans, and made preparations for
defence. If by the phrase ''the world that then ions'' Peter
meant the literal earth, the expression '• Imt the heavens and
the e<trth which are now'' must also be understood literally.
Thi.s is obviously the only meaning Peter attached to thes^
words, lor he speaks ol'thc earth that then w^as as utanding
out of the water and in the water. The ])hra.se ^' heaven and
earth" in Col. 1:20 means the entire universe, for if not it
will not prove the salvation of all mankind, but here, mar-
vellous enough, must mean only a dis])ensation. Jiut there
is not an instance in the Bible whore it will bear this mean-
ing, and here Mr. Cobb's '' heavens and earth " comes to an
end 37 years beibre lie sees Titus tlie Roman general dis-

IINTVEIISALISM UNFOUNDED.

Holving it and molting its olcmontH with fervent heat at tho
dostnu'tion of poor heiir-all Jerusaletn, Peter, however,
wrote tliiH epistle lon^ after tho Jewish dis]>ensation had
virtually closed, and the Christian dispensation luul uslun-ed
in, yet ho makoH the (hiy of jiuli^ment still future, Tiioro
in not one instance of the day ofjudgmnit l)ein<^ ap|)lied to a
temj)orid calamity, and we see j>lainly the apostle had ref-
erence to a period far in the future, for he immediately ad<ls,
" But beloved, bo not ignorant of this one thin/:^, that one
day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousantl
years as one day." Peter continues, "Nevertheless, we,
accordin<; to hU pmmue, look for new heavens and a new
earth ". This is all a tii^ure, and if Universal ists make out
that a promise of (\oi\ is fii^urative in one case, it will jnizzle
a Jesuit to point out one that is certainly literal, Tlioso
"new heavens and new earth" mean, we are told, tho
Christian dis])ensation; but if this is where "dwclleth
righteousness ", what must have been the oW lieavens and
earth where sin dwelt! But it is asked. If you take Peter's
language to be literal, pray how do you sup[)ose the earth
will be burned up, when more than two-thirtls is Avater?
Wo reply, " With Cod all things are possible." Water is
composed of two gasses, hydrogen and oxygen, which wlien
separated burn with great intensity. Could not God decom-
pose these gassos by his almighty fiat and convert every
grain of sand into powder as easily as into living insects, as
was the case in one of the ten plagues of Egypt ? Tho
scriptures in several places teach that this earth will pass
through a change similar to that which Peter calls a destruo-
tioii. Clod said to Noah, " While the earth remaineth ", Gen.
8:22, plaiidy indicating it was not always to remain. Christ
said, " Jleavon and earth shall pass away ", Matt. 24:85, and
"Behold! make all things new " Rev. 21:5. Panl's lan-
guage can be a]>itlicable only to the pliysical Universe ;
" And thou Lord in tho beginning hast laid the foundations

I It

78 CNIVERSAMSM UNFOVNDEf).

of tlio earth, and Iho hoavons uro tlio works of thy hujids ;
thoy Hhall j)eri.sli but thou romaiuest; and thoy all shall wux
old as a /garment; and as a vesture thou shall fold thiMu uj),
and they shall he chanMod ", Iloh. 1:10-12.

"And as it isa])j)ointed unto men oneo todio, an<l after this
the ji:dgnieh., so Christ was onco oll'ored to hoar the sins
of many," Jicl». 1»:27,28. This is a text on whieh Univor-
salisni hreaks like a i»illow of the oeean on a lino of gran-
ite roek. Thei'e is no ](assa;jjo that has hoen so des|iei'ately
liesief;;e(l hy all the e'unliined for('<'s of in/;;enuity, so)iliif(try
and j»ervorsion, as this UTth in Ilehrews, and there is none
whei't> defeat (!xhil)its a more signal failui'e. It is one of
those strong jiointed scriptures, as (imic lo its doctrine as
the needle to the pole. Nothing it will adniitfroni its prem-
ises but (he one e(tnelusion — a )u<lgment after death ; and
Uiiiversalirts, as long as they admit the Hil-le to be true,
Hi;iy be challenged (o bciii- i( down — .saddle it with all the*
figures, nietaj)hors, new tran.slalion,-;. twistings, jind i.ri'ver-
.siou winich '.luinan language is capable of contriving. Tlie
exi)Osition given i> that /o/.s luif/irnfmis, Jiere translated vuh,
should have iieiii translated thtst nun. nicaning the .lewisli
iiigh priests, who on going into the Holiest of Jlol'es, die<l
sacrillcially or ty]»ically, but such a meani)ig is nut jiossi-
ble fi'dia the following considerations :

• 1.-7'>M '///////oyjoM, shoulduot be translated th'se. men, l>o-
cause the (ireek article ouglit never, in a single instance in
the New Testament, to be rendered by a pronominal adjec-
tive. The only place where it is rendered ' those ' is ]leb.
7:27, where '//«;' would be etpially forcible and fully con-
formable to tlic original, and lience the American Jiiblo
Union, have thrown out " tlumt " and use " the.' The French
tran.slntion has also " //jc ". This is the example Mr. Thayer
atlduces to justify his translation of the above passage.
Nowhere is it translated //jf'sf. In the phrase "but now
conimandcth all men evcrpvherc to repent," Acts 17:30,

UNIVKU8ALI8M UNFOUNDED.

"All '* iH from tho Crroclc article (Toih), hni lioro it hIiouM
have been k'l't untniiislntud us in I lull. !l:li7, for " men
everywhere ", iH certainly all men without [)Uttin^ that
^enwe on Tols.

2. The hi/^'h priest did not die Hucririeially, for ho ottered
nacriiice for hin own nin.s, as well as for the sins of the peo-
ple. How could Ihe.se gentlemen say the hi^'h ])riest died
HacriHcially, when they do not believe in the vicarious at-
onement? Neither was this death fiLjurative, f()r the text
reads, "«o Christ was once^otfered ", that is in the same man-
ner, llenco if the high priest died figuratively, tho death
of Christ was nothing init a figure — he iriade a figurative
atonement whirh purchases only u llguralive salvation !
The high pricht entering through the blue veil of the tem-
ple into the Holiest of Holios, typified not death, but the
very oj)j>osite, as it was a typo of ("hrist entering tlirough
the blue .veil of the skies into the lemple not made witli
hands, wluM'e he enters upon an '' endless lifo," Heb. 7:16, as
ft high priest after the order of Melchesiilek.

8. There was only one High Priest at a time, but the {tlural
form is u ^d in the text, " It is ai»pointed unto mm."

4. The h. vitical priesthood had passed away and the
])riesthood of Christ hml taken its place, yet Paul uses not
the past l)Ut the ])rcsent tense, "It is appointed."

5. Jf the death here means the typical death of the High
Priest, Paul was mistaken wlicn he wrote this text, for al-
lowing tho high priest to enter upon Ids office at tho usual
age of thirty years, and to live to the age of sixty, and as
ho enters into the holy place only once every year, Heb.
9:7. tho apostle should have said " It is appointed unto
these men thirti/ thncs to dk ! /"

6. What does " after this the judgment " mean? Wo
have been told all along, on the authority of Oa])pe, that
" the terra judge signifies to rule ". Is that the meaning
hero ? Oh I no. This cap (Cappe) would not fit the high

t'NlVEHSALlSM UNFOUNDED.

prioMt. Here Univorsalistis have at least five JudgTiu-ntH.
They lani,di at the iiiuiibor ot'hells Orthodoxy preaches, but
their number has never yet amounted to five ! Tho hii,'h
priest when lie carae out " hkssed the pnopie," Lev, !.» : 23.
It is contended that blessing here sii^niiies judjmint. Let us
try this on the promise to Abraham, whieh is stoutly ar-
gued to prove a Universal salvation. " In thy seed shall all
the families of the earth bo judged." If a lliiioersfd judg-
ment be the blensing, Universal ists are welcome to all the
ca])ital they can make of it.

7. If the typical death still bo urged, then Paul could only
refer to what died such a death, and hence Tois UKthmpois,
means the animals which were slain outside the camp for
they typiticd the death of Christ outside Jerusalem. Paul
then should have written "It is appointed unto the lambs
and bullocks once to die, and after this be roasted."

9. If any change should be made in the translation the text
should read, '' It is a})pointed unto (dl men once to die ", an
this vory word Tois as wo have just observed, is rendered
'all ' by the translators in Acts 17:30, "The times of this
ignorance Clod winked at, but now commands all (TVn'.s-)
men everywhere to repent." To the orthodox exegisift of
this passage Mr. Thayer brings foi'ward these formidal*le
objections: 1. If the text means *^ all men once to die,"
then all died as a sacritice for sin, for the text reads, " A.s it
is appointed — so Christ was once olfered." lie observes,
" The comparison hero is generally overlooked, and yet the
little words ' as ' and ' so ' are the key of the passage. Sure-
ly all men are not appointed to die as Christ died, <( sacri/ie.«
for sin, to put away sin." 2. He then claims the passage at*
proof of universal salvation, " The high priest," ho says,
" made atonement for all the congregation, for all their sins ;
and he actually and legally justified all for whom ho died.
Now Christ died for all mankind, and if all mankind are not
ji) stifled or delivered from all their sins, then he is not only

VINITEHSALISM UNFOUNDED.

<ay>

\mi mprrtot but alsoliitcly inferior to tlio Law i)ric,sts ",
pa.uo 271, r. Th.

lIcM'e is another evidence of the desjjerate assiunjttions
Universalists make to satisfy their (Udiuled followers, and
wo. (loid)t not that thousands have i-ead these wovds of 3ir.
Thayer, and relyini,^ uj)on his honesty, secretly triumphed
in the a^snnince that these ohjeetions are wei^-hty :uid in-
surmountable. However, ujton this werennu-k, 1. To di-aw
Mv, Thayer's objeetion the passage slioidd i-cad, Ah it isap-
])ointed nnto Chj'ist once to ilie, so men wej*e onc<3 olVered,
». c, u\h C^'hrist died a sacrifice for sin, so all men die (a sac-
rifice f<»v sin). ]3ut as it reji/ls from the jwn of the ai)oslle,
it is capable of no such sojjhistry as Mr. Thayer labours to
put u^on it. 2. As Paul did not mean the High Priest here,
the second remark can have no Mciiiht, hot we merely add
that every man was obliged to j)erform certain duties in
order to have hio s.ins expiated once a year l)y tlic High
Priest. See Kxod. HO: 12-15, Lev. 17:4. The very next pas-
8agc aft <'!• the (r.u' under exaniination is ]iroof that our in-
dividual salvation is conditional, " So Christ was (mce ottered
to bear the sins of many •, and u:\to them that LOOK for him
(not to those who exercise no interest) shall he appear the
second tinn? without sin ((ir. a .<!ii> ojf'i'iiig) unto salvation."
Ueb. 1);28.

But their own exposition still retains the future judgment,
for as the high priest, after his otVeringcame out of the Ho-
Jy place and Judged the people ; <ind this being tyjncal of
^'Jhrist, He is therefore yet to come from Heaven, of -whicdi
Paul says the Holy of Holies was a tyjio, (Heb, 9 : 24) to
execute his judgment, and they themselves say that the
Heavens must receive him " lill the times of the restitution'
(Acts 3:21), which they argue to mean the end of time.
Hence, at the end of time will be the judgment.

"I saw the dead both small and great stand before God,
nnd the books were opened, and another book was opened

iff

irxireUSALlSS I'NPofNDE/),

which is the ImioIc of life, and tho dead wore jud^od out of
those thing's which were wi'ilten in the Ixjolcs, according to
their works; Awd the sen ii,-ivve U]) tlio dead which w,ero in
it ; and (h-ath and hidl (ha(k>s) (Udivt'rtnl iij) (ho dead whicli
were in theni, and Ihey were Jiidi^ed, cvvvy man, ac(^oniiiig
to their works; aixl di-ath and hell (hades) were east into
(he hike of tire; this is (lie second deatir". Rov. 2():l2-l'4.

lTnivei>aI;.(s, w iieii (hi-, text is (quoted, [)re(cnd to do
notliin^' l)ii( h;!!ii!," tiieirlip. Xo attenipt lias been mndo hitli-
cr(o lo riM()i»(,-iIc ihis with th^dr tjioory of scripture docti'ine.
They try, ho\ve\('r, to eviidc its force hy resorting to the
dyingcry of ligure ! tigiiic ! (igui-(^! ; but in tho next l)reath
will argue th.it it must reft^r exclusively to this world, bo-
• •auso it s))caks of /A/y (unf uiykt Ves, the whole of liovohv
tions is tigurativo, yet (hey sto]) all on a sudden and, think-
ing to nuike capital, tak«' '• day and nigiit " to l>e lit^jral.
Wlio can account tor tins dodgery of which Univ«r.salisttfi
are so guilty ? l)Ut the gentlemen themstdvetj make day
aiuf night refer to the immor;al state, (ieorgo Rogei'H, on
j)age lot), (juote.s Rw. 7:!>, and ajiplies it to the resurrection

do. "And aftei- this 1 beheld and lo a gre^it multitude
V iii(di no num could nundier, of all nations and kindreds and
peoi)Ies and tongues, stood before the throne and before the
the Lamb, clothrd irith irhifr rohcs, and palms iii their hands."
Friend (leorge quotes this to prove that all men will l)C
saved, for they will wear " white robes ". We admit it ni-
ters to the post resurrection state, but it does not include
all riations, kindreds, ))eople and torgues, but a great multi-
tude OF all luitions, kindreds, people and tongues. But what
else does John s,-vof the uhiterobes f "And one of the elders
answered, saying unto me, what are these whieh fire array-
ed in widte robes, and whence come thoy ? And I said,
sir, thou i<jiowest. And ho said to me, these are they which
are ^•. ^>:it of gi-eat tribulation, and have washed their
»'<^- '■ ■' '•■ ''o ihnn white in tho blo(xl of the Lamb;

■s

■J

rNrrERsAi.isjf tJNPorNDEi).

tlufroforc, are they hefoiT the throuo of (led and servo him
DAY AND NKJiiT in his toinplo, (Ihid. 15-17). j."1 • n Univor
sali^ts JU'c Inmiid to a<ljuit that <I(n/ ami night does a])])Iy to
etornity. Jf we reject this se)'i])ture as rotbrrini^ to eterni-
ty because it a]»j»lies lanii;iia^e to the jiul<;;)vietit which con-
tiiins reference to things of time, tlien we may on the same
princij)le deny that (Jod will exist l)eyond th(i limits of time,
for it is .said concornini; him : ''Thou art the same, and thy
years shall not fail." llch. 1 : 12. Indeed, there is no rem-
e<ly but to atlniit that the day of judi^ment is at the resnr-
roctian, as is provetl from the following Mords of Mr. Ko-
gers: Pro and Con, p. lilt, " Hell is fated to the same end.
Gtxl says, by the mouth of the prophet ' J will ransom them
fi*om the j)ower of sheol (grave or hell), 1 will redeem them
from death. O death. 1 will be thy plagues. O sheol, I
will bo thy destruction.' Ilosca 18 : 14. John's description,
(highly figurative, un(|uestiontibly), must /r/cr to the mm*
events And death a)id Hades were cast into the I'ake of fire ;
this is the second death." Here the great oracle ofXJiti-
versalism tells us that the lake of fire is when Hades anc.
death are ilestw)ye(l, which of coui'se will n«)t take place
till the end of time. " The last enemy that shall bo destroyed
is death ", 1 Cor. 15:21), whicli certainly cannot be till all
are immortal. Now since the lake of fire is at the resur-
rection, the ju'lgment must also be, for J(»hn snakes them
.simultiinoous. "And they were judged, every man, accor-
ding to their works; and death and hell were cast into the
lake of fire", Kov. 2():1;M4. And •' the fearful and unbe-
lieving, and the abominable ai' I murderei*s, ami wliore-
mongers, and sorcerers and idolitars, and all liars shall
have their part in the lake which bunieih with fire and
brimstone, which is the second death ". ch. 21:8.

\-4i

CITAITER III.

THE DOCTIilXI-: OF PUXISTIMKXT.

Tlio (loetrino of Scripture pnnishinciit as tan,:;lil }>y Vu'h
v(n'.salists is of all duy-inas llio m(»sl va^-iio, conllictiii^ arid
obscure. On a close cxainiiiaticiii it will lie nutiid lo liavo
:is inariv siiles to it as a iiiultijylyin/i; ^'las^. and wlu-is in :*
ili-icussionary ii<^lit, chani;vs its colors as often as the chu/iio-
le til. John Murray, the founder and father of the isai,
laiiu'ht that thv-rc was no [ iini>hin'^7i1 for sin, eitheriii time
or in eternity. Mr Winchest* - mi ^fr. rhaiiiuy, on the
contraiy, ])ron»ul,i;'ated tltedoetri .natsin would certainly
he punislu'd in this life and the next, and that none could
i^i'asp its duration, lloshea Ballon, who recast tlu' whole
S3>tein of UniverHalisTn as taught hy Murray and his coad-
jutors, diirorcd I'rom both, and ostahlished the theory Avhieli
everywhere prevails, that punishment is coiifitieil to this
life, and never b}' any means extends into eternity. Mr.
Abel C. Thomas, in his discussion with Dr.;»^E. S. Kly, con-
liMided on this ground, that "(he Bible furnishes no evidence
of a \i.'i.ishment beyond the present life ", p. 25, and lliat
the righteous and tie wiclced shall be recompeiiscd t» the
'.I'r.h To -upport tnis doctrine they take the following po-
<i. iotiM : 1 TiiaL -An is only the result of our animal rjature ;
tha* i* docs not atl'ect the soul, and must therefore perish
■ti^-ii:) the IxKh-, The disembodied spirit will then be freo
from sin, and conseijuently holy «rid hajipy. 2. That piin-
ishiuent follows as an unavoidable consequonco t/)/je« wesin j
and that an we can sin only in this life, it i« only hero wo

vr%' *?.■

4^v,.: •

"tV**'

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED

can bo punished. 3. The Mcsaie ilis])oii,sutioii <loa!lonly in
teni[K)ral ])unishment.s, and the iScriptures assume that un-
der ibi administration every transgression and disol^tHlierice
icH^cived a just recompense of rewnrd. 4. *'That", in the
word.s of Mr. Austin, " God's punishments are designed for
/7u' ^(>o(/ of those on whom they are inflicted "> and must
therefore he limited. I will take up these heads separately
and give the pi^oof Universalists adduce, and show that the
foui* positions iUH) unscriptural and false:

1. Sin is the result of our animal nature, and does not att'ect
the soul, and must perish with tho body. 1 h'.ive quoted
elsewhere from tluB leading oracles of Universalism, who
take this ground. Mr. Ballou says, " Natural evil is the
necessary result of the physical organization and eoMstitu-
tion of animal nature ". On the Atonement, p. 31, Mr.
Austin 8a3's, '' Sin proceeds from the animal or bodily por-
tion of our nature, as it exists in this life, and not from the
jnind, spirit or soul,'* So A. C. Thomas, George llogers,
Pingree, Kidwell and othera. They quote these wo pass-
ugtM, " wretched man that I am ! who shall deliver me
fn)m the body of this death ?" Kom. 7:24. ''lie that is dead
is freed from sin," Rom. 6:7. The former, it is saiil, teaches
that the fleshy body or animal nature is ^* tbo bod} of sin ",
or " law 01 Hiiu vwhif t is ic jAy me«jibers"", cL J:23, and the
h»tt<>r teaches that death fiwes savMi fi'om sin. Here we find
ojie of those pointed co«tr.adifCtionB in Ujiivcrsalism. At
one moment tlvey teJl uw that daath is tike putting oft' the
garmcat of sin, M another that all men die in their sins.
At one time thc}' argn.^, as above, that men must bo sinners
m long as tliey are in the body; at atiother that Christ is
tiio Saviour of the worhl, and of course saves all men from
bin before tliey die, and yet whcTi the idea is pared d(r\vn he
never saves from anything. The tirst passage, ''who shall
deliver me from the body of this death", has reference to
thoir prcvailinfr custom of chaining crinjinal.-i to a dead

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

luxly, when Ihoy wore sutlocated by its putroftiction. The
apostle here does not mean to run a ])arallel between the
criminal botly and his body, but the body of sin existint; in
hir' members, for many thinjL^s could deliver him from his
fleshy body. But ho says, " Ye are not in the flesh but in
the spirit, if so be that the spirit of Uod dwell in you ", Kom.
8:l>. Then he was not in the flesh in tho sense in which he
is speaking, and was therefore already ^uMiveivd." Can
we not be freed from tho Ixxly of sin before wo die ? "In
whom .'ilso yo are circumcised with tho circumcision made
without hands, in putting off the hodj/ of the sim of the Jiesh ",
*_\)\. 2:1 [. Ono thing is certain, if .aan must sin as long as
he lives, and Christ saves from sin, then ho can only save
by removing the soul from the bcxly. It then follows that
Banai)arte saved moie than Paul, and Robertspierro more
than Peter. Is it not a pity the a])ostles did not understand
this very easy and modern way of taking men to heaven ?
How many thousands of poor r:,()uls, tormented and afliicted
Aviththe bligl.tod fortunes of this life, were evorj'Where in
contact wii'i the apostles, and yet they never made tho tii'st
Htroko lo seu'l them otf to Paradise.

Th<.i iin|)ovi. (i' the passage, '' lie that is dead is freed Iron ^
siu ", !uis bee'i nii i-h dis|)uted among commentators. Uni-
versalists to aLia?) declare the im])ossibility of altacdiingto
it any othei meaning than the death of tho Ixxly, yet as'
briskly coiUe.'<l that tho term death, when connected with
sjuritual things, means death to sin. In tho preceding verse
occuf>. the phrase, - that tho body of sin might be destroyed"
— immediately after, "Now if we be dead with Christ";
meaning a death to sin. " For in that he died he <lied unto
sin once", v. 10. Verse 11 reads, "Likewise reekoti yo
also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin. Let not sin'
therefore reign in .your mortal body that yo should obey it
in the lusts thereof." Here wo see that the ^^'hole connec-
tion ha.s reference only to tho death to sin. Peter has tho

vorse
)yed"
'ist " ;

unto
»iv yo
)1 sin'

toy il
mnoc-
tho

UNIVERt:ALISM UNFOUNDEP.

same thin<^ in different words. " IIo that hath suffered in
the flesh huth ceased frora sin ", 1 Pet. 4:1. Paul to the
(rahitians exphiins Peter, " They that are Christ's (dead to
sin) iuive crucified the fiosh",ch. 5:24. The i;'entlemen try to
])\ay sharp when told that this death refers to sin, for they
inimetiiatoly read it, '' Ho that is dead in sin is freed from
it"; nay, this is counterfeiting the text, but " he that is dead
Uj sin is freed from it." This death cannot l>e physical, 1.
It would make nonsense of Paul's words, The dead imin is
fri'*'dfmm sin. Sin is the transgression of the law, and the
law is not given to dead men. 2. If this death he temporal
Paul dilfei'ed widely from his Universal ist brethren at the
present day, for who of their ministry when warning oftho
danger of sin, seldom as it may bo, and beseeching the
wicked to reform, would say, even though he believed it,
" Nevertheless, he that is dead is freed from sin", as much
as to say. " You had bettor repent and turn from your sins
now, for when you eomo to die you will be saved from them
anyway." What ! Do Universalists preach salvation from
sin ? Yes, jind turn upon their heel the next minute and
declare that it is only the deail man that is freed from sin.
*' He that is dead is freed from sin." 3. By making this
death temporal the apostle established, in general truth,
in his as.>5crtion, lor the negative is as true as the atlirmative,
{. e. ho could have said, " IIo that is not dead is free from
sin." Paul Avas alive, I suppose, when he wrote this, yet
he says, •■ How shall wc, who are dead to sin. live any longer
therein "? v. 2. '• Being then nutdc free from sin ve became
the sor\'ants of righteousness ", v. 18. Hero wo may be free
from sin without i)assing through the change of physical
death. Now let us consider the absur<litios which arise as
legitiniate conclusions IVom pi'omising that all sin arises
from the aniinul nature, and has not its origin in the soul.
1. It charges Clod with inconsistency and folly by design-
edly giving man a constitution so imperfect and disposed

UXIVKUSALIS.M INForXDED.

' 1'

VMh,'

!]:

to sin SIS to iiuc'cssurily sultject hiiii to tlu; commission of
Hin, and then <i:mvely CMiat'ts ii law connoctod with tho so-
vorost punishment ai^ainst the sinner. That iH, ho makes
man a sinner and then punishes him with death for sinning.

2. It robs God of Ids iioliness by makinijf him tho direct au-
thor of all the evil in the universe, and contradicts his word,
which declares that he hiites sin and is of purer oyos thfin
to belw)ld iniquity, ITinversjilists say that man is only a
part of God, and if a part of God commits so much sin,
what think you will the whole of him do '/

3. It makes the Deity the basest of all hy|)ocrit©8. He
has forbidden all sin when he knew wo mu^t sin of a noC/OB-
sity, Mr. Thomas says that " man is a moral agont. Never-
thelo;.;; we hold that he who gave has power to impart to
the agency of man such impulses, and to his will such a di-
rection as intinito benevolence may prompt." Hero wo see
G(xl, through impuhes and directions, prompts man to every
act of sin, and yot hates sin and the sinner, and to cap all,
is guilty of this tr<iachery through a pure and benevolent de-
sire to promote the happin<ess of his creatures,

4. God is unjust and cruel. He is the author of maa, sin
and punishment^ and forbids sin, wills it, and punishes it.
Instead, therefor-e^ of being the fountain of goodness, he is
th« founljxiij of evil and the highest example of injustice in
th-e universe.

Hence one of three conclusions must follow : 1. God gives
a ftilse account of his character in the Bible, and is there-
fore a hypocrite ; o*" 2. The Bible gives a talse testament
to the character and government of God, and is therefore
not ft divine revelation ; or 3, Uwiversalism gives a false
vi^-w oi thfe Bible and its holy Author, and is therefore
highly dangerous, blasphemous and false. Here is a dilem-
ma with three horns, and Universalists must take one of
them on which to hang their ism.

There is no Scripture that attributes sin simply to the

UXrVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

ttiiiinal j)!is.si()ns, and the passages (luotecl are only adduced
to brace an ini'erencc. On the contrary, we are assured
that miin was made " (/rW and " iipriifht" in the begin-
ning. The Scrij)tures instead of attributing sin to the l)0<ly
point out its origin in the soul. Soloinnii, the wise and re-
nowned Universalist of ancient times says, '• Tho soul of
the wicked desireth evil ", Prov. 21:10. Tho Lord himself
said, "The imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth",
Gen. 8:21, and that it is "deceitful above all things and
dospcrutrly wicked." Christ says, " Out (tfthe he:ii-t pro-
ceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, tornicitions, thefts,
false witm'ss, blasjdiemies — these are the things which do-
tile a iiuui '", .Mutt. 15:11). "Do ye think iho scripture
saith in \ain, 'The spirit thatdwelleth in us lii.teth to or-
roi'"? James 4:5. Universalisls virtually udmit lh;it tlio
8oul is the fountain of ovil. or ^vhy, on the principles of
justice, is it punished ? Nothing could be more unjust than
to punish a pure 8])irit for the crimes of a sinful boily, and
this punishment to be executed with such severity and pre-
cision that all its pleadings would be unavailing in saving
it from the consequences due to tho dei)ra\ed constitution
of man as a physical being. By making sin the unavoid-
able result of the physical organi/iation, there is no such
thing as sin as a moral evil ; hence when the soul is absent
from the body it is incapable of sinning and destitute of a
moral character. Then it follows that nothing in time can
ail'cct tho soul in eternity. Mr. Flanders, in his discussion
with Dr. Strickland, made us3 of just such language: "Ac-
tions in time can in no caso extend in their effects into
eternity." Where then is the use of this " disciplinary
course " to which man has been subjected to lit him for
greater bliss and holiness in heaven, which, acconling to
Univorsalism, was tho chief and only object of God in cre-
ating the human species. How does subjection to earthly
trials aud changes elevate the aoiil when timely actions do

vNiVKRXAr.rsM rNFnrNr)pn.

li 1-

not oxtoiid in llioir I'HW'lH into otiM-ni(y ? Horo in u di-
rect liunjtoon upon comnion siMise. iiiul nil tliis Universnlisi
IH'Uto al»oiit (lod'M desii.^n in .siiltjoctinir mnii to vanity diw-
wolvo.s into Ji j)hunt()m. If* wc i^rant tlio sultjinio and doc-
trinal holdiy of Univorsniisni that sin Iwis its orii^in in a
pliysical source, still tliis does not liel]) tlieir case ; ff)r a,s
tlicv tc.'tch that tlic soul endures punishment for the sins of
tlie hody^ it must then bo sliown that the soul ceases to he
]tunishod when the hody expires, an assertion ineomj)ati-
Me with reason and Scriptin-e. T^rnversalists declare that
'' ifhi nh'ill lint (jn }nipiiiiish(fl'\ and siH^m to tah'e a jL^rcat pndc
in that cxpic.-sion, just :js if we denied it. Ihit what ofthe
marauder wlio coolly murder^ the innocent family of a
hated nciirhhour, and chance-^ to lose his lifo wIumi in the
midst of his work of horror V Where receives he his ])un-
ishm(Mit ? It cannot be in this life, or he would be ])Uti-
ishod beforo he waso-nilty — an objection Mr. Austin brin:^'s
tt^ainst the doctrine of future i;'eneral jud Lament— and death
could not be ])unishment. for, accordiu'j: to the Universatist
doctrine, tJod punishes mentally, besides death has passe4
\\\)(m all men. AVhei-e then is he punished? Nowhere hut
in eternity. But we are told that no action in time can
extend its effects into eternitv; then he whodies in the act
of sheddini;- the blood ofthe innocent e.-cap(^s into etei'nity
unpunished ! ! But ai-e Universalists sure that no action in
time can extend its elfects into etcririly? Ix't us see.
What of ihe suflerin^i/:s and death of Christ. They were ac-
tions perfoinied in time; do iiot they in their elfects and
consequences extend into olcj-nity ? rniversalists to save
their doctriiio must an-^wei- //.s', for they believe or rather
lu-each that all will hi' made alive sjuritually in Christ, and
are theivi'oiv through him i-endered everlastingly holy and
happy in the future state. Paul says, " If in tliis life only
we have hoj)e in Christ we are of all men most miserable",
1 Cor. 15:10. The Apostle must have believed that CJirist'.s

t'NlVKa«.\LIHM rXKitCNftKI).

ju'tions in liiuo JVlVi'ct in otoniity, for ho writes, " If Christ
he not raiseii, iht-u ihoyaJM) wliich aro a-.h't')( in ('hi-i.st arc
jKU'i^lu'd ", 1 i'ny. 15:I7-S. Now if Iho actions ol' ('In-isl,
wlio, accordinif to IJniversalisni, was a linito hoin^r, ,,!• it)
llic words i)f Ml'. MalloU, "" crialt <{ <h pnnh nt hcinif\ cW^'wA
iu their cllccts into clifrnity, arc not ihc actions of any
other linito iioini^ O'lual in |»)int of ihiration, l. v. clcrnal ?
Will yoii harJ< down now and taki- the Ljround thai ('hi'isl
is an intiniic hcinj^ ? (^uito ]> os.sihjo. Mo (.no can tell the
steps an unconunilted gentleman of that (dass will lake, for
they ( hooso their |u;round to suit the omer^'oney of the time
ijcin;^, no njatter liow inu< h oj)]»'.>sed to their common jtrin-
ciph's. Rev. J»»jin H. Power tells us that in his tirst (Jis-
eussion with !>. i{. Hiddleeom, a dislini;-ni.-.hed Universali.Nt
preacdier, that that ijjentloman "after ovadini^ the j)oint for
a time, whcui uru;e(i to it, he look hi> j>.>siiion and denied
entire!}' the ali.M>luto divinity of Josiis (.'hrist, and also pos-
itively denied that he was a!i ohjeet of i'idii;'ious v.'or.-^iiijt.
Ti»c same ij;entleman ", says Mr. i'ower, • ahout u year snli-
se<[Uont.ly. when ci.reumstances Ki'ou^ht n> t(j^"ether a^ain
in tl»e pnhlic discussion of Universalism, romeml»erinjr
douhlless the ditlieultius at'teiidiLi^ his f(.>j'mt;r jiositiow, texdc
the opposite i;'round on the divinity, and atUriried the inli-
nite nature, perfections and divinity of Christ. And when
reminded thai ho litul either chan;j;od liis ])osition to avoid
dilticulties, or had really chani;ed ids sentiments on the sub-
ject, ho cbose to pass it without reply or exjdanation ", }».
2'J. But let this "opposite ground" bo taken and Balaam
still sees tlie tlaming sword in this unanswerable dilliculty,
for if Christ was an infinite being lie made an infinite atone-
ment, and sin must therefore be infinite ; and if sin is in-
tinite it demands an infinite pnnishment. Universalists
ridicule no conclusion nujre than this, and yet it is the le-
gitimate and logical deduction of their own premises, for as
they make Clod the author of sin, yin must bo infinite.

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

1.0

I.I

11.25

150 *^~ Iffii^B

1^ 1^ 12.2

■Uuu.

1^ IIIIIM

1.8

U IIIIII.6

Photographic

Sciences

Corporation

23 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, N.Y. 14r)0

(716) 872-4503

•^

^9)

»> '-^f^J*.

UNITEHSALISM UNFOUNDED.

Geoi'i^-c Ivogcrs sa^'.s, « Life is eternal, having its well-spring
in tlic eternal God." Then, friend George, " sin is eternal,
having its weh-spring in the eternal God." But sin should
not be measured by the dignity of the otfendt^', but by the
dignity of tlie oifcnded. The meanest slave is as guilty
when he violates the principles of law, as the greatest lord
or duke in the realm. The same view is true of the Divine
law. ''lie th/it'despised Moses' law died without mercy,
under two or three witnesses ; of how jnuch sorer punish-
ment suppose ye shall he be thought worthy who hath trod-
den under foot the Son of God ", Ileb. 10:28-29. ''This man
was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch
as he who hath builded the house hath more honor than the
house," Ileb. 3:3. Death ii-ifhout mercy was the extreme of
finite punishment, and as he who despises Christ sutfers **a
much sorer punishment" than the extreme of finite pun-
ishment, that jnmishment must be infinite. Sin is the vio-
lation of ar. infinite law, and is committed again-it an infinite
God, which ]>rought into requisition hisinfinite wisdom and
power to check it ; and as certain as Gwl is otl'ended with
sin so certain is it an infinite?, offence. And even if we admit
that sin should be measured by the offender and the offend-
ed, it will make out the case no better for Universalism un-
less it can be shown that the aoeountable or spiritual part
of man is Unite. Job says '' Is not thy wickctlness great
and thine iin'tjuities iiifnitef^ eh. 22:5. '^Abstain from fleshy
lusts that war against the soul ", 1 Pet. 2:11, and "let us
cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit"
2 Cor. 7:1. From all this the conclusion is irresistible that
the soul is the fountain of sin that is affected l)y the com-
mission of evil in this life, and that punishment extends
and is executed in the future state.

2. That punishment follows as an unavoiihiUe consequence
tclicn Ave sin ; and that as we can sin only in this life, it is
only here we can be punished. Austin, in his discussion

oll-8pring
8 eternal,
-in should
Lit by the
its guilty
atcst lord
lie Divine
lit mercy,
3r pimisli-
hathtrod-
This man
inasmuch
r than the
xtreme of
sutt'ers **a
iiite pun-
is the vio-
an intinitc
isdoni and
nded with
'we admit
lie otf'cnd-
salism un-
itual part
less great
rom fleshy
d "let us
nd spirit"
stible that
' the com-
t extends

nsequence

life, it is

discussion

\jNrVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

witli Holmes, to suppoi't this position, adduced the follow-
ing pas sages, " Who iviU render to every man according to
his deeds.. To them who by patient continuance in well
doing, seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal
life. But unto them that are contentious and do not obey
the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wratli,
tribulation and anguiyh upon every sonl of man that doeth
evil, of the Jew tirst and also of the Gentile -'^ -^ * Foj'
there is no rcsjiect of persons with God ", Rom. 2:11. "lie
that dofth wrong shall receive for the wrong which ho
hath done ; and there is no respect of person^," Ool. 3 : 5.
" The soul that sinneth, it shall die", Ezck. ;S:1. The
rightcousiiess of the righteous sJudl he upon him, and the
wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him ", Ezek. 18:20
"Though hand join in hand, the wicked sliall not go iin]")un-
ishcd", Prov, 11:21. "The Lord God merciful and graci-
ous, long-sutlering and abundant in goodness and truth,
keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, transgres-
sion and sin, and that will ly no meuiiH char the gidltjj ",
Exod. 34:6,7.

It is contended that these passages are unconditional as
expressed by the word "shall", but this is only Univer-
.salists iiuc dixit, as we Avill presently show. We will now
present several reasons, amounting to the most positive evi-
dence, that punishment does not follow transgression as an
unavoidal)le consequence, and that men may be saved from
just and deserved i)unishment.

1.. Christ is a Saviour, " Ilis name shall bo called Jesus,
for he shall save his people from their sins". Matt. 1:21.-
The word " their " can only bo understood as referring to
2^ast sins, and hence must mean salvation from punishment.
Paul makes this still more plain, "Whom God hath set forth
to be a propitiation through faith in his blood to declare his
righteousness for the remission of . sins that are past
through the forbearance of God," Eom. 3:25. Universal] sts

1»4

UN [ VKR8AL ISA! IN !•'() VS I ; ED .

•Hlony llie (loot I'i no of vienrious atoiioinont ", Init in thi.s
llioy deny (lie i)laincst()fall Inlilicu! doclriiR's, '-('luMst luith
i'LMkH'im'(l lis iVoin ilie curse oi' rlio law, Ik •!!)<.>■ made a curse
fur us '", (lal. o:15. ll'cro the (Jreok woi-d L-uf'n-t rendered
'cirrKc.'' means Ihe mdlcdiction. piniisJinn nf, or pcunlfi/ the law
inflicts u[)on the offender. St. Paul illus1r:ites this point,
" Scarcely for a righteous man will o)ie die, yet, pcradven-
ture, for u ^-ood man .some would even dai'o to die ; hut God
coininendeth his love toward us in that while we were vet
sinners ( 'hrist <lied for us," Eoni. 5:7,8. "Here to diefora
man '" savs DoddriJi^'c ••' is to lav down one life in order to
save another." ''llo<licd the just for the unjust tluitho mi^ht
hriui;' us to Ciod." '■ lie was wounded for onr transgress-
ions, lie was l>ruiscd for our ini(|uities ; the chastisement of
our peace was uj-.on him, and with his strijies we are heal-
ed -'' "'^ -^' the Li)i\l hath lain on liini the iniquity of us all,"
Isa. 5r):5.G. Here tlie (li'cek prepositions (iufi and »y)f'r trans-
lated \)yjni\ signiiVingyr^r thchcncjit or in the rooni, and stead
of others. The disi inguished theologian, .Dr. Kna])p, sa3'8
''Wheii L.is ])]u'ascology is used in the Xew Testament with
rt'fei-ence 1u Christ, it alwaye moans that he died in the
sfnnl or in the phi cc of men to deliver them." We arc not,
however, authori/.ed to helievo tliat he sun'ei'cd the whole
jiunishinent due to sin, hut oidy sufficient to hring us with-
in the reach of (uxTs mci'cy, " that he might he just and
the justitier of him which h'clievefli in Jesus," Kom. 3:26'.
Christ then must deliver f. om just and deserved punish-
ment, lor in no other sense can he save from dns that are
pdst.

As rnivei'salists pointedly deny that Chi'ist died "in the
stead " or ''room of the sinner," for flie sake of the reader
we will argue the point further. It is contended that the
ju'eposition iqxr simply signifies "/or the hcncjit " or " in
JxhiiJf o/" but the following passages show how it is used,
'' We pray you in Christ's stead (npvf) oe ye reconciled lo

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

!»5

111 III thirf
:*lu-ist luith
nlo a curse
r rendered
Iti/ the law
this point,
, Y>ertidven-
e ; but Ciod

^vore vet
\o die for u
in order to
at lie mi^ht

transgress-
tisementof

e are Ideal-
s' oi'us all,"

1 uper trans-
it and stead
Cn:i])p, Ka3's
anient witli
died in the
'0 arc not,

the whole
Ing us with-
l)e just and
' Eom. 3:26.
red punish-
ins that art

died "in the
f the reader
led that the
at " or " in
w it is used,
econciled lo

God", 2 Cor. 5:20. " Whoni I would have retained Avith me
that in thy stead (jiper) lie might have ministered unto me'
Phil. 18. Here all must acknowledge that vper means " la
theplacp'^ or '' in the stead of", so the following, ''Hi} was
made sin (a sin olfering) for (uj.er) us " 2 Cor. 5:21. Verso
14 reads, '• ij' one died for (y/jjt'y) all, then were all dead."'
" It is exjiedient for us that one man should die for (npcr)
the people," John 11:50. "Christ hath once suffered the
just for (iqicr) the unjust, that he might bring us to God ",
1 Pet. 3:18. On Horn. 5:8, the celebrated Tholuck remarks,
"AVhile among men there is none who will thus die for the
innocent, and not many who Avill tlie for a hene/actor, the Ho-
ly One submits to death for sinners, for those who had of-
fended against God himself. It was a noble demonstration
of God's love, that while men were all involved in a situa-
tion of revolt from him, he suffered Christ to appear among
them, who, in oider.to break the ])Ower of evil, took upon
him the consequences of sin, even death and all its pains."
Upon the same, Dr. Knapp observes, ''This cannot mean
tliat by his death Christ gave men an example of firmness
or sought to reforn^them. For in verse 7tli we read, There
are but few instances among men (like that of Damon and
Pythias) of one dying for an innocent friend ; and, indeed,
the examples are rare of one dying (as Peter Avas willing
to do (^ujjcr krisf(w) for Christ, John 13:37), or even for a
benefactor (jigathos). But there is no example of one dying
for rebels and criminals to rescue them from the death which
they deserved; and yet so did Christ die for us.' " Dr. Ad-
am Clarke says under v. (), that Christ dying '* for the un-
godly " means he died instead of the ungodly. In this way
the preposition nj)ev, is used by the best Greek writers.
On Matt. 8:17, Clarke remarks upon the phras3 ^^hivwlffook
our injirmities", thus, " The Eabbins understood this place
to speak of the sufferings of the Messiah for the sins of Is-
rael : and sav that all the diseases, all tho <yi'\nf". o- ' "

i)6

UNIVERSALI8M UNFOUNDjfci/.

punishments duo to Israel shall he horno hj^ liim " — com in
loco. Universalists assort that the doctrines of endless pun-
ishment, vicarious atonement and the Trinity, Avero intro-
duced into the Church hy heathens who were converted to
istianity, from the third to the fifth century. This i.s
false. That the Trinity was a doctrine of the church in tho
mcond century is certain from a fact stated by Mosheim,
viz: 'The Christian doctrine concerning the Father, Son
and Holy Ghost, and the two natures united in onr blessed
Saviour, were by no moans reconcilable with the tenets of
the sages and doctors of Greece, who therefore endeavoured
to explain them in such a manner as to render them com-
prehensible." Here we have tho Greek philosophy cavil-
ing with the Trinit}', and this was led on by Origen, who
is claimed as the early champion of Universal ism, and who^
as ]\rosheim and other historians declare, derived his phil-
osophy fit)m Plato. Dr. Mosheim says that in the hands
of Origen the pure gospol sulleredmuch from an admixture
of Gentilism. Goodrich says of him,. " he was a learned man,
but most unsafe guide — ho held to a hidden sense of the
the scriptures, and endeavouretl to give ^his ; but always at
the expense of truik.'" Hence if any heathen dogmas were
brought then into the clmrch it was through the medium of a
Universalist. Another historian observes on the Trinity:
" From the writings of Justin, Clement, Theophilus, Iren-
teus, Tertullian and others, we have abundant evidence that
the doctrine of the Trinity was stmngJii asserted bi/ the church
in this (^second) century, against the sectaries of every do-
nomination ", (Euter's Ecclesiastical History, page 39.]

2. From the doctrine of forgiveness, througli repentance,
John the Baptist, the harbinger of Christ, preached the
doctrine of repentance for the remission of sins. God for-
gives, "Even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you,"
Col. 3:13. "Daughter thy sins bo forgiven thee." "-Father
forgive them for they know not what "ihey do." "Ifyg for-

« T, i, v-

*4i^T

TJNIVERSAIilSM UNFOUNDED

— com in
Uess ])un-
3ro iiitro-
ivei'ted to
, This i8
reh in tho
Mosheim,
ithcr. Son
iir l)lessccl
tenets of
Icavoured
hem eom-
)hy cavil-
igcn, "vvho
, and who,
. his phil-
the hands
id mixture
rneil man,
use of the
ahvuys at
jmas were
ediiim of a
e Trinity:
lilus, Iren-
denee that
the church
' every de-
o-e 30.]
jpentance,
ached the
God for-
voii you,"
" '^Father
'^fye for-

give men their trespasses, your heavenly father will forgive
you," Matt. 0:14. "Having forgiven j'ou all trespasses,"
Col. 2:13. "I pray God that it may not be laid to their
charge," 2 Tim. 2:4. vStephon prayed, " Lord lay not this sin to
thoirtjhai'ge," Acts 7:60. And forgiveness shields from pun-
ishment. " But he being full of compassion forgave their
iniquities and destroyed them not." Ko one would say, es-
■ pocially a Uiiivorsalist, that this destrnction was not pun-

ishment, or was unjust, j'ct they were saved from it b}- for-
giveness. Universalists take a great pi'ide in twittii)g Or-
thodoxy of inculcating the doctrine that men may sin Avith
impunity and escape punishment by repentance ; but the
idea is falsified and misrepresented. We do not teach that
i-epcntance is within the control of man, but that it is the
gift of God tlirough Christ. ''Ilim hath God exalted with
his right hand, to be a prince and a Saviour, for to give
.lopentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins ", Acts 5:31.
"If God pera<lvoiiture will give them repentance to the
acknowledging of tho truth ", 2 Tim. 2:25. Eut wliat do
Universalists make of repentance ? Thoy make nothing of
it, but virtually deny that such a thing as repentance exists.
They make ( rcd, whom they preach as a God of love, the
most cruel of all hypocrites ]>y denying him the least ])arti-
cle of mei'cv. in declaring that he nc"er forgives till he
ha-s dealt out the last iota of punishment, and can be in-
duced by no entreaty to spare the jienitont offender ; the
most blasphemous assumption to be found in the entire uni-
v^^rse.. To illustrate forgiveness Christ said, ''There was a
certain ci-editor which had two debtors; the one owed him
five hundred ]K>nce and the other fifty, and when they had
nothing to ]>ay he frankly forgave them th." Oin* Lord
then referred to the woman who lia<} washed his feet with
tears and wiped them with her hair, and assured Simon tl at
"her sins which are many are forgiven." ]S"ow if the debt-
ors wBre released so was the w^oman exonerated from the

'■<^>^-

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

punishment or debt of her feins, wliich wore then forgiven.
If not, there is no force or ilhistration in meaning in lan-
guage. Every time a Univorsalist preacher repeats the
Lord's prayer he prays God to punish him, and this is jrxob-
ably the reason they so seldom say it. " Forgive us" our
trespasses ", when translated into tlio language of Univer-
salism is " Hurry, Lord, and punish us all we deserve till
we are forgiven !!" God says by Jeremiah, "At what in-
stant T shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a
kingdom to pluck up, pull down, :tnd to destroy it. If that
nation against whom I have pronounced turn from their
evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them",
ch. 18:7-8. Here God pledges himself that when he threat
ens punishment for sin if the threatened repent heAvill not
inflict the punishment. Such was the case with the ISTine-
vites. They repented, therefore " the Lord repented of the
evil tl)'.t he said ho would do unto them, and he did it not,"
Jonah 3:10. Christ said, "If Sodom and Gomorrah had re-
pen;:cd they would have renuuned to this day", Matt. 11:
21-23.

3. Justification by faith. •' Being justitiod by faith we have
peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ ", Rom. 5:13.
Here the Greek woitl Dikaio signitios to vindicate, to acquit,
to pronounce righteous, therefore to be justified is to be de-
clared righteous through faith in Christ. The effeet of this
is " peace with God." Univorsalism makes justification the
result of punishment ; the Bil)lo makes it the result of fkith
in Christ. If man cannot be forgiven tiU he is punished to
the full extent of his deserts, then justification is by tho
law; whereas Paul ■'ays, "if righteousness come by the law
then Christ is dead in vain ", also, " by the deeds of the law
shall no flesh be justified." Iloncc the apostle says "by him
all that believe are justified, from which they could not bo
justified by the law of Moses", Acts 13:30. But when are
men saved ? They are never saved according to Universal-

UNIVER8ALI8M UNFOUNDED.

orgiven.
g in lan-
eats tho
8 in jTiob-

US' our
Univer-

serve till
what in-
erning a
If that
Dm their
o them",
ic threat
3 Avill not
:he ^NTijie-
tod of the
[I it not,"
h had re-
Matt. 11:

1 we have
lOm. 5:13.
l;o acquit,

to bo dc-
3ct of this
•ation the
Itoffkith
mished to
s by tho
ly the law
)f tlio law
J "by him
Id not bo
when are
Jnivei'saU

ism, for they must suffer tho perialty. Do you say they are ?
Well, then, it must bo done in one of three ways : 1. Before
they i .-e punished. 2. After they are punished, or 3. At tho
time they are punished. If before tliey are punished — if
they are punished at all, it must be after they have become
Christians. If after they are punished, then there is no sal-
vation, for they are no longer guilty. If at the time they
are punished, they are saved and condemned at the same
moment. That is, they believe the moment they disbelieve.
Here then there is no justification in the system. Univer-
salists are not settled upon the length of the period neces-
sary to punish the wicked before they are justified. When
pressed upon tho point, Mr. Skinner admitted that sinners
would be punished in eternity, but does not tell us how
long, while Mr. Winchester taught that some of the wick-
ed could not bo saved till they had suffered 144,000 years.
How widely different is the doctrine of Universalism to that
of the Bible, which says, '^Now is the accepted time, behold
tww is the day of salvation'^ ! !

4. If man cannot be saved from just and deserved
punishment, he cannot be saved at all, and must, therefore,
suffer eternal damnation. This will appear tirst from tho
nature of punishment itself, which is death. "The soul that
pinneth it shall die." "The wages of sin is death." Now
as there is no life in death, therefore, death in its own na-
ture is eternal. Man will be saved from this punishment
or he will not. If he will not he must remain dead eter-
nally ; if he is saved from it, which Universalists dare not
deny, then he is saved from just and deserved punishment,
and hence punishment does not absolutely follow transgres-
eion. Secondly, God's law demands our service to the ftill
extent of our powers, hence, when sin is committed the of-
fender can never expiate that sin by personal suffering,
inasmuch as he has no moral powers to endure punishment
that ai'O not alreatly pledged in serving God. While he ia

100

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

enduring punislnnont ho cannot love and serve God with
,h11 his licart, hence sin is increasing and so is punishment.
lie cannot cease to sin until he ceases to be punished, and
he cannot cease to he punished until he ceases to sin.
Therefore, if he cajinothe saved from punishment, hispun-
ishmcnt must he eternal.

5. The .Scriptui'cs evidence that jtunishnient is not inflict-
ed in tliis life to the intens^t}' demanded by crime. The
])>^nlmist >*ays, ^'llo hath not dealt with us after our sins
nor rewarded us according to our ini([uities; foras Jleaven
is high above the earth so great is His mercy toward tliem
thatfear Ilim ", Ps. 10.'i:10. Here is salvation from deserved
punishment through " mercy" on condition of reformation
'' fJiey fhafjhir him^'. Job says 11:6, " Know therefore that
(rotl exacteth of thee less tlian thine iniquity dcserveth."
" It is of the Lord's mercies that we are not consumed."
This implies salvatifm from deserved punislimcnt through
'' the Lord's mercy ". Ezra says, 9:13, " After all thai is
come u])on us for om- evil deeds, and great trespass, seeing
that thou, our God hast punished us hss tlutn, our iniquities
fJeserve and hast given us such deliverance as this." This is
undeniable testimony of salvation from just and deserved
j>unishment.

I will now oxamiiio tlie passages quoted under this head
and prove to a demonstration that they instead of teaching
the Universalist dogma of no escape from deserved punish-
ment, arc proof ])o^ilive against the very position they are
summono'.l to sn])])ort. The iirst says " Who viU render un-
to every mrin aecoi-dinji; to his deeds * * * for there is no
rjspect of ])ersoiis wiili God." liead right on, and the very
next words will tell v;hy(rod will reward every man accord-,
ing to his deeds, and why there is no respect of persons
with God. '' For " says Paul in the same breath, " as many
a.s have sinned without law shall also perish without law,
mid as many as have sinned in the law sjiall be judged by

t'NIYERSALlSM UNFOUNDED.

101

the luw, in the day Avheii (iod hIuiII ju(lL;e tho ko{ i-etH of mou
by Christ Jcsuh, uecordin^ to my •^•o,>i)td." Alas lor Mr Aus-
tin, this very toxt Icac'lius instead of pmiishniont in tho
present life, retribution in the future world, for all those
who sinned under the law, including- those of course who
fell in tlio wilderness, are to be jud<i;ed at some future pe-
riod and rewarded accortlin^C to their Avorks. Thou tliey
were not punished in this life. It i^' well worthy of remark
hero, that this text contains a fact that takes Universalisin
by the throat, i. e. that " mI^'O'? honor, and immortality,
are to bo sought for, and are hence conditional.

" The soul that sinnoth it shall die ", F./.ek. I A. " The
righteousness of the righteous shall be upon lii.n, -nid tho
wickedness of tho wicked shall bo u]»on liim," ' . 18:20.

"VVo will lot the j)rophct Ezekiel ex})lain his o\mi iguago
and tell us whether the word " shall " is to be understood
in an absolute or unconditional sense. " When 1 shall say
to the wicked, Thou shalt surely die, if lie tuj-n from his
sin and do that which is hnvful and right * * ^^ ho shall
surely live, ho shall not die. None of his sins that ho hath
conuwiticd sJudl be mentioned mtfo hhn', he liatli done that
v/hich is lawful and right; he shall surely live," Ezek. 33:14,
16. It is plain then that the prophet meant that tho "wick-
edness of tho wicked", should be upon him, unless he turn-
ed away from evil, for by doing this " none of his sins that
ho hatli committed shall he mentioned, unto hini.'^

" Though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not go un-
punished," Prov. 11:21.

This text is scon and heard in every book and sermon of
Universalism. But granting that it is unconditional, it con-
tradicts the very object it is dragged out to support, for
thousands of men in the very height of their wickedness,
fall instantly dead and of course according to Universalism
slip oil' to he'dven unpunished. Then Universalists yom A«?kZ
in hand that the wicked might go unpunished. This text how-

i, ■

11)2

UMVEllSAMSM I'lNForNDEl).

over, (l"''!^ i>'>l ivfcr lo llio ju^lifc of (iod in puiiisliiii^ sill,
liut to till! JMo.vjiic law wliich tlioii i-ownrtled mcMi act-oi'din;^
to tliciiMVdi'lxs. If it l»e uriji'd ilmt (I()<l ■will punisli tlio
wii-Ui'd iri't'spc'ctivo <il' any condition to lie ])cj'foi'niod on
thoir part, tlim lii> wonU liy tlio mouth of tlio ])ro))liot aro
not to ho holiovcd. ••{ft ho wioUed turn i'vom his sin none of
his sins which ho hath connnittcd shall ho montionod unto
him," K/ok. U:i:l(;. Ihil the text only says that Clod will
punish tho ir!ik,(/, liut as soon as thoy turn from thoir wick-
ed ways thoy arc no hMi:i,or wicked, and consequently, no
lon^'cr con\e under the (h'claration of this ])assa_i;"0.

''The Jiord (Jod, mei'ciful atul i;'racious, loui;* suffering and
ahunchmt in jLn'oodness and truth; keojdng' mercy for thous-
ands, for,iji,ivin,ii' ini<|uity and transi^-ression anil sin, and that
will hy no nu!an> clear tho ,i:!;uilty," Kxod. 84,(5,7. This
text instead of provini;- that thei'o is "hy no means" es-
cape from dosei'ved punishment, ])j'oves the converse and
lays the axe at tho very root of Universal ism. This teaches
that (iod i- luci'ciful and u;racious, long-sutlering* and abun-
dant in o-oodness, therefore, accordin/>' to these gentlemen,
he will ])unish tho sinner to the very last nute ! ! Pray
where is tho )ii(n->/ / .Mercy consists in treatinji; the sinner
better than ho deserves, and hence shields from Just pun-
ishment. lJni\ersalists do not believe the text they quote,
for the>' confeud ]no>t determinedly MiatGod will by some
means cleai" the iiiiilty, that is, hy jnoiiNlimctif. But no
amount of ])unishment can make the ii;uilty <>-uiltless. Tho
murderer is just as guilty after sulfei'ini>; tAventv-one vears
imprisonment as lie was the day he was taken into custody.
Tho _<;uilty, to osca[)e ])unisinnent, must become innocent by
complyini": wiili tho terms of the gospel, i>y repentance and
faith in Clirist. whoso l)lot)d washes away all our guilty
stains and makes us ^^ncio creatures". This is tho way and
the oidy way we can conceive God to be j/ihundant
nvss and yet will by no means clear the guilty.

(jooa

r.VlVKll^AMHM i:NbVi|-M)F,r).

UK)

The

T. B. Tluiyor in his '• Tliooloi'-y of rntvorsiilism ", p. 255.
observes lliJit •' Paul siivx, Hoin. (J:2IJ. 'Tlid \viii;vs of sin is
(loath.' ' Wai;-os ' si<j;nify the (hiiiy jciy of a li )inau soldier.
This is ihe liteial nu'aiiiMi;' of the (Jreek word. So the sin-
ner is I'oprosented as nwoivinn; daily his pay foi- the evil ho
does — not as i'e|)rioved to <uid of life and them recoivinii; it
all at onee." Cohb ur^es the same text aicainst Hudson.
We adnut at once that aeeordinii,- to the law of our heiny;,
moral death is tlie daily fai-e of the sinner, whieh in a mea-
sure constitutes him mi.serahle ; hut Paul used the word
'• wages " as illustrative not only of heiniji,* ])aid as it were
in a small measure for our inicpiity linr, hul reclconeil with
and paid oil' wIkmi the time of service hiia rxpinil, for tlio
Koman soldier did not receiveall his j)ay daily, l»ut received
oidy a small share foi- jiis sujiport and was I'cckoned with
at a Stat I'd ])eri!)(l and paid oil' l>y the ,i;'encral. Indeed it
is seen from the connection that l'aul,as I >r. Clarice e.\j)lains
it, had reference to the t<ii'ini(J ihntlt. ire^iiys, " Whatfriiit
had ye then in those thin/^'s whert'ofye are now a-;hamed ?
li.i- iln' KM) ol' tliose thinj.';s \^ dcnth '■'''• -== ■'•- (wh}' ?) for
the wa^'es of sin is death ", vs. 21-2;].

The third position talcen to [>rove that [)Uidsl;mcnt is eon-
lined to this life, is that the ^losaic dis]H;nsa;ion dealt only
in tem])oral jatiushmeuts, and the sci'ij)tures assure that un-
der its administi'ation every transgression and disobedience
received a just recompense of reward. They (pioto Ileb.
2:2-8, "For if the word sj^oken by angels was steadfast,
and every transgression and disobedience received a just
recompense of reward, how shall we escape if we neglect

))

HO great salvation.

"Behold the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth,
much more the wicked and the sinner", Prov. 11:31.
" Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem and cry unto her that
her warfare is acc(miplished, that her iniquity is pardoned,
for she hath received of the Lord's hand double for all her

'''ill

f t

104

UNIVERSALIS^ UNrOUNDED*

sins", Isa. 12:2.

Tiiese arc the three texts Universalists rely upon as un-
shaken Icstimony that sin was ])unished to the full extent
of its deserts, under the Mosaic administration. It is said
they were then recompensed Id the earth; received a jW,
{. c. a full recompense of reward for all their sins. This
however is plastering these texts Avith Univcrsalist «};.se
dixit, for this doctrine is taught by neither of the three, as
we will presently show.

The first text would never have been quoted but for the
word *'just" — 'a Just rcrowpcnsc of reward', which left a
space where the hand of sophistry might be tried to make
it appear that as they were ]ninished under that dispensa-
tion, by IX Just recompense, hence God would be unjust to
punish the same individuals after they had passed into eter-
nity. A little iiisjiection, however, will completely upset
this pretty little castle Universalists have labored so taste-
fully and clandestinely in building. When our translation
of the Scriptures wa;i made in the reign of King James, the
^yovd Jviit was used more in the sense of our word ccrtaiti
than at present; hence the mist thrown upon this text,
which should have read, ''a eertuin i-ecompenso of reward."
The apostle is not speaking, as any one may see, of the in-
tensity or justice of punishment, but of its certainty, for he
exclaims, '' How shall we escape " ! '' If the words spoken
by augels were steadfast, and every disobedience was certain
to receive punishment, how shall we escape ", &c. In Dan
2:45, on the contrary, the word ' certain ' is used instead of
jmt, see Isa. 20:21. The translators of the '< American Bible
Union " a]iproach the true sense by reading the passage :
"Every transgression and disobedience received just recom-
pense of reward." '' Behold the righteous shall' be recom-
pensed in the earth, much more the wicked and the sin-
ner", Prov. 11:31.

In the previous text God was unjust to punish in c^ternity,

trNTVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

105

pon as un-
iill extent
It is said
A'cd a just,
:ns. This
•salist i2>se
5 three, as

3ut for the
bich left a
d to make
t disponsa-
3 unjust to
id into etur-
ctcly upset
pd so taste-
translaiiion
James, the
0)'d certain
this text,
3f reward."
of the in-
nty, for he
•ds spoken
was certain
. In Dan
instead of
ican Bible
passage :
just re com-
be recom-
d the sin-
in nternity,

1)ut now he is unjust in punishing in the earth, for he punish-
es the sinner "mvch more^ ,.i. e. much more than he ought
to, for he recompenses the wicked and the sinner much more
than the righteous. Ilowcver, not to make inconsistency
too glaring the word " especially " is forced in in the place
of " nmch more " ; but even now it teaches nothing for Uni-
versalism, for if the wicked are especially recompensed here,
the righteous must be especially recompensed somewhere
else, or God is unjnst.

This language was spoken under and with reference to
the Mosaic law, which directly gave no reward to the righ-
teous, while it rigidly punished the wicked ; hence the
phrase ^^ much more the wicked and the sinner." The righ-
teous were blessed in the eartli under that administration,
b}'- having in one hand the abundance of Canaan, in the
other, the olive branch of peace.

But if we grant this text to Universalism without a word
of criticism, nothing can be gained, for Christ positively
teaches that we cannot be recompensed in the earth to the
full extent of our deserts. "And thou shalt be blessed ; for
they cannot recompense thee, for thou shalt be recompensed
at. the resurrection of the just,"" Luke 14:14. Then if God re-
compenses in the earth and also at the resurrection, he cer-
tainly goes boj'ond the mark " much more " than is just,
and he that will be unjust in little will be also in much, and
hence may punish sinners to all eternity, even after they
are recompensed in the earth.

Speak ye comfortably unto Jerusalem and cry unto her
that her warfare is accomplished — that her iniquity is par-
doned, for she hath received of the Lord's hand double for
all her sins, Isa. 42:2.

Mr. I. D. Williamson says the term '^ cUuhle " is uniform-
ly employed in Scripture to indicate an exact amount, but
how there can be an exact amount of anything and yet that
be douhh the exact amount, we leave for the gentleman to

106

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

■ f

I )

III

explain. It is somewhat remarkable that those three pas-
sages have been selected when neither, properly rendered,
contains the smallest particle of testimony in favour of their
position. The first contains a word that was capable of re-
flecting a double sense, and the other two, — as they would
3'ield to forgery perhaps better than any others — are sub-
mitted to their theological lynch law-" «mc7t more " is press-
ed into '■^especially'' and ^'double" into an ^' ex(jct amount."
The word double cannot relate to punishment, at least as
far as Universalism is concerned, as it would prove too
much, and consequently prove nothing. The word double
occurs about thirty times in the Old and New Testaments,
and in no one case can it possibly mean an rxac* amount. In
Jeremiah we read, " 1 will recompense their iniquity and
their sin double; because they have defiled my land, etc.,
ch. 16:18. Also, " bring upon them the day of evil and des-
troy them with (7o?<We destruction", ch. 17:18. In both
these instances " double " doe^ refer to punishment, and
hence Universalists are bound to admit that either God is
unjust or that piinishment under the Mosaic law was not a
sufficient recompense for sin. It cannot be said that Jere-
miah predicts the double of which Isaiah speaks, and that
the latter therefore must have reference to punishment, for
Isaiah says they have already received that dotdile which
was more than a hundred years before the time of Jeremi-
ah's prophecy.

The passage in Isaiah is obscui-o, and on this acccount is
collared by Universalists. It is plain, however, that the
prophet could have no reference to the punishment of Je-
rusalem, because he speaks of her iniquities being pardoned.
How could they be snid to be pardoned when she suflfered
" double for all her sins." My own exposition of the text is
this, that the word " sins " should have been evils, as shown
by the term warfare, which means tribulation, and therefore,
the passage should read " her iniquity is pardoned, for she

■'ill

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

107

hree pas-
rendered,
ir of their
iblo of re-
Qy would
-are sub*
" ispress-

amount."

least as
irove too
rd double
itamente,
nount. In
uity and
-nd, etc.,
I and des-

In both
ent, and
L' God is
'■as not a
lat Jere-
and that
ment, for
e which

Jeremi-

count is
that the
t of Je-
)ardoned.
suffered
e text is
IS shown
lerefore,
for she

hath received of the Lord's hand double (in blessings) for
all her tribulations." Isaiah himself certifies to the truth
of this rendering. *' For your shame ye shall have double ;
and for confusion they shall rejoice in their portion, there-
fore, in their kind they shall 2>ossess the double ; everlasting joy
shall be unto them," Isa. 61:7. This reminds us of God's
conduct to Job after his affliction. "And the Lord turned
the captivity of Job when he prayed for his friends," also,
the Lord gave Job txcice as much as he had before," Job 42:10
4. That punishment is designed for the good of the offender.
In proof of this Mi* Austin cites the following Scriptures :
•' I will bring the thin part through the fire and will refine
them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is ti'ied.
They shall call on my name and I will hear them ; I will say
it is my people ; and they shall say The Lord is my God,"
Zach 13:9. But who may abide the day of his coming? and who
shall stand when he appeareth ? For he is like a refiner's
fire, and like fuller's soap. And he shall sit as a refiner
and pui'ifier of silver. And he shall purify the sons of Le-
vi and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer
unto the Lord an offering in righteousness," Mai. 3:2,3. If
they break my statutes and keep not my commandments,
then will I visit their transgressions with a rod and their
iniquity with stripes. Nevertheless my loving kindness
will I not utterly take from him, (not them as Mr. Austin
quotes it) nor suffer my faithfulness to fail. "Fiu'thermore
we have hiid fathers of our flesh, which corrected us,
and we gave them reverence ; shall we not much rather be
in subjection unto the Father of Spirits and live ? For they
verily, for a few days chastened us after their pleasure, but
he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his Holi-
ness," Ileb. 12:9,10.

In addition to these to support the sane hypothesis, "Al-
pha in his discussion with Omega, quoted the following :
" Thou shalt consider in thy heart, that as a man chasteneth

108

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED,

his .son, so the Lord thy God clitistcncth thee," Dou. S:5,
" My son despise not thou the chastening of the Lord nor
faint when ihou art rcbulved of him ; for whom the Lord
loveth he chasteneth and scouro-eth every son whom he ro-
ceivcth. If ye endure chastening* God dealeth with you as
with sons, for what son is he whom the fatJier chasteneth
not/'IIeb. 12:5.

These are the principal if not all the Scriptures quoted
by Universalists to support this question, that to use the
words of Ballou, "The Scriptures begin and end the his-
tor}' of sin in flesh and blood ; and that beyond this mor-
tal existence the Bible teaches no other sentient state but
that which is called by the blessed name of life nnd im-
mortality," Mod. Hist, pp 437-8.

There is a groat diversity of opinion among Universalists
as regards punishment extending into eternity. The older
preachers did not confine punishment to this life, but of
late the doctrine is fast gaining ground everywhere, tbat
this state is the only place of retribution, and the above pas-
sages are relied upon as proof that punishment is reformft-
tory in its tendency, and must therefore belong to thiw life.
But there are other objects in view of which punishment
may be inflicted under any well organized government.
Tlioy are, 1. To sustain the honor and dignity of the ad-
ministration. 2. To protect the innocent from tiie danger
to which they would be exposed in permitting the wicked
to go unpunished. 3. To be an example to those who should
afterwards live angodly ;, and 4. The reformation of the of-
fender. Universal is t(3 take the broad ground that all pun-
ishment is disciplinary, and quote scripture which can only
fall under reformatory punishment, while the other three
objects are either slighted or forgotten. We admit that
when God administers chastisement ho does it upon the
same principle as the father who chastens his son. But
kow is it wken God takes vengeance upon the wicked ? Is

thi
th(
fbi
foi
H(

bi(
In
Bi

UNIVERSAIiISM UNFOUNDED

100

)ou. 8:5,
jord nor
the Lord
m ho ro-
th you as
usteneth

qiiotcKl
uise the
the his-
lis mor-
itate but
and im-

ersalisti>
ho okler
, but of
I'o, t^at
ovo pa8-
of'orma-
;h)Hlife,
shment
•nnieiit.
the ad-
danger
wicked
> should
rtheof-

lll pUTl-

an only
: throo
it that
)on the
I. But
d? Is

'ihis chastisoincnt ? The Scriptures nialco it obligatory upon
the fathe^ to correct his son for his benefit, while men arc
ibrbidden entirely to in any manner exorcise vengeance,
for " Vengeance is mina and I will repay itsaith the Lord."
Ilenoe it is as plain as the sun-light of noon-day that ven-
geance is not for the good of the oil'ender, or why is it for-
bidden when we are commanded to do" good unto all men."
In not a single instance where vengeance occurs in the
Bible was it for the' benefit of the punished ; neither is chas-
tisement ever denominated vengeance ; but its object is to
sustain the honor and dignity of the great Lawgiver. No
one in possession of his senses could say the punishment of
the Sodomites was reformatory or disciplinary ; neither was
that executed upon the antediluvians, nor that threatened
against Ninevah. The apostle Judo t^peaking of the former
says they were " Set forth as an example, suffering the ven-
9 e*7nc'« of eternal fire, (Jude 7). Paul speaking of the wick-
ed who fell in the wilderness, writes, "All these things
happened nnUy tjiem for examjyles^ and they are written lor
ijiir admonition", (1 Cor. 10-11.) It is said however that
punishment is a means — never an end. This is true in the
case of disciplinary jmnishment, but false when punish-
ment amounts to destruction, which is never a means, but
jn reality the end the wicked bring upon themselves by
their evil conduct. The apostle says, concerning those who
wore past reformation, "whose end is destruction ", PhiL
3:18. When God exercises vengeance it is not as a father
chastens his son, for it is unmingled with /nVy or mercy^
'• Therefore will I also deal in furi/; mine eye shall not
spare, neither will I have pity ", Ezek. 8:18. "Because I
have called and ye refused ; I liave stretched out my hand
and no maii regarded ; but ye have set at nought all my
counsel, and would none of my reproof; I will also laugh ai
your calamity and mock when your fear cometh. When
your fear cometh as desolation, and youi* destruction conjetfe

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

,'is ji whirlwind : when distrossi and nn^uish cometh upon
ycni; then sliall they cull upon nie, but I will not answer;
they shall .seek me early, but they shall not find rao ", Prov.
1:24-28. This is vengeance. The apostle saj's, " IIo that
des]iised Moses' law died icithotit merci/ ", Hob. 10:28. Theso
texts can have no reference to improving the punished, for
the punishment "is KuV/iw/i mercy. By chastisement is not
meant positive punishment for actual sins, but a disciplinary
course by -which its subjects are made bettor. God still
trios the faith of his people, as he proved Abraham, and this
is the very doctrine of Paul in 12th Hebrews, from which
the above texts are quoted. " For, whom the Lord loveth
he chasteneth,andscourgeth every son whom ho roceivoth."
The evident implication is that there were others who were
not received as sons. The passage continues, " If ye endure
chastetiing God dealetli with you as with sons, for what son
is ho whom tlie father chasteneth not. But if yo bo with-
out chastisement, whereof all aro partakers, then are ye
hastards and not sous." Who are the sons of God ? " Foras
many as are led by the Sj^irit of God, thei/ are the sons of
God ", Eom, 8:14. " He that committeth sin is of the devil
* * * wdiosoever is born of God doth not commit sin.
>!< * * 111 this the children of God are manifest, and the
children of the devil ", John 3:8-10. Ye are of your father
the devil, for his works ye do. It is plain then that all, in
the Scripture sense, are not the children or sons of God as
Universalists try to make out. Chastisement is for the ben-
efit of the righteous and is never applied to the wicked,
" For they verily, for a few days chastened us after their
own pleasure ; but he for ouii profit, that wo might be par-
takers of his holiness ", Hob. 12:10, And "It yieldeth the
peaceable fruits of righteousness to them which are exer-
cised thereby", v. 11. But suppose they are bastards and
not sons, and will not be exercised by it; wdiat then ? They
will of couj-se not be reformed by it, and therefore to them

UNI VERBALISM UNFOUNDED.

Ill

3th upon
answer ;
) ", Prov.
Ho that
3. Theso
shod, for
nt is not
jiplinary
God Biill
, and this
m which
d loveth
3eivoth."
I'^ho were
'0 enduro
wliat son
bo with-
1 are ye
" For as
e sons of
he devil
mit sin.
and the
ir father
it all, in
'God as
the ben-
wicked,
er their
b be par-
loth the
re EXER-
rrds and
? They
to them

it will not yield " the peaceable fruits of righteousness."
The apostle speaks of those who will not bear chastisement
a,s fi^rowini>; more depraved instead of better. " Evil men and
seducers wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceiv-
ed," 2 Tim,3: 18. Hero the wicked who, according to Uni-
versalism, are daily punished for their sins, are getting more
and more wretched, and are therefore beyond the reclaiming
power of reformatory punishment. There are innumerable
instances of this kind, and God dare not punish them, as they
would only grow more depraved under his stripes ; they
must therefore slip off to heaven unpunished. Universalists
argue from the paternity of God that all will be restored,
and that his infinite mercy would not permit his created
beings to endure unreforming misery. Here mercy is called
in to lend its symjjathies ; but I challenge the world to
point out the slightest thread of mercy in the entire sheet
that lifts all men to heaven. Mr. Austin sa^^s, Discuss, page
143, " Whatever a wise and good earthly father would do
for his children, had he power, we may believe our heavenly
father will do for his offspring, he having all power. A wise
and good earthly father would have the punishment he in-
flicts on his children result in their reformation." But let us
ask friend Austin if the destruction of the antediluvians and
Sodomites was reformatory. If punishment is the antidote
for wickedness, the pill which was then administered cer-
tainly killed more than it cured. It must be admitted that
these were punishments that no earthly father would inflict,
and hence the conclusion is irresistible that God is not a
wise and good father, or Mr. Austin's reasoning is not worth
a straw. A wise and good father would have his children
happy now if he possessed sufficient wisdom and power, but
God possesses that wisdom and power, therefore, as all are
the children of God, according to Universalism, all are hap-
py now. There are many things that God permits and does
that are opposed to the sympathies of our earthly parents.

112

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

(j(xl will not sereon aroboUious child, ticoordin^- to Uiiivor-
Hjilism, from just and dosorvod pnnislimciit, when Iho nalu-
riil affections of an earthly parent would protect his son from
the demandy of justice when p:nilty of .some capital oftence.
Univer.salists rsk, " What earthly father could see his chil-
dren in tlames ;nid would not reach forth his hand to help
them out, and does not GodjwssO'is as much compassion as a
man ?" This very inlerrofjjatory has driven men into infi-
delity, by taking it for granted that God's compassion must
be identical with the human, and yet the Bible furnishes
examples which are palpably contradictory. But the idea
is perfectly absurd. ^Y^i can, by a similar process of rea-
soning, arrive at a directly contrary conclusion. Take one
of the attrilmtes of God, for instance, hislioliness. Now as
God is infinitely lioly ho must bo infinitely just ; hut as sin
is the direct opposite of holiness, it would lead him to enact
the strongest possible penalty against sin ; but thegro itost
|X)ssible would be the unconditional endless perdidon of all
transgressors ; and as all have sinned, therefore all must
be damned without romoivy. This argument is positively
as sti'ong as that based upon the paternity of God ; nay, it
is as much sounder and stronger, a holinesss, which is an at-
tribute of (rod, is superior to a mere relation which may or
may not exist witliout affecting the essential elements of
the divine government. Facts demonstrate that the affec-
tions of God are intimately and insejKirably linked with his
justice, and will render assistance only in his appointed way.
If men will sin and get inio the tlamcs,notwithstnndingtho
warnings of revelation, they cannot expect that God will
.stretch forth his hand, when they would not render assists
ance to themselves. If Mr. Austin don't believe this just
let him gQi drunk and fall into the fire, and see how long
before the Lord will come to pull him out; and if I mis-
take not he will wait there till doomsday. He would be far
more sensible in looking for assistance from the hand of his

Univcr-

10 naUi-

011 from
olieneo,
his chil-

to help
ion as a
nto iiifi-
011 must
irniishcs
the idea
1 of rea-
ike one
Now as
Lt as sin
to eiiiU't
^ro itest
m of all
ill must
ntively
nay, it
s an at-
may or
Lonts of
10 alfeo-
tvith his
ed way.
ling the
od will
assist-
his just
)w long
f I mis-
d be far
d of his

CT<^ j: VERS AL ISM UNFOUNDED.

113

opponent, tho llov. 1). Ilolmos. In short, Uod has loft immii-
tsible toslimony upon record that ho is governed by no such
passions as are common to oart'i'y parents, and that when
chastisement ])roves inotfectual vongeanco must bo taken.
" Tf a man have a stubborn and rebellious son which will
not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his motlmr ;
and that wlien they have chastened liim will not hearken-
unto thcni, then shall his father and his mother lay hold
on him and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and
unto the gates of his place, and ihoy shall say unto the
ciders of his city, ' This our son is stubborn and rebellious ;
ho will not obey our voice ; ho is a glutton and a drunkard' ;
and all the men of his city sJiall stone him with stones till he
die'\ Don. 21:18-21.

To take up separately the passages quoted at the head of
this section, and give their exposition in detail, would Ikj
taxing tho reader with space and verbiage that would, to
say the least, be useless, for neither of those taken from the
prophesies is personal in its reference, but national. The
toxt immediately jn'oceding the one quoted from Zachariab
says that two parts of the Jews "shall bo cut otF and die " ;
and hence only the third part is permitted to go through Mr.
Austin's reformatory punishment, which shows plainly that
tiio other two parts died without mernj. The prophet hero re-
fers to the destruction of Jerusalem, and the third partmeamy
doubtless tho Jews who still live and endure the trials of be-
ing " scattered among all nations." Yet they will as a people
exist through this iiery trial, and ultimately repeat the lan-
guage of the Saviour and say, " Blessed is he that cometh iik
tho name of tho Lord." This however will be experienced
only by those who may then live, while the millions who die
before that event will of course not come to know the Lord,
Tho passage from Malachiis the same in substunce,referring
to the Jews as a race of people. The onlj" wonder is that
such scriptures should be adduced as sustaining a system

if'

UNIVEIISALIS.M UNFOUNDED.

■\M\

1 1

to which thoy could not ])0.s^;il>ly render the faintortt HUj>port.
The piisHUge from Pr<:JnLs 80:33, re(j[uire,s a pasKingronuirk
and exhibitH a Hpccics of trickery tliat would reflect dingraeo
uj)on any cause, with the bare exception of UnivorHali8ni.
Mr. Austin in his discussion with Mr. llohnos, summoned
this text to support his position, but took the liberty to sub-
stitute the word " them " for *' hhi " thus altering the sense
materially, by referring tlio dealings of (rod to his people
generally instead of Daoid, and when corrected by David
(Holmes) the gentleman plead 'wo^^r?///^^;' but was reminded
at the same time that Mr. I. Williams quotes this very text in-
terpolating the identical word them, upon the strength of
which he deals out a lengthy discourse in his *' exposition of
Universal ism." It is also an object of surprise to find the same
text similarly quoted in Adam's and Cobb's discussion, page
35 ; and 1 was once myself obliged, in a debate, to correct my
opponent for this identical corruption of the language of the
Psalmist, and the gentleman had the impudence or the ignor-
ance to dispute the correction till his very eyes reigned him
to confession. I have already noticed several passages which
wore sent through the purgatory of Universalist criticism
before they could afford any support to that doctrine, but
none furnish a specimen of deception parallel to that in the
text from Psalms. TJniversalists have long been remarka-
ble for their particular tact of giving argument the go-by,
but of late, are winning as high a reputation in the art of
Scripture perversion. The time has arrived when it is the
next thing to sending the Bible begging to quote pas-
sages from it to sustain anti-Universalism. As an additi-
onal instance, it was found that a passage in Proverbs, 29: J
stood directly in the way of the boasted idea of reformatory
punishment, for it sa_ys, "He that being often reprove<.l
hardeneth his neck, shall suddenlj^ be destroyed and that
without remedy." Here it Avas found something should be
done, for the head of Universalism must, at all hai!zai'd8,be

UNIVKR8ALI8M UNFOUNDED.

115

kci)t above tho walur, and accordingly Mr. Austin rondorn
tho Hysteni a kindnoHH by taking out tiio word '' remedy "
and HU])plying '^/(n'liire," which i.s now quoted as genuine
by every writer and braggadocio of tho fraternity. There
are two textn in the New Testament tliat have ever been
eyed an a trouble and cye-8oro to Universal ism, namely, 2
Pet. 2:4, and Judo v 6, and tingling after long experience,
that no powers of ingenuity could ex])lain them away with-
out manifest distortion, Mr. Tha3'er has at length decided
that they form no connection with the truths of the Bible.
Accordingly, he manages tho card to expunge them virtu-
ally from the scriptures by affirming that they are but ci-
tatlons from some traditionary book, as the book of Enoch.
" The plain fact is," we find him saying, " that these cita-
tions are introduced for the purposes of illustration — just
as we refer to the fictitious characters, the ghosts, and
witches of Shakspcarc, and to tho jiopular traditions and su-
perstitions of the past to illustrate an argument or narra-
tive without at all endorsing tho truth of the stories or the
actual existence of the persons," (Theol. of IJ. p 405.) So
Di\ Cobb in his discussion with Adams, p 282, so also in his
commentary in loco. "We remark, however, that there is no
more emphatic aflfirmation in the language of the New
Testament than that of Judo with regard to the angels hav-
ing siimed. " And tho an^iels which kept not their first es-
tate but left their own habitation, he hath RESERA'ED,(Jude
affii'ms it himself) in everlasting chains under darkness wnto
the judgment of the great day^ We kindly advise Universal-
ists and Mr. Thayer among the rest, to read Eev. 22:19, " If
any man shall take away from tho words of the book of this
prophecy God shall take away his part out of the book of
life, {Greek-from the tree of life) and out of the holy city and
from the things which are written in this book." I also must
observe that Dr. Cobb in his debate with Prof. Hudson,
quotes Phil. 2:10, taking out the word '' should'' and supply-

116

UNIVEUHALIHM UNPODNPED.

■f:

ing '^nhi.iir', ami it iipi)eurs his opponent passed it without
(liHCoverin^- the IVund, (CMosing liovicw p -158.)

It may bo candidly and Icarlossly ailirniod that Hallou's tho-
ory ofUiiivorsid salvation has hitherto maintained itstitrig-
gling existence oidy through the sagacity and vvlnlHing of
its supporters and their slii)-sho(l logic. That so called ex-
cellent work " Paige's selections from eminent Commcntiv-
tors," Ih made u]) of a genus of plagiarism and misropros-
ontatio.M where almost every orthodox Commentator tinds
his language nnblushingly forced into connections and sen-
timents, for wl;;ch it 'vas never intended. For instance,
friend Paige delil»erately takes the comment of Dr. Ham-
mond on lloni. 2:S-1(), and transfers it to Koni. 2:3-5, when
that writer is made to su])i)ort a position he never assumed.
So the comment of Dr. Doddridgiw)n John 5:25, is romovc(i
to John 5:28. 2f>, and thus Doddridge is made to utter a sen-
timent ho woidd scorn to maintain. He also takes Dr.
Whitby's note on 1 Pet. 4:G,and places it under John 5:28-29
as proof that this learned Commentator sustained the Univer-
salist oxposilioM of that text. Mr. Whittemorc and Mr Austin
are guilty of the same conduct. The latter to explain away
the atonement, (juoted Dr. Adam Clarke's preface to Gala-
tians, to prove that there wore Jews at Gaiatia, and then
draws the inl\>rencc necessary to his argument, that it was
Clarke's opinion that the redemption mentioned in Gal. 3:13
was from the curt- .' of the ceremonial law, wliereas Dr.
Clarke expressly makes the redemption refer to Christ's
work of atonement in which he '' bore the punishment due
to sin ;" but notwithstanding all his trouble to change the
features of the Doctor's allegation, as great a marvel as it
may be to the reader, the gentleman on the very next day
of the discussion, was o])liged to renounce his ground and
actually affiinied, J3iddlecom like, the very doctrine he had
just condemned, i. e. that Christ came to fulfil "the great
moral law of God," Discussion p 173. lie also (luotos this

sai
,,1:.

IV (

<iMl
Chl

roc

MMVEll.SAMSM KNFOINDKI).

117

r without

loii'fj tho-
itH Htrng-
111 ing of
a Hod ox-
iimentft-
i.si'oprcH-
(or rinds
und son-
instanc't\
•r. liara-
5, when
iHsumod.
romovcd
cr aHcn-
ikoH Dr.
1 5:28-29

Univor-
r Austin
in away
to Gala-
nd then
it it was
>al. 3:13
cas Dr.
Christ's
lont due
ngc the
el as it
ext day
nd and

he had
great
Los this

«aino Coinuionlatoi''.s j'oinarUs on Mi'ourjhnj nhnhitih, lo ox-
jiImIii tlu^ iiului'o ()^/•^'^s7^/i///r/, Mliilf ( MarUo suys on ihovorv
ivord iindrj" considoj-ation, that •' tlii- original wonl poiihln,
<i»»es not ini))ly striprH and pimishnuufs hut the (Jisn'jt/iiic of a
rhild." What need wo of J'lij'thor witness, ami what must
every person of sense conelude of a system that demands
reeourse la sueh a niisei-ahlu siihtorfiige.

Let us now iruiuire tlie way in which the wicked are
l)iinish<'(l, according to Universalisni. It may nj)|)car
strangle indeed to many that such a fuss has heen raised to
«'online punishment tc this life, and yet no arrangements
jiiado to present anything lik'O a satisfactory and j-ational
I'onclusion as regards the certainty, manner and intensity
of its infliction. At one time all special punishments on the
part of (rod are discarded, and conscience is sul>i)enaed to
act as hell, when ])erhaps tl»e very next moment the ritual
law of Moses is summoned as proof that under its admin-
istration of external temporal jmnishments every man re-
ceived a just recompense of reward. It is, however, gener-
ally thought proper to locate "the lake of iire" intliehuman
breast, and accordingly every Universalist when conversing
upon the subject is seen to manceuvro in that direction,
in the Universalist Book of Jlcferenco wo note the following
language : " If the objector supposes that God, in the ad-
ministration of his moral government, is under the neces-
sity of interfering and directly punishing his creatures, this
Is a very groat mistake. 'No, Gotl is under no necessity of
guarding the interests of his law by penal enactments and
penal sanctions- It is a hiw, as we have seen, founded in
the nature and fitness of things — a law written in the very
constitution of man; God's law therefore does, !»y its owj)
operation, secure the reward of virtue and the ]>unishment
of vice ", page 110. From this it is plain : 1. Tliat tlie law
to which man is amenable is not that of iJic Bilijc, I>ut ot
his own constitution. 2. The penalty of this law is the con

Ri iiii'

11«

UNIVEKSALISM UXI'OUNJ)^!),

1 \

M-'(|iiciiC'Cs ])n)(luco(l in our pliysioal oi- intellectual luitiirc
i'V (U'sti'oyiii,!;' the liavmony of the constitiilion. If a por-
-('11 eats too mueli he uill derange the (li<ji;e,stive organs and
j>ay lor liis fo]]}' hy expei'leneing' a disag'i'ceahle .sensation
in his abdominal re;.';ion. ]{' he Li;ets drunk his (esophagal
iiiu^cli's will administer revenge l»y removing the nutri-
ment of the hodv from tlie internal ^' mau'ay.ine " to an ox-
lernal location, and tlie cul|)rit will experience sonic re-
formator}' qualms iiefore he recovers. Paul say^?, " Whose
(pill h fjicir hrj/jj." liiit Uin'crrs<'Jisfs, '• irJiose Ixlly is their hell.''
This I'/l-e of Jhr (if Universalism diU'ers from all others in
heing on tlie migratory principle, or rather on the multiply-
ing. At one time it is in tiic Ijead ; sometimes in the con-
-cience; next iji the stomacii ; and in fact ovcrywliero and
•in}'w]iere whei-e there is atliiction or pain. Thus in trying
to o])posc the existeiice of o//c hell they liave made out al-
most as man}' as there were frogs in Kgyi^t. Eut ask the
intidel if he is punished for his sins and he will reply with
equally good logic that he is recompensed no more than the
heast of the field, and will very reasonably ask, if wo are
punished, how is it we do not know it, for if not Avhore is
the good arising from the execution of the penalty of a
moral reformatory government. Yes, the sinner is all the
while in the burning pit, and yet "takes pleasure in un-
righteousness ", (2 ThesH. 2:12) ; and is " not in trouble as
other men ", (Psalms 73:5) : neither is ho " plagued like
other men ", but to him " wickedness is sweet", and his
•' soul dclightoth in abominations ", Job 20:12. How super-
latively fine is this idea of hell ; aixl how i^ must thrill the
heart of the happy expectant sinner w^hon he says to his
partner in guilt: "If we go to hell we'll have comj^^iny 1 1"
But they are in hell that very moment, and we are told that
this hell is an agonizing conscience. It is in this way Mr.
Austin and Universalists generally explain away Ps. ^17.
" The Avicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

110

nature
11" a ])er-
i!,'niis and
nsation
sophagal
>e nutri-
o an ex-
some re-
'^ Whose
'u'ir hdir
oUiers in
nultiply-
the eon-
hero and
in trying
lo out al-
ask the
ply with
than the
f wo are
where is
tl ty of a
Ls all the
re in un-
•oublo as
ued like
and his
w super-
irill the
ys, to his
pany 1 1"
told that
tvay Mr.
Ps. ^17.
nations

that forget God ", i. e. ishall endure remorse of mnscioicc,
great mental anguish. But this is reversing the matter, for
instead of the wicked being turned into hell, hell is turned
into the wicked; and how is it they shall ho turned into
hell when they are already there, that is, already as a nat-
ural consequence sutferiug from the violation of that law of
God which is "written in the very constitution of man."
•We wisli here to ask a favour of Universalists when they
laugh at the orthodox idea of hell being so near heaven that
Lazarus was able to talk with the rich man; L e., that they
would consider the space between their own perdition and
paradise. To keej) " the kingdom of God " in this world
they quote Luke 17:21. " Behold the Kingdom of God is
within you." Now if heaven and hell are both within man 1
wish to know how far thay are apart ! ! But if conscience is
the source of punishment it is either an unerring check or
it is not. If not it is not of God, for his ways are not une-
qual ; but if it is it demonstrates eternal damnation, for
thousands have died witnesses to this doctrine. But con-
science cannot be the seat of punishment, for the following
reasons ; 1. The greatest sinner would then suffer least,
for he may become so hardened in sin as to get " past feeling,"
Eph. 4:10 ; Avlicn the conscience has become *• seared with
a hot iron", 1 Tim. 4:2. Mr. Ilogers to smooth the absurdify
says that a seared conscience is punishment of itself! Sin-
gular punishment truly, and not felt! 2. The more we fear
God the more tender is the conscience; then those who do not
fear him have ]io conscience ; but Universalists teach that
no one should fear God, then they have no conscience, and
are therefore not ]>unishe(^ To defend the hypothesis lliat
God is not to be feared, they quote 1 John 4 : 18. " There
is no fear in love ; lint jierfect lo\ e casteth out fear ; because
iear hath torment, lie that feareth is not made ])eriect in
love." Tliis, however, ]ii<e a great many other passages, is
applied in a waj- the writer never intended. The apostle in

hii-^i

? ■■

120

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED .

tlio pi'cccdini!; verse tolls iis the subjccl of liis discourse and

Heroin is onr love

pr
what it is the ('hristian does not fear,
made perfect, that we ma}' have holdness in the ilty; of judg-
ment.'' No OIK! who loves Christ and obex's his conmiand-
nients will have occasion to fear the day of judgment, for
''there is no such fear in love; but ])erfect love cnsteth out
((dl such) ihi\.v\ because (.S7a7t) fear hath torment; he that
f'earelh {the dny of judgment) is not made perfect in love.'\
8. ^Vicivcd men often experience more an <j;uish of mind when
they do right than when tlu'y do wrong. The miser i> happ}-
when taking the rights of the orphan and widow, and unhap-
])y when not engaged in penurious o[^[)ressi(m. "Would not an
obligatory sentence from the civil court to return such plun-
der give him mental anguish ? 4 God declares ho will pun-
ish the sinner, but if conscience is the seat of punishment, he
punishes himself as a luitural consequence when ho sins, 5.
Univcrsalism teaches tluit moji is a machine and not a fro<.'
moral agent. Mr. Rogers says, ''the notion of a free will
is a chimera." Then there can be no such thing as com-
punction of conscience; and if God's pleasure is always dono
no one can have remorse for doing it. Xo man will feel re-
morse of C(msciencc for sinning away as hard as he t'un, and
taking the shortest way to heaven, oven if lie should ^Qt
there twice as soon as the Lord intended ; for tL'3 blessed
doctrine of Universalism informs him that it will all Ik^
overruled for his good. A Universalist can have no moral
restraint from murdering his neighbour, for God foreordain-
ed it from the beginning of the world, and as itison.ly "he
that is dead is freed from sin ", lie has done his neighbor a
kindness in sending him olf to heaven ! G. Those of whom
we read in scripturcwho sull'cred temporal judgments, as
the antediluvians, the Sodoms and Jews, all had consciences
us well as we, and hence if the pangs of conscience were an
unerring punishment those judgments the}- suiiered were
redundant, and God was unjust. 7.. The Scriptures teach

urse and
our love

luiiiiuid-
Qwt, for
toth out

lie lliat
n lovo.'\
id wlioii
> Jill])])}-
I unhap-
il not 'An
di plun-
dll pun-
ncut, lie
sins. 5
d a frtHi
■00 will
as coni-
y8 done

fool rc-
•an, and
uld g^Qi
blessed

all \Hi
) moral
ordain-
dy "he
^■hl)or a
.' whom
nts, as
L'iences
'ova an
d were
s toa(d\

L"NrVERSAT;IS:«[ r M? OfJNDEI)

121

timt this world is not a state (^f perfect retrilmtion. Loo'c
iit the afflictions of the righteous and the ])rospei'ity of
the wickc(L Listen to Paul's descri])ti(^j>' <,'f the persecu-
tions of the early Christiuns. '• And others liiid t.viftJs of cruel
nioekings and scourgings. yea, moreover of bonds and im-
prisonments: they wore stoned; they we,v-<->. sawn asunder,
were tempted, wei-e slain Avith the sAvoi-d ; they wandered
nhout in sheep skin.s and goat skins, helng (h'ufiti'/c, ((Jflirt(d.,
tonnented * * * G(-)d having ])rovided some better thing
for us", Hob. 11 ;8(J-40. The Psalmist declares, '• JW/
arc. the fijfticfions of the righteoits ", Ps. 34 : li*. ]3ut what of
the wicked. The Psalmist shall answer : " For I was en-
vious at the foolish when I saw iha prosperity of the irlcked
They are 7iot in. tror/hh' as other men (i. e. the righteous)^
neithei- a.re they plagued like other men ■'• * ^^ Behold
these are the ungodly Avho ]>rosper in the world ", Ps. 7;':
3-12. It is true the wicked, before the conscience has be-
£'Ome seared, are, as the prophet says, '' like the troubled
sea when it <i&iinot rest, whose waters cast up mire and
du't ''^ Isa. 57:20; and that "there is no peace to the
wicked" while in this condition; but it is also true
thai when conscience seared and past feeling remorse they
have pi e<( an re in unrighteomneHs ", 2 Thess. 2 : 12, and " enjoy
the pledfixres of sin', Jlah. 11:25; '^ coimt if 2ii<-'<-sui'e to riot iu
the dill/ time, sporting thrnisehes with their own deceiving ", 2
Pet. 2:13.. They '^ have liKed in ple.(i&ure upon the earth, and
have been wtiufon, for to them '^ wickedness is sireet'\ and are
ther(ifore " hrrers of pi ensure more than loners of G<)d''\ James
5:5, 2 Tim. 3:4. Universalists can find no fault with this
.sc]"i]itui'e sentiment, for if their doctrine, as its advocates
contend, will Jet a man die in his sins and at the same
time die happy, will it not on the same principle permit the
wicked man to live in his sins, and at the same time go oji
his way rejoicing. 8, The reward of the righteous and the
punishment of the sinner are always spoken of in the future

Vl'l

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

J2i

U'lisc. ChrLst says, '' And thou sluilt bo blcssod, for they
•lUiiidt rocomponso thee ; for lliou slialt bo recompensed at
the resurrection oftlic just ", Luke 14 : U. "The Lonl know-
oth how to deliver the godly out of temptation and to BB-
SKUVE the unjust unto the day of Jinhjmcnt, to be punished ",
2 Pet. 2:9.

IJut admitting all that is contended for, whore is the pro-
})riety in condemning orthodoxy since it preaches compuiio-
ti(*nsof conscience — all the punisliment Universalism ad-
vocates; and in addition to this, punishment after death,
iiiid therefore has all the incentive to deter from the com-
mission of sin that, Universalism possesses, and a great deal
more. Does the moral power of Universalism consist, as in
often asserted, in its doctrine of the certainty of punish-
meiit ? Orthodoxy proclaims this identical doctrine, that
there is no escape from the compunctions of conscione*,
that is, until it is seared, and therefore exercises tlio samo
moral }iower, in point of theory, as Universalism, while at
the same time it holds out the infinite motive of future
etei'iial punishment. "Whore then is the benefit Univorsui-
isfs expect to be derived from the promulgation of their
doctrine ? Does the wicked man not feel the pangA of an
\ipbraiding conscience til' he is informed of it by a Univer-
salist preacher ? If not, then for nearly eighteen centuries
before lloshea Ballon made his important discovery there
was no such thing as punishment in existence ; but if ho
does, then Universalism can save no one except the wicked
from the hope of esca])ing punishment, or a preacher por-
ha])s fi-om starving.

That the wicked are not punished in this world, but that
ever}' man is rewarded according to his works, in eternity,
is a legitimate corollary to the following immovable posi-
tions :

1. The scripture declarations of the death of the wicke<.l
in contrast to that of the righteous. The Psalmist says of

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDET).

123

for they
ponsod at
01x1 know-

-11(1 to Q»-
mishod ",

8 the pro-
comjiuuc-
alism ad-
er deatli,
the com-
^•eat deal
isist, as is
f punish-
*ino, that
►nsoionco,
the sarao
while at
3f future
rniversui-
of their
igA of an
I Univer-
centiiriea
'vy there
but if ho
o wicked
chor per-

but that
eternity,
ible posi-

3 wickoil
t says of

the latter, "Mark the perfect man and behold the iiprii>-ht
ibv the aid of thtttiytn is peace '\ Ph. 37:37. "Precious in
the sight of the Lord is the, death of his saints ", Ph. 11():15.
vSo Solomon, " The righteous luith hope in his death ", Prov.
14:32. So the evangelists, " Lazarus died and was carried
by tlie angels U) ^Abraham's bosom ", Luke 16 :32. " Bles-
sed are the dead that die in the Lord'', Eev. 1-1:13. Paul
speaks of "the dead in Christ '\ 1 Thess. 4:16, and " their
falling aslf'rj) in Jesus", 1 Cor. 15:18. Listen now to the
description of the dying sinner : Terrors take hold
on him as waters ; a tempest stealeth him away in the
niglit. Tiie east wind carrieth him away, and he departeth ;
and as a storm hurleth him out of his place. For God shall
cast upon him and shall not spare ; he would fain flee out
of his hand ", Job 27:20. " Upon the wicked he shall rain
snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest ; this
shall be the portion of their cup", Ps. 11:6. " Trangres-
^^ors shall be destroyed together ; the end of the wicked
shall be cM«o/", Ps. 37:38. "When a wicked man dieth
his expectation perisheth ", Prov. 11:7. "The wicked is driven
n.imy in his wickedness ", Prov. 14:32. " He shall die in his
iniquity ", Ezek. 18:18. "The rich man died and was buried,
and in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments ", Luke 16:23.
Such is the exit of the wicked from this world, with all
the guilt of unholy passion and corruption of criminal life
upon their heads, and j'^et Universalism wipes its mouth
" with sanctimonious seeming ", and administers the musi-
cal encouragement that " your heavenly father is about to
receive you to the gloriousness and blessedness of infinite
love " ! ! But who could admit a conclusion so repugnant to tho
deductions of reason and analogy. Temporal death is only
the dissolution of the body, and therefore does not change tho
moral character, which is only an innate condition of the
soul; and as moral happiness arises out of moral character,
hence corporeal death cannot effect moral happiness. The

'il t

|.:

124

UNIVERSALI8M UNFOUNDED.

wicked man dying in a state of moral depravity carries
that dc])ravity with hini into tJie fntui'c state, which must
phice him in contrast with the ri;Li;htoous there, as to char-
acter and lja])piness, as it did here. This view is I'liliy sup-
j)orted hy the recent admission of llie leading oracle of Uni-
vcrsalism, Mr. lloshea BaUon, the Second. " To us tiie
su})posal of no intcllectua! and moral connection of the
present with tlie future ", we lind him sayinjjj, '' is so incon-
gruous with all our iorms of thought that we n(>ver could
lu'ing it distinctly l»cf(>re us and still retain the idea of
jinother existence for ourselves. That death is a non-con-
ducting medium, as it were, through which no intluence can
pass from this world ; that all our pei'.sonal de^'elopmentH
perish there ; that God's dealings with us here, in provi-
dence and even in the work' of redemption, are absolutely
8hut up within this pi-esent life, and have no eft'ect or ref-
erence beyond ; that all tlie joys and sorrows through which
wc are discii)lined boar no fruit but what we gather here,
and that the seeds of this have no second growth ; that the
last hours of our agony and so many other sutferings arc but
waste pains ; that our characters, good or had, the product
of so much toil, die utterly and forever with our bodies —
iiU this is so abhorrent to our very nature that we would give
but little for a future being under these annihilating con-
ditions," Universalist Quarterly, Vol. 4. j\rr. Ballou then
reasonably admits, nay contends that there is " a moral con-
nection of the present with the future'^ ; that we gather the
fruit of our conduct in eternity, besides '' what we gather
here" ; and that our •' characters, Avhether good or bad ", are
carried with us into the future state.

2. Final happiness is everywhere in the S<.'riptures sus-
pended upon conditiojis. — the conditions of faith and obedi-
ence, and as the wicked tlo not comply with these condi-
tions, they, of course, have no claim on future happiness.
The following Scriptures are palpable evidence to this po-

sit i
fut

lifi

ty carrier
lich must
s to cliar-
Ailiy sup-
•Ic ofUni-
To lis the
m of the
so iiicon-
ver could
le idea of
\ non-c-on-
leiice can
lopments
in provi-
bsohitely
ict or ref-
t(h which
lier here,
that the
••s arc but
product
bodies —
)uld give
mu; con-
iou then
loral con-
Lther the
we gather
ad ", are

tires sus-
id obedi-
a condi-
ppiness.
this po-

UNIVEllSALISM tJNFOLiNDElJ.

125

sition and positively exchide the siinier from the joys of
ful arc governmcut.

"To him that overcometli will 1 uive to oat of the tree of
life that is in the midst of the paradise of God." liev. 2:7.

Th\H ixinalise can mean only the ])lace of happiness in tho
future world. Paul's w(U'ds to the Corinthians are proof of '
tliis as Mcll as the context. "I knew a man in Christ about
fourteen jears ago, whether in the body I cannot tell or
whether out of the body [cannot tell, (rod knoweth ; such
an one caught up to the third heaven — into paradise," 2 Cor.
12:2,3. T\\Q\\ paradUe is in heaven, which is therefoin? con-
ditional — %^f '^ to him that ovKiicoMF/ni."

"Blessed are they that do his commandments that they
may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through
the gates into the city ", (Eev. 22:M).

The tree of life belongs to tho paradise of God, the third
heaven, as seen from the above text; and this passage pre-
cludes the idea of any partaking of it but J8^^ " therj that do
his commandmen fs.' '

" Every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate
in all things; now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown,
but wo an incorruptible ", (1 Cor. 9:25).

That this text refers to eternity Univorsalists themselves
will not deny, for D. Skinner in his debate with A. Camp-
bell (Let. 17, par. 12), contended that the Greek ^vovdajjh-
thn'tos, here rendered incorruptihle is ne\'^r once in the New
Testament applied to anything temporal or limited, and
cxirtainly Paul did not strive to obtain a crown of a tem])oral
nature. It is well known that the w^ord ajihthartos is the
foundation stone of the Universalist argument from 15th of
1 Cor., that the wicked as v\^ell as the righteous will he
saved in the resurrection state. This being established the
incorruptible crown or diadem of future hap])iness is obtain-
able only upon the conditions of ftiith and obedience — sti'iu'-
ing to obtain.

12(5

UNIVEllSAIJS.M UNFOUNDED.

K 1

''Wherefore tlien rutlior, brotlircn, _i;-ivo all diligence to
make your calliiii;; and election sure, for if ye do those things
yo shall never fall ; for so an entrance sliall bo ministered
unto you abundantly in the everlasting kingdom of our
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ ", (2 Pet. 1:10,11.)

This " evei'lasting kingdom " cannot mean the kingdom of
grace on earth, for the persons addressed were already in
this kingdom, tor they are called "the people of God ",
(1 Pet. 2:10). Then the apostle teaches that '' dUiyence''
is necessary to make our entrance into the kingdom rrrtain.
This is another proof of the conditionality of future happi-
ness.

" If so be that we suffer with liim we sliall also be glori-
fied together ", Rom. 8:17. " For our light affliction, which
is but for a moment, workcth for us a far more exceeding
and eternal weight of glory ", 2 Cor. 4:17.

That the first passage refers to eternity is certain from
the fact that Christ was not glorified till after his ascension
into heaven, for John says that while on earth he " was iwt
i/rtghrifai;' {l-.Hd); and Peter testifies that this did not
take place till the day of Pentecost, Acts 3:13.

The second text can bear no reference to temporal glory,
for evidently Paul did not wish such distinction, besides Dr.
Skinner, in his debate with A. Campbell, contended that
this should read, "rt g^ori/ exceeding eternal to an excess^',
and tlierefore could not bo temporal. Now if both these
passages refer to eternity they afford abundant testimony
that oin- conduct in time affects our future and final happi-
ness ; heaven, therefore is conditional. We must sufer
with Christ if we would be glorified \y\ih him.

" Who will render to axevy man according to his deeds ;
to them who, by patient continuance in well doing, seek for
glory and lionor and immortality,— eternal life ", Rom.
2:0,7.

TJio blessings of glory, lionor and immortalitjj belong to the

UNIVEIISALIS.M UNFOUNDED.

127

future stutc, for sioveral considerations. 1. Tho persons
spoken (if enjoyed tlie lii^'liest blessing.s of tho gospel king-
dom, an<l yet thoy were seeking for himoitid'itj/ and Iionor —
certainly not inunortulity and lionor liere ! 2. L'niver.sal-
ists contend, as Skinner did with Caniphell, (Let. 17, ))ar21)
lliat llie original, (iphfharsid, signifies einl/ess hxpphuss, and
therefore must refer to the future life. 8. Paul, in 1 Cor.
15 Cliaj)., testifies that these distinguished blessings of ^Ay/y/,
honor and hnmortalitjj belong to the resurrection state. This
being true, the promise of eternal life is only to Ihosc who
SEEK for futui'e happiness, which is another proof that hea-
ven is conditional.

"Follow ])oaco with all men and holiness, without which
no man shall see the Lord," lleb 12:14.

Univei'salists always quo'c this ""Without Holiness no
man shall see tho Lord." This is ini]>ro|)er. The grammati-
cal meaning is, thai no man shall see tho Lord without ho
follow 2)C(ice with all 7nen iiwd holiness. This puts a dilfercnt
face upon the siibjoct, for instead of teaching Avliat Uiiiver-
salists quote it to prove, it positively affirms that if men
do not follow Holiness, that is, live a pious life, they can-
not see the Lord.

" For bodily exercise profiteth little; but Godliness ia
profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that
now is and of that which is to come," 1 Tim. 4:8.

The U/c to come could not mean the gospel lif*e or reign of
grace,, for that life had already come, and Timothy, whom
Paul called "a man of God," already enjoyed it. The phrase
can only be understood of the future life of the glorified,
Avhich Paul hero suspends upon the practise of godliness.

" To him that overcomoth will I grant to sit with mo in
my throne, even as I also overcame and am set doAvn with
my Father in his throne," Rev. 3:21. " Bo thou faithful
unto death and I will give thee a crown of life,"Eev. 2:10.

There is no promise of future happiness to any but he

ill

I •

128

UNIVV.nSA'r.lSM rNForNIiVJK

(lijit ''omTomr//(," aiul the crown of lifo w'xW \>v oldained
only by linn that continnos Ri^^'/nitlifi'l imto <hnth.''

*' For ho (hat is ontcrod into his ms/, he alsn, hath C'caso<l
from his own works as (iod did from his ; let us hd'oiir thcro-
forc to enter into that rest lest any man fall after the same
example of unhelief," Heh. 4:10,11.

The apostle hei-o informs the llehrews that they must hi-
hour Ui ohtuin tlmf rent into whleli Christ entered when
he had finished his work as (Jod resteu from his work of
Creation. This '* nut " eannoL mean anything but future
ha})piness, because, 1. ]*aul enjoyed all the rcs^ that the gos-
pel affords the Christian in this life, and yet he says, " Let
US labour to enter into THAT UKST." 2. The context ex-
plains this to be the true meaninjL?, " Let us therefore fear
lest a promise bcini,^ left US of entering into iiis rest any of
you (whon\ l\nul calls " hoJi/ hrcthrcn ", ch. 3:L,) should neom
to come short of it."' These persons addressed by the apostle
had enjoyed all the rest of the gospel of p'>ace, and yet they
are reminded of a llI'^STthat is only yet to them IN PEOM-
ISE. Universalists try to evade this conclusion by quoting
V. 3, " We which have believed <h enter into rest''' ; but this
does not relieve their case, for the rest of whieli the t<»c:t
under criticism speaks could not possibly mean rest in this
Hffe, not only because " that rest " is to the Christian, not
in reality, but in promise, but the rest into which Chrint
entered was certainly not Christian enjoyment here ; be-
sides it never conld be said that he entered that rest, for Ik;
never was out of it. But arc Universalists sure that " do en-
ter into rest'' n^eans a present rest ? Not quite. Paid speak-
ing of the general resurrection says, " But some man will
say, how are the dead raised up, and with what body do
they come' \ 1 C-or. 15:35. Here the same word do occurs,
and yet it has no reference to the present, but the future.
Doctor Adam Clarke, however, tells us that the phrase '* do
enter into rest " is 1)} no means verified by all MSS. " Instood

VJNIVERSALIfiM UNFOUNDED.

120

nliliiiru'd

>ur tlicro-
tl;(,' sJiino

' must kt-
vd when

wcn-k of
it futiiro
t the gos-
fs, " Let
ntoxt ex-
)f()ro foar
ST any of
)uM Hocm
10 apostle

yet tliey
sT PKOM-
^' quoting
; Ijutthis

the tt*v't
st in this
sti.an, not
•ll Christ
lore ; bc-
st, for Ikj
it ** do m-
ul speak-
man will

ijody ih}
o oocury',
future,
iraso ** do
"Instoo<l

iif riscnhnHi th'( (ji'(t,/o)' wcdo enter, A. C, and several others
with the Vulgate anil Coptic, read ehcrclwmetht oim, f/ictr-

f ore LET UH enter ; and thus it answers to (here/ore hi ns

fear, V. 1, (Jjom, in loco.)

This passage is very })lain evidence that many through

«/ji('?t<y will ya// short of final ha[»[)iness. ]ieware, read
" lest tlioro be in you an evil heart of'unheliof in deiiartiiig
from the living God ", v. 12 ; "and he sware in his in-.ifh
that von shall not enter into his rest ", v. 8.

8. The doctrine ol'a general ;vsnrrectioii is of course nd-
initted h}' all Universalists, hut a dilferent idea is found at-
tiiched to that d(K*triiie to that advocated heretofore, that is,
that this resurrection is moral, \^o{ 2)Jn/siad. This sliift was
found to be necessary to save Universalism from impending
rnin, for their old idea of the resurrection maile the change
in the body without reference to the character of the soul,
which claimed all those ])assagcs M'hicli are now^ wielded as
])roof tliat all will be raised to noAMiess of life. For instance,
1 Cor, 15:22, "■As in Adam all die ", t^c, under their primi-
tive notion of the resurrection state simply taught that all
mankind would be ph3'sically raised, the body only being
referred to, and hence the advantage promised l>y the
change. But the doctrine of the resurrection of the body
is all that is taught in this passage, as we, will clearly show
when we come to treat upon the subject of universal salva-
tion. It is however found that their recent ideaoftlie
resurrection flourishes barbarously among those ])assag'es
tl'.at speak of that event. When Christ promised that the
righteous should be recompensed " at the resurrection of
the just", he evidently must have meant to convey the idea
that the just wore to be rau ed; and to say he meant they
would bo raised from sin vrouidonly be saying the/«s^ were
not just. Paul says, " Christ the first fruits, afterwards they
that are Christ's at his coming", 1 Cor. 15:23. The first
fruits of Avliat ? '' The first fruits of them that slept ", i.e., the

■fftl

lati

UNIVEIIHAMH.U UNFOlNKKD.

first fruits of tlio rosnrrection, which cnn mofin only tiic
resurret'tion of tho l»o(ly, for no onoeoiiM Hiij)i»osr that noTic
of I hose who (liod hcfori* the ("hristian oni were niiseil from
sin. One of llu' two condnsionH must he taken, eitlier that
tlu)so ■who (,lie<i liefiii'e ('hi'ist's time were still dead in sin,
and, as a eonse(|nenee, mi^erahle in the spirit Morld. or tluit
the rosurrcc'lion hero Hpolcen of is (hat of the hod}', without
any refereneo whatever to the soul. 'Iho words •' them tlutt
sh'jtt,'' most certainly mean the '' sleep of death", as does a
similar ]»hrase in v. (5, " hitf auinc Juior /(illm adivpy It is
plain a resurrection from sin could not then have entered
the apoHtle'« mind, as he would imply that Clirist avus i\
sinner, for how could he he the iirst fruits of a rosiirreclioii
from sin and nctt be raised from it? Sylvanus Cobh con-
tends that the re-nirrection here spoken of is a resun'oction
of all to immortal life and ha|)|>iness, unci A tho resurroc-
tion of the body. Under v. 18 he says, ' As the word 2^<^'''
iahcd is here in opposition to tlie life immortal, it moans a
loss of existence." Here his own ex))osltion defeats his
doctrine, and I wonder a man ])Ossessin<;- the penetration of
Sylvanus could not see it, for if what was lost in Adam was,
as Univorsalists contend, gained in Christ, wliat Christ
gained Adam must have lost ; but if without Christ wo
would have sult'ercd the " loss of existence ", that is, if wo
gain immortality in Christ, wo then lose it in Adam, and
henco Adam's fall subjoctodliim to an eternal non-existcnco.
Hero Mr. Cobb, to keep the word " jierisliod " from meaning
non-salvation or, in other words, eternal damnation, ratlior
than yield to orthodoxy, Saul-liko falls upon his own sword.
This comment of Mr. C. will appear even more disgraceful
when the reader is informed that this champion, in his dis-
cussion with Prof. Hudson, who contended that tho word
perished means annihilation, which he himself now asserts,
2)romptly disputed the point, and explained it as only moan-
ing that " tho}^ were martyrs to a falsehood, and they and

UNlVEft.SALlS.M UNFOINDEI).

131

only tli(.'
Iiat iiono
iseil from
tlior llmt
id in hill,
(I. or llmt
, williout
them tfutt
as does u
>." It is
3 entered
st "wiis II
'irreclion

obit OOTl-

iirrection
rostirree-
vord pet'-
means a
jfeats his
(ration of
dam was,
it Christ
hrist Avo
is, if wo
lam, and
xistcnco.
meanin*^
n, ratlior
^n sword,
sgraceful
n his dis-
tho word
V asserts,
\\y moan-
they and

their failli are all as nothing' ", Diseius ]). 252. Hut even
athnittiiii,' the point, an inexpIieahUi ditnciiKy i)resents
it.-;olf, for if Christ's j-t^siirroetion was the tirst fruits of a
resurroetion to immortality, it is plain none hoforo liis ro-
^urreetion eould huvo been immortal, for if so some one
el.ve wa4 the lirst Iriiits and not Christ. Tl;en all who died
before Christ'.s resurrection had ko fxistcfice after death
till that e\ent. Jt also presumes that Christ himself was
in his spii'itiial nature moi-tal, for bidn;;- the iirst fruits to
immortality hr nnist be nuM'tal before he eould be raised or
become the li)'.st fruits of ati immortal roHurrection. Ihit if
it is only the noid tlial is involved in this resurrei^tion, to
please Mr. Cobb we will read sc.me of tlie connection and
see if it will bear this sense: " But sonm man will say, how
arc the dead (souls') -aiscd np and with what body do the dntd
(.souls) come. Ho also is the j-csurroction of the dead (soul);
it is sown in roirnptlon, it is raised in incorruption, it is
sown a n;>tural body (/. c the soul is sown a natural bodi/,)
it i.s raised a .'^i.iritual Ixxly. For the trumpet shall sound
and the (h^ad (souls) shall be raised iucorru]itlble, and we
shall be chan.i'ed ; for tliis corrn]>tii)lo (soul) must put on
incorruption, and tliis niortal (soul) must put (m immortal-
ity." Universalists deny the resurrection of the body from
its iK'iiiir rjiaterial, and after decomposition is incorporated
into oilier b()di(;s; hence is inferred the in\posibility of (he
resurrection. As I hey do not, however, believe in the resur-
ri-ctiou cf the (h:ad hoilif. (hey n\usl believe in the resurrer-
liou of (he dr>td .so/// ; and if tlie soul dies it must be mate-
rial, and Iherelbre corruptible, as well as the body; and
hence sutlers decomposition, and is incorporated, if not in
other bodies, in other souls. Hero tliey deny the resur-
recti(m entirely as did the ancient Sadducees and tho>e her-
etics advertised by Paul over ISOO years ago.

But Paul says, " As in Adam all die, even so in Christ
shall all be made alive, but every man in his own order,

132

UNUTERSALFSM rNFOTjyDED-

(Mu'ist tlic iiv.st-fruits, afterwards they that are Chrfyt's at
his coming ", 1 Cor. 15:22-23- The phrase ^'■ikcj/ that are
Christ's'' phvinly indicates that some are not his. The same
piirasc (x-^curs m Gal. 5:24, whore it phiinly defines Chnst's.
people, " Tliey that are Christ's luivocrucitied the flosli with
the art'ections and lusts." 1V> those who die in their tsinw
crucify the flesh in this sense? No,, but all;. a«'c<i'ding to
Universalisni, die in their sins ; then thoi'e are r/onc wlu>
ever did or ever will live that are Chnnt's. Paul neverthe-
less makes two orders ;. one for those who are Christ's, and
(>nc for those who are not his^ Whorovov avc read of the
i-esurrcction we tind these two orders — th>i jnst ayid the un-
just, Acts 24:15. The samC' apostle speaks in Thcssa[onians
of the fii-st resuiTC'Ction, " The dead in Chnst shall rise first.' "
So the Kevelator, "This is the first resurrection", Eev.
20:5. Of course thc^V,?^ implies a second — two orders. The
above reliable text of Universalism testifies to these two-
orders in the resuiTCCtion, the hohi and the wihof//, for it
says, "As in Adam all die even so in Christ shail all W
made alivt> ", that i:-, just as tlioy go down to tho grave by
Adani, " evc^i ho, " with the same raoral charaetci", shrvll they
bo made alive agaii\ by Christ, Jf thoy die in their s!ns.„
'■ even so " thfy sliall be raised, ^i' they are unjust, unhol^-
jMid unsanctified, ''even so" shall thoy be in the morning
of the rosu.rrccti(/ii, for then will lie brought to ])ass the
saying that is \vrilten, -'ire that is unjust let him be unjust
still, aful he that is holy let him be holy still." Now I ask
if men are to appear in the general resm'rection inthesame
moral eonditi<;n in which they livc^tl and die<l, then is not
tlie comdusion irresistible that tlie future state is a state of
retribution ?

'i he Avord '■'■ in " in v. 22 is pressed strongTy to teach thar
all in the resurrection will Ite " ('/? Christ '\- and hence alf
will he saved, f(»r it is only those who are outof CHirist that
will be in danger of puiiishraeut^ if such exists in the future

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED

133

In'iwt''« Jit
y that arc
Fhe same
Ohnst't*
flcNh with
tlieir Bint*
c«i'(iinjjj to
/one wlio
iicvcrtho-
•ist's, unci
ad of the
d the un-
safonians
iso first.""
II ", Ilex.
ers. The
hese two
?///, for it
Mi rtll be
g'ravo by
<h.ill they
heii-sms„
t, tniholy
nioriiing-
pass the
bo unjust
row T ask
the same
L'n is not
i stifte of

'aoh that
lonco alf
iristthat
he future

world. This however is a poor hook to support the salva-
tion of the world. Dr. MacKnight translates the original
word"i^" — "For iia hi/ Adam all die, even so % Christ
shall all be made alive." This is indeed proved to be the
correct rendering from the preceding verse. '' For since hi/
man came death, hi/ man came also the resurrection of the
dead ; For as hi/ Adam all die, (go down to the grave) even
so h)/ Christ shall all be made alive ", (or be raised to b'fe
iigain). If it be contended still that the word " wi" is the
proper, then the doctrine of original sin must be admitted,
for if all will be made holy m Christ, then all were made
unholy in Adam, a doctrine spurned by all Unitarian^. I
must remark here that Mr. Cobb, in his New Testament
with Notes, seeing that the phrase " thcj/ that are Christ's at
hui coming^' indicates that there are some who would not
be Christ's and therefore not '^ in Christ", and consequently
would not be saved, dares to take the liberty to throw in a
parenthesis in the text, so as to make it read, " As in Adam
ail die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive at his com-
ing.''^ Here the ]ieverend gentleman cuts off from v. 23 the
phrase '' at his coming ", and reads it upon the end of v 22.
Of what will Universalists not be found guilty to carry
their points ! False reasoning is bad enough, but falsifying
the Bible seems rather too bad. But this makes the case
8ao better, for now the text teaches that none will be made
iilivo in Christ, — that is, according toUniv-ersalism — be en-
dowed with immortality, or be holy till Christ's second
teeming, which, ai« we have shown, will not take place till
ihii .end (»f time,. Then those, botli saint (as we call' them)
and sinner, either go out of existence or are dead in their
.'^ins, and consequently misei"able till Christ comes again.
So much for the dodgery, not to say scripture knavery, of
Mr. Cold). There are sevei'al texts which speak of the res-
urrection in such a way as either to imply or openly declare
thi^- destructjon ofjnst and unjust in the resurrection state.

i:;4

tMYKHSAIJSM UNFOUNDED.

[, .

For instance. IIcl). 11:35, "Women received tlieir dead
viiisc'd to life an'ain ; and otlicrHwerc tortured, not accepting
delivei'ance ; that they migli* obtain a better resurrection.^^
Untler this jiassage Mr. Cobb remarks : "Better than what
oilier resurrection ? Better than that of the deceased chil-
dren who were restored to life in this mortal state; to wit,
till.' resurrection unto deathless life." This is a sagacious
sliift on the part of Mr. C to evade the force of the text, but
on a little scrutiny Avill be found to aiford no ridief to his
(ansc. excel)! by thr(*winu' dust in the eyes of his I'eaders.
1 asl\,did those who Avere " tcu'tured not accepting deliv-
ei'ance, tliat they might obtain a better resurrection " — did
thev or Paul imagine the\' woull not eniov a place in the
general resurrection if they di<l not sutler persecution ?
Did they ? ]\Ir. Cobb to save himself must ansvrer Ko. Pray
then why did they suiter to ob\ain a resurrection " better
than that of the deceased children ■', when they were, ac-
cording to Mr. Cobb, sure of lliat l)etter resurrection with-
out that sutt'ering ! There is but one rcpl}', only that they
might obtain a distinction iii the resurrection state — a res-
urrection better than they wouhl have obtaineil had they not
sultered for the cause of Christ, in another place Paul sets
forth in the iihunest terms the destruction of just and unjust
in the general resurrection. "And have hope toward God,
which they themselves also allow that there shall be a res-
urrection of the dead, both of the just and tlie unjust",
Acts 2-1:15. But here again, as a matter of course, the
blighting hand of sophistry has been at worlc. The wrinkle
assuined to ju'event the olnious meaning of the text is, that
the terms /i!/.s^ and unjust aie only intended to teach a gen-
eral resurrection, both of the righteous and the wicked,
without any reference whatever to character. They illus-
trate by saying, "Supjiose 1 were to say all the Mothodi.st8
and Pi'eshyterians in the house Avill bo raised, would I mean
they would be Methodists and Preshyterians after they were

llieir dead

accepting
surrccfion.^^
than what
oa^od chil-
tc ; to wit,

sagacious
e text, but
lief to his
is readers.
'ing deliv-
ioii "—did
ace in the
rsecution ?

A^o. ]^rav
^n " ])etter

were, ac-
tion with-
■ that they
Lite — a res-
id they not
e Paul sets
and unjust
)\vai'd God,
11 he a res-
e unjust ",
ourse, the
he wrinkle
3xt is, that
ach a gen-
e wicked,
riiey illus-
Vlothodists
uld I mean
thev were

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

135

raised "? But this ease is not a parallel. Rather supjiosc
it was goats and sheep that wore to be raised, would they
all be sheej) after they were raised ? I think hardly, and
this case is exactly parallel, for while the resurrection may
change the name, it cannot the moral character. It is also
said Paul must have been a fiend to hope for the resurrection
of millions to damnation, and yet, according to their own doc-
trine, Paul commanded his disciples to look forward with
the blessed ho})e to the time when the Lord Jesus should be
revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in tlaming
tire, at the overthrow of Jerusalem, taking vengeance upon
his enemies in the person of Titus, who murdered a million
iive hundred thousand Jews and caused the greatest national
tribulation that has been since the beginning of the world ! !
iiut Paul knew the Judge of all tlie earth would do right.
John says he saw the souls of the martyrs under tiie altar.
" And they cried with a loud voice saying, 'How long, O
Lord holy and true, dost thou not judge and ((vcnge our blood
on them that dwell on the eai'th ' ", Kcv. G-10. Were they
friends to crv in this manner ? 1 thought Universalists had
all holy and happy in a dii-cmbodied state. But who were
the " Ihey themselves " who persecuted the apostle ? Mr.
Cobb says the Pharisees, and we grant he is right lor once,
which is })roved from the ])receding verse. Now Paul said
he ho})ed for the resurrection of the dead, both of the just
and the unjust, as the Pharisee.; also allowed, (nideiilly, a.H
Mr. Cobb asserts, to sho\v they Iia'l no cause for condemning
him, as their doctrine was identical with Ids own. Then
Paul must have jn-eached that the just and the unjust would
be raised ii<. Just, and unjust, for this was the doctrine of the
Pharisees. If Paul meant the}' would all be just in the res-
urrection, then he could not say "which they themselves
also allow ". for they allowed no such thing, but taught that
the wickec' wouM be raised to condemnation and punish-
ment. Li the veiT next vei'sc Paid says, "And herein do

136

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

"II

1 EXERCISE mysolf to always have a conscience void of of-
fence." But why '' exercise " himself in view of of the res-
urrection ? If he had thouglit with friend Cobh that the
just would be no more certain of bliss than the unjust, lie
must have known that exercising himself would have no ef-
fect upon his future condition. Such a conclusion destroys
the sense of the text.

We will quote one more text to prove that the character
of the righteous and the wicked Avill be unchanirecl in the
resurrection ; " Marvel not at this ; for the hour is coming
in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
and shall come forth ; they that have done good to the res-
urrection of life ; and they that have done evil to the resur-
rection of damnation." Many ai'C the shiftings Universal-
ists have made to dodge the plain import of this text. Jlerc
the old ciy oi'Jigurc is again resorted to Avith redoubled fury,
and every scrap that can be mustered from the pen of com-
mentators for the list eentur}' that would throw the least
nhade of their interpretation u])on the passage, no matter
what may have been the subject of the writer, is summoned
to the tight. 3Ir. Paige did his very best to ex]^lain it
siw.a}' by misapplying and misconstruing the Avritings of
Dis, Doddi'idge and Whitby; but has only ex^iosed the des-
perate demands of a desperate system. Mr. Cobb resorts
entirely to his glorious and accommodating f<Q\e\ue,oi' figiif'
ologi/, and explains the term '' graves " by referring to lj/.ek,
37:13, where that word is used in a tigurative sense. Jlence
he mal«'s out that the text refers to tho destruction of Je-
rusalfin, and ihtxi^hG rcsitfrecf inn mt'iius coinu i-Jiink. Lotus
read the jiassage to suit the exegesis of friend Cobb, ''Marvel
not at this ; for thehoui isctnning in the which all that are in
their figurative graves (graves of sin) shall hoar the tigura-
tive voice of the HgurativeSon ofdod, and shall tiguratively
come f(>rth ; they that have done goo(l(in their graves of sin)
to the tigui-ativc resurrection of figurative life ; and thoy

UNlVERSALISai rNPOUNDED.

131

that have done evil to the tigiirative rcsiirrectio:i of figuva-
tivo damnation." Here he has tigures in abuudanco ! !
This makes out that there are those who do good in their
graves of sin ; liow could they be ill their graves of sin when
doing good? ; also^ as resurrection is conversion, that those
ivho do evil in their graves of sin will be covvcrted to darn-
nation ! ! Bright indeed ! But I deny that the resurrection
here spoken of means conversion. The apostle asks the
Corinthians, who believed in conversion: " Now^ if Christ
bo preached that he rose from the dead ; liow say some
among you that there is no resurrection of the dead " ? 1
Cor, 15:12. Hence conversion cannot moan resurrection.
The word resurrection occurs in thirfij-ciglu instances, and
out of that number thirty-seven can have no other tlian a lit-
eral acceptation, and the onlyi-eason this must bo figurative
is that if literal it literally annihilates the doctrine of Mr.
C^ibb — universal salvation. The word "graves ", which is
also made figurative by applying the words of the prophet,
reveals another specimen of twistery and sophi^trj'. ''There-
fore prophesy and say unto them, thus saitli the Lord (lod ;
behold my ])oople, I Avill opv;n your graves and l>ring yoii
into the land of Israel, and ye shall know that I am the Lonl
when 1 have opened your graves, O my people, and brought
you up out oi your gravest Any man with half an eye can
see that neither is the case nor nor the language parallel.
In the prophesy it is ^' your graves ", in John '' tl>e graves'^
which is never used figuratively. It occurs eight times,
aiid in every instance can mean only the literal liabitation
of the dead. Tha following is an example: " Behold the
veil of tlio temple was rent in twain troni the lop to the
bottom, and the earth (ltd ^uake and the rocks rent; and
the graves were opened, and many bodies of the saints which
slept arose and can.uout of the graves after his resurrection,
and went into the holy city and appeared unto many".
Mat. 27:51:3. No possible means of interpretation could

i ^

tBBB"

I^^bI

l^^n

■ WKW

138

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNI^ED.

make " tlio graves " in tliis passage to mean anything but
the IKoral graves. Universalists when cornered upon the
text ggneraily talce advantage of the ignorant by asserting
that the ( ireelc word rendered graven in John 5:28, is not the
same as fhatgenerall}^ ap])lied to the literal habitation of tlie
dead, "^riiis lioAvever is ipurely false. The Greek is nemcio/?, the
very A\ord nsc<l in tlie i'ollowing ji:issages : " Jesus there-
fore again gi-o;; ing in himself cnetli to tljc (iicnioioii) gr<ive;
it K-((s (I cure, j'.nd a stone hvv u,,.)n it", John 11:38. " i\n(l
lie brought tii\e liiioii and toolc liini down and^vrapped Iiim
in tiic liiicn and hdd him in a (ncDuioii') .sT^/»?r/(?v, whicli was
hewn out of a roclc ", ]\Iark 15:4(i. ^Vnd when he was come
to tlic other side, into the counlry of the Gergesenes, there
met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the (ucni-
cidii) toml) ", ]\rait. 8:28. " V^oe unto you scribes and phari-
scos, hypoci'ites-; because ye build the tombs of t\e proph-
ets atid garnish the (jicmeia) scpitlchrcs of the righteous",
^fatt. 2;]:21>. Mv. Cobb, not lilcelv to succeed verv well in
making siicli an ignorant assertion in a commentary, takes
the op])Osite course by saying : •' Tlie general arousing or
corning tbrlh in this case is not from Ifiulcs, the invisible
recoj>tu"lo of the departed spirits, but from mnemeiois, the
tori\i)s or liurial places of ihe body. The literal resurrec-
tion '". ho continues, " is never s])olven of in the gos|)el as a
I'isii.g ;it' ihe ilesh or its ashes from mnemctois, the graves or
.'-c[tulchres, but of nuudvind from ILides.'" 8t. Paul says thnt
when tlte immortal i-esun-ection shall be consummated tlie
trium])hant exclamation shall be raised, '■ O J/ddca .' where
is thy victory?" 1 Cor. 15:55. Then we raise the 'Mrium-
jdiant exclamation ", ' O Cobb ! where is th^y victory ?' for
you are caught in the moshesof your own net; foras Hades
cannot be in this life, as all cannot be raised here, and
if they were would not constitute an "immortal resurrec-
tion " when its subjects were mortal, hence Hades must bo
itself in the future state. Then resurrection meaning con-

UNIVK11SALI8M UNFOUNDED.

139

liiiig but
ipon Iho
.ssoi'tinsjc
■^ not the
m of the
icion, the
s thorc-
i/() cfnioe;
" And
ipcd liim
hk'h was
ras eoino
OS, there
he (vrm-
tid phari-
,e id'oph-
iteoiiH ",

well in
y, takes
iisiuii: or
invisible
'ioifi, the
■esurree-
])el as a
;ravcs or
>ays tlirt
ate.d the

/ where

'Mrium-
i-y?' for
as ! lades
ere, and
I'esnrrec-

niust ho

niii^- con-

version all those now in Hades are uneonvertcd ! !

We eould, if necessary, add the inimes of nearly if not
i'\'ery one of the i;-reat erities of modern times, ^\•ho defend
the literal sense of John 5:28-2!>. Storr, Moras, Tiitmaii,
Sehott, Kuimel, Rleo an.i .Meyrr, eontend that vs. 2-1-21) are
all to Ite nnderstood as liu-ral. rauiiih says the exjfression,
'' all those in the gi'aves " "• is pertinent only with the view
to distinguish these dead ones from those called sjdrilually
dead in vs. 24-5." Olshausen ]»araj)hrases thus : '-The less
shall he outdone hy the greater. Yeti, even the gviu ml res-
surrection of the dead is the work of the Son of God ! That
the discourse is here of a p/i/z-su;/^/ resurrection aj)])ears from
the e\])ression;5 'in th.e graves ' and ' they shall go forth ' ;
and from the remark tiiat the evil as well as the j'-ood shall
I'ise." i)e VVettc takes vs. 28,2'J literally. Crusius, remark-
ing that " in the graves" cannot be allegorized a spiritual
way, refers to the linostics of Tcrtullian's day as ex-
plaining it of '' the natural man." Lucke and the very
noted and learned Thorluck agree with all our orthodox
commentators that vs. 28-29 arc to ho interpreted literally.

George Hogers, in his Pro and Con, says John 5:28-29
caimot be understood litcallv, from the fact tliat all have
done good as well tus evil; hence "you have the monstrous
conclusion that all sludl arise to life, and all shall arise to
damnation ", page 222. But how does the P'-o and Con ex-
plain it? To have reference to the coming forth oi theJoAVS
at the destruction of Jei'jsalem, fvom "their graves of super-
stition and ignorance." Then as they had done both good
and eyiV, the Pro and Con has " the monstrous conclusion
that all shall arise to life, and all shall arise to damnation "
— a conclusion as fatal to his own position as his opponents,
and yet poor blind George could not see it 1 The objection,
however does not possess the weight of a feather, for God
says, '' When I shall say to the righteous that he shall surely
live ; if he trast to his own righteousness and commit ini-

1 1

140

UMVEllSALIS.M UNVOUNDKH.

♦[uity iiU his r;(jlif(Oi(i^)i(-'ss shall not be nmnnhcnd ; l)\iL lor liis
iniiiuily that liu luilli committed he shall die for it. Ai;-ain,
"When J. shall .say uuio the wicked, thou shalt surely die ; it'
lie turn from his sin and do (hat Avhich is lawful and rii^ht,
jje shall surely live, he shall not die ; none of his sins shall
he mentioned unto him ; he hutli done thtt which is Imr/nl
and right ; he shall surely live'', Ezek. ;}8: 13-1(5. .

Another ohjoction is (hat if this mvans (he general resur-
rection, inliuus will have no part in it, for they.liave done
neidier ^9'.''^^/ nor (iwV. The man wlv) raise(l t^ii.'^- dilliculty
reminds me of tli'; genlieman sheep that run to hutt >Sam1)o,
and through his ea^'erness to hit his nu\rk, dicl noi see the
ditch before him, into which he ]>resently tumbknl. Uin-
vcrsalisls ai'o certainly one-e}ed ])hilosophers. They them-
selves admit the very point they now raisjo as an !;)hJection,
and hence its I'orce is as much against their, awn position as
oars. Xone dispute ihat Paul refers to the general resui'-
rection wJicn he speaks in Acts 2-1:15 of. the "resurrection of
the dead, Itoth of the^"(/.sY and ihe nnjnst." AVhy not use the
same reasoning here aiul deny the resurrection of infants
because tiiey are neither Just nor unji,isf ? Indeed the gen-
tlemen are guilty of the very charge they lay against our
l)remises. for as the resurrection is conversion, and as in-
fants have never sinned, consequently they can never be
raised. And thej' could not see that the objection bears
the same weight against the position that the subject mat- .
ter of the text is the destruction of Jerusalem as if taken to
be the general resurrection !

When all these little forces are driven from the held we
see the dust rising in another direction. .We admit that
Dan 12:2-o and John 5:28-29 are parallel ; hence if the for-
mer can be made out to be figurative and have reference to
the destruction of Jerusalem, the latter must have the same
signification. " And many of them that sleep in the dust
of tlie earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some

CNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

t for hia

- (lie ; if
mI riij;ht,
ins shall
is hnrfid

;il rem 11'-
ive done
litlieuity
t Sanil)o,
, ^ee *-lie
.1. Uiii-
ey tliem-
ibjectioii,
)sitioii as
•al resur-
•oction of
)t use the
infants
the gen-
iiiiist our
\(\ as in-;
lever l>e
on bears
eet mat-
taken to

field wc
niit that
'the for-
jrenco to
the same
the dust
lid Bome

to shame and everlasting contempt ; and they tliat bo wiso
.shall Blune as the brightness of the firmament, and they
that turn many to riglitcousnoss as the stars, forever and

over", Dan 12:2-:i.

It is said tliis refers to the destruction of Jerusalem ac-
cording to tlie iirst verse, " And at that time shall Michael
stand up the gi-eat prince which standeth for the children
of thy people \ and there shall be a time of trouble such
as never was since th«re was a nation even to that same
time." With this is quoted the language of Christ with
reference to the overthrow of Jerusalem^ " For there shall
l;e great tribulatioii such as was not since the beginning of
the world to this tim«, no nor never shall be ", Matt. 24:41.
It is asserted that these two texts arc parallel, but this is
unconfirmed by a particle of evidence. It is very strange
indeed that tb« first verse of this chapter in Daniel is literal
and refers to th« destruction of Jerusalem, and yet vei*se 2,
referring they say to the same movement, is all a figure !
Mr. Epger^i contends that the tribulation spoken of by Christ
was not individual but national. We admit this ; that then
was the greatest national calamity that evtir was, and, if
we are to believe the Saviour, the greatest national tribu-
lation that ever sliiill be. But what axe we to undei*stand
by the word never ? Not eternally ; no, for those who go
into everlasting punishment would not then get out in time
for the universal salvation. Then Christ meant that there
shonld not be such a thing as tribulation for a limited pe-
riod ; that is, there should be a greater one after this U7ni-
ted period had passed. But Daniel's tribulation is individual,
and this will be the greatest that ever will be. The prophet
is not speaking of the Jewish nation, but of individuals.
lie says, " Thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall
be fonnd written in the book.'* Who are his people that are
to be delivered ? If it was the Jews only, the ti-ibulation
may have been national ; but instead of the Jews being de-

" '\j'vvmt\ iijP"j>.>Vj»"'J"' 'Jw"ip)iiu#**ip*:^w*Sii

III

142

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

livoroti at tho destruction of Jorusaloiii, the}- were the very
])orsorn that Hiifferctl the tribiihition, wliich muHt be natis-
factory proof that Daniel did lioi refer to tliat event. This
exege«i« ii-t fully sustained by the last verse, '* But go thou
thy way till the end bo, for thou shalt rest and shall stand
in thy Jut at the end of the days." Itenec the prophet him-
self is to have a part in this resuri-eetion, which is over-
whelming^ evidence that it can be understood only as literal.

Another attempt to prove that this has reference to tlw)
destruction of Jerusalem is made by quotint^ verso 7, "When
he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of tho hoi}'
people, all these things shall be finished." But we can tell
Universalists then that their own shifting condemns their
assumption (hat the resurrection took place at the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem, for as it did not occur till the holy poo-
ple were scattered, and as this did not happen till after Je-
rusalem was <lestroyed, tho resurrection must also have
been after the Uostruction of that cit}-. Again, the scatter-
ing of the Jews is not yet accomplished, neither will it be
till they cease to be scattered and return to their own land.
Hence, according to the evidence of Universalists them-
selves the resurrection spoken of by the prophet is still
future.

The last attempt at cavilling is made with the phi-aee
*' Many of them ^ It is asked, *' If this teaches the doctrine
of the general resurrection why did tho prophet limit the
number of those wdio were to be involved in it b}' the use
of the word ' many ' ; why not say ^ alV " f But if those
gentlemen use the term " many " in one instance to mean
the entire posterity of Adam, why object to its being equally
extensiv^e in meaning in another ? To prove that all will be
restored to primeval bliss they quote Eom. 5:19, " For as by
one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the
obedience of one shall many be made righteous." If the word
many here, in either instance, does mean the entire popter-

ITNIVERSAI TSM UNFOUNDED.

1-13

Iho very
bo Biitis-
nt. Thi»
t go tliou
liall sUind
|»l»ot him-
is over-
as literal.
ic'O to tho
f, "When
f tho hoi}'
e can tell
mna their
'. doHtruc-
holy poo-
l after Jc-
also have
lO scatter-
will it be
own land.
ists thcm-
lot is still

ho phi-aec
doctrine

limit the
jy tho use
t if those
c to mean
ig equally
all will be
• For as by

80 by the
f tho word
iro poster-

ity of Adam, Ihon Univcrsalists have no l»usii'0S8 to quoto
this text to prove their dogma of universal salvation. Ihit
tho many that sleep in the dust of the earth, as coutemjihi-
t<Ml b}' Daiiiol, with those who ma}' remain alive u]K)n tho
earth at tho <Mid of time will iMcludo tho whole hnman
race, for " we shall not nil sleep (or die), hut we shall all
bo changed ", 1 Cor. 1,):51. "Then we which are alive and
remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds
to meet the Lord in iho air ", 1 Tliess. 4:17. But oven all
those who Avero ; ,ee])ing in the dust of tho earth when
Daniel penned those words will vr^i rise in the general res-
urrection as some of tliem arose at the resurrection of Ch/ist.
" And the graves were opened and many bodies of the saints
which jih'pt arose and came out of the graves after his resurrec-
tion and went into tho holy city and appeared unto many "
Matt. 27:52-53. No one would suppose those saints died
again and Avent into the dust of the eartli, for this would he
dying twice, wlion " it is appointed unto men once to die.''
The only consistent conclusion is that they went with Christ
on his asconsioi\ to heaven, and he shall again return with
them, fin* ho '•^sluill so come in like mnivr;'" for "Jkdiold thu
Lord cometh Avith ton fhonsfindofhis sitinfs ", Jude 15. We
noAV very clearl}' see hoAv Daniel could say " Many of them
that sleep in the dust of tho earth shall aAvako (at tho gen-
eral resurrection — not all of them, as some aAvokc with the
resurrection of the Saviour; hut all that remain Avill come
forth at the resurrection of the just and the unjust) some to
CA'crlasting life, and .some to shame and everlasting con-
tempt,"

I haAx», 710W proved that the Avickcd Avill bo brought to
suffer just and deserved punislimont in the future state.
First, from the scripture testimony of the death of the sin-
ner, an event Avhich etif'ccts no change in the soul, but
morel}'- seals the condition in Avhich it then exists. Second,
from tlic conditionality of final happiness as taught l;y the

|:i

^
'

144

CNIVERSAUSM UNP()fr5ri<K/<.

New Testament scriptures. Third, i'vom thi* reHnrrwfiofi^
which heiiJij a ])hysiciil cluvn^e will have iiooiroct upon the
soul, hut that the just and the iinjast will still retain tho
charnetor in which they died ; and we add, Fourthly, that
as wo have jirovcd that a day of judi<;n>ent wilt take place
at tho end of time, hotbre which the entire iH>sterity of
Adam will he assembled, tho presumption in that acquittal
jind condemnation must follow tho decisions of* that trihunal.
Under this head we have also shown that thin world it^ not
a state of perfect rotrihution ; that here vice swa}'s the
sceptre over virtm% which often receives tho ptiiKshment
due to crime, while vice boars off tho rcwiirtl liao to virtue ;
that the scriptures teach that tlio righteous and tho wicked
will be rewarded according to their works, at the second
advent of Christ, which, as wo have abundantly demonstra-
ted will not take place till tho end of time. Christ himself
has placed tho seal upon this doctrine of orthoiloxy, that tho
wicked will be punishtnl for thoir sins in eternity. One
remark from his lips is suftioicttt for us to cite hero, and
although Universtilists have tried to get around it, wo will
clear it of all tho taints of sophistry and In'ing it up in clear
bold relief as indubitable evidonco to our position. " Fear
not thom which kill tho body, but are not able to kill the
soul ; but vathoj" fear him which Is able t/) dostro}' l)Oth
soul and body in hell ", Matt. 10:28. If there is moaniniSf
attached to words Christ taught in those sentences that there
was an object whom the disciples should fear, and this could
not havo been man, for he is sim])ly able to destroy tho
body, whereas, Christ says not to fear him who can kill cmly
tho I'ody, but to fear him " who is able to destroy both soul
and l»ody in hell ", which can only he understorxl of God
himself. ''To destroy both soul and body iii ludl ", as Mat-
thew has it, is explained by Luke to simpiy moan to cast
into hell, as his words are, " who hath ])ower to cast into
hell ' Luke 12:5. Tho parallel passage in Luke reads,

ITNI VERSA MSM INFtiUNDED

145

ipoii Ihf
lain thu
ily, that
kc jjlaco
ority of
ic^iiittal
iriHunal.
kl i.i not
'jiys the
trshment
> virtue ;
3 wicked

second
rnonslra-
t himself
, that the
y. One
ere, and

wo will

^ in eleax*

" Foar

kill tho
I'o}* both
nioanmsf

ill there
[lis could
;troy the
kill only
joth soul

1 of God
, as Mat-
in fo cast
cast into

Kc reads,

" And 1 say unto yoii, my IViciids be not iilVaid of ihein that
Jiill the h(t(l1f and after that have no more that they can do;
but I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear ; foar him which
after he hath killed hath jKjwer to cast into hell." Hero il
is as plain as the sun-linht of mid-day that there is a luH or
j»lace of jmiiishment to which Ihe wicked are o.vposod nffcr
the death of the. body, and whi( h may be avoidetl by our up-
right conduct in this life, or why arc we conimanded to
foar?

To explain away those texts Universallsts assert that the
Houl here means the animal life; the one whom thoy were
to fear was the ruler of the Jews ; and the hell means the
valley of llinnom. But (he soul cannot mean the animal
life, because, 1. To destrt^y the body is destroying the ani-
mal life, and hc»ce it is all nonsense to talk of destroying
both soul and body. This exposition miJces out that C-hrist
tilloged nothing in his rciuArk and contradicted himself to
boot. To suit their exegesis Universalisto must read it
thus : '' Fear not them wdncli kill the body (i. r. destroy the
animal life), but are not able to kill the soul (i. e. the ani-
mal life) ; but rather fear him who after he hath killo 1 the
body (t. e. the animal life) is able to destroy both soul and
body in hell "; or, " Fear not them which kill the animal
life, but are not able to kill the animal life ; Init rather fear
him who is able to destroy both animal life and animal life
in hell." Who over heard such consummate nonsense !
This not oidy makes the Saviour to teach that ma^j haa
power to destroy the (inimal life, but that he is also able to
destroy the animal life ; and besides that some other person
is 80 powerful that after he has destroyed the animal life is
able to destroy it twice more in the valley of llinnom ! !
2. It ift seen in the passinge from Luke that this destruction
of soul and body in hell is to take place offer the death of
the body, that is, after the animal life is destroyed — " who
4KTEU he hath hilled hath power to cast into hell." The word

: js

™™=^.j«h j

1 1. ':

14C

UNIVERSALISM UNB'OUNDED.

kill here is from (ipoktclno, wliioh Donnegan defincH, "to
Id 11, slay, slaui;-hter ; freqiicntiy to torture, torin*ent, render
miserable, destroy, remove, take awa3\" I mention this to
show that the word ^Uhstruj/'\ as Matthew has it, cannot
possibly mean annihihition, a conclusion Universalists try
to force upon their oi>]ionents when told that Goi.'. will " de-
stroij both soul and oody in hell."

But who were the disciples commanded to fear ? Not
man. for the Lord says, " Fear none of those things that
shall come u])on you ", Ilev. 2:10. Paul says, " In nothing
be terrilie<I by j'our adversaries". Ph. 1:28, and exclaims,
" The Loi'd is my helper and 1 will not fear what man shall
do unto me ", Ilcb 13:*J Paul must have disobeyed Christ,
lor. according to I ni\.:rsalism, Christ taught him to fear
mnti. '• Honor all men ; I eve the brothorliood ; /^a/- God ;
honor the king", 1 Pvt. 2:17. " Serve the Lord with fear
and rejoice with trembling", Ps. 2:iU It is })lain then that
we should fear God and not nmn. " Be not ufrtild of them
that kill the l>ody luit after that have no more that they can
do." Mr. Cobb has got sick of their old theory, on account
of its absurdities, and he)ife in his comment on Matthew
10:28 says : " it aj)pears from tlie nature of the subject to
be a puniiilimait from the hand of God '\ that is, the destruc-
tion of the soul and the body i8 "a punishment from tho
hand of God." I see Mr. (.obb has a new wrinkle ujxm this
passage. He reads the last part of it, " Fear him which
after Jie hath ajjlicfrd (instead of klUed) hath power to cast
into hell." Skinner in his discussion with Campl>ell stub-
bornly urged tliat the word killed here meant utter extinc-
tion of being. Mr. Forbes says, " it proves annihilati(m if it
proves anything " (l^niversalist Assistant p. 221) ; and T.
B. Thayer : " if it teaches wbat is certain and not what is
possible only, it necessitates the doctrine of annihilation "
(History of the Doctrine of I'^ndle.^s Punishment, ]). 135).
So Halfour av.d lTos]n«a Ballon. Scc(md. T>. 1). And Dr. Dods

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

147

.OB, " to

, render
1 this to
, cannot
itsts try
^ill " de-

•? Not
igs that
nothing
■celaims,
an shall
[ Christ,

to fear
ar God ;
ith fear
ion that
jf them
hey can
account
latthew
bjoct to
lestruc-
•oni the
[)()n thlB
L which

to cast
sll Ktub-

extinc-
lon if it

and T.
what iB
lution "
p. 185).
)r. D<:k1s

)

ff»ays, God actually did " kill both soul and body, i r.," he
says, " the Jewish church and religion, in the destruction of
Jerusalem"! ! ! [Short Sermons, p. 279]. Now Mr. Cobb
takes the op})osite extreme and says it does rot even mean
the extinction of the animal life, but bodily allliction. Any-
thing to close the mouth of revelation and prevent the truth
of God from destroying a preconceived inm. Of course the
only quibble that it was po.ssible for Mr. Skinner to raise to
keep the passage from teaching post-mortem puni?<hment
was to cast a blur upon the doctrine of orthodoxy, by mak-
ing the word " kill " or "destroy" teach ma tar iolism, not
considering of cour.se that such an exposition is as mucii
ag'iinst Universalism, if it be after death, as against their
opponents. But we have one evidence to present that will
meet all such trifling in the future. It is this: Sj)irits arc
tmiriorkdy and therefore cannot be annihilated. Jesus says,
" neither can tliey die any more, for they arc equal unto the
an-geh " — imniorttd. And as the wicked are to bo cast into
everlasting tire with the devil and his angel.s ; and as these
angels will ever exist, as they cannot die, the wicked being
as immortal as thev, will eternally exist also. I-)r. Adams'
remarks upon this point are good. "Some say," he ol 'serves,
" It must be annihilation. But the valley of llinnom is no-
toriously symbolical of pcrj^etuiti/, the fire always l>urning,
the worm ever breeding. Why, moreover, sJKjiild any
place be speciti(Ml in which the annihilation, which is the
name thing ever fjii'jicre, should occur ? Desti'oying holli soul
and body in liell seems to be equivalent to that e.\i)ression,
— " everlasting destruction " — [2 Thess. 1:9] ; an .-qiparent
conti'adietion of terms, but convoying the idea of ])cr])etual
loss and misery" [Adams and Cobb, p. 21], Wlia! to d(^
with the word hell hero, to suit his emergency. Mr. Cobb
does not know. At one time he attempts fi) mak-. i! moan
the literal valley of Ifinnom, but is met by th^' objection
that men inflict tluit pun;sluo.ont as well us G(^(l. mwl honco

lis

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

• f

ChriHt tjavo no reason whv God should bo feared more than
man. At another that it is used tiguratively, and refers to
the destruction of Jcru; aieni ; but sees that the most of the
disciples had died before tliat event, and lience were not ex-
posed to it. And j'ct at another that it refers to some judg-
ment of which we have no particular knowledge or idea,
only that ''this judgment, whatever may have been the en-
gines of its execution, was eminently denominated the judg-
ment of God," This reminds me of the objection raised bj^
the Pro and (V^n. " The second fact is that the body, which
those whom they were told not to fear had tlie power to
kill, is not liable to destruction in a hell beyond the grave,
but returns to the dust of the earth from whence it originated.
How then can gehenna [hell] in this instance imply a place
of torment in a future state ? It cannot! " p. 276. Here Mr.
Rogers denies that gehenna can mean a place of punish-
ment after death, in which "soul and body" will bo cast,
bccauhC he says the body will return to the earth from
whence it originated. But turn to page 343 of that same Pi*o
and Con and we read, " Paul assuredly speaks of « rising again
of the same IhhIij ichich is laid in the graved This shows
tliat Universalists know not what they believe, and that
thej'^ assert in one breath what they dony in the next.

Dr. John ]iovee Dods, in his '* Thirty fehort Sermons ", p.
2(n, (litters from all other Universalists in slipping this
texl in Matthew overboard, and as his farrago is now gen-
erally considered beyond the criticism of orthodoxy, we
give it particular notice. He ex])lains the phrase "soul
and body" as " a common proverb of that day ", and quotes
Isa. 10:18 au'^ Dr. Clarke's comment on that ])assage to il-
lustrate and confirm his vimvs, affirming that Christ was
rcfcrj'ing to the destruction of the Jews politically and re-
ligiously at the overtlirow of Jerusalem, " Burnijig them up
root (ind hranrh [iis Malachi ch. 4:1 has it], and 'destroying
tjiem sold (ii'd hodii ' in Gehenna fire. I Consider," he remarks,

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

149

)re than
cfor8 to
it of the
J not ex-
no judg-
or idea,
I the en-
he judg-
lised by
:, which
owcr to
e grave,
iginatcd.
r a place
lere Mr.
punish-
be cast,
th from
[\rae Pi*o
ng again
iH shows
and that
icxt.
ons", p.
ing thin
ow gen-
loxy, we
HO " soul
1 1 quotOH
ige to il-
irint was
and re-
thom up
s troy ing
remarkH,

♦' as parallel passages" ; and to avoid the chai'gc of non-ability
to explain it without a proverb, ho paraphrases it thivs : " I
now enlist you in my service ; and I desire you to remain
steadfast in my cause, amidst all opposition and persecution,
till my coming, which will take place before you shall have
gone over tlic cities of Israel. And I entreat you not to fear
them who will exert all their jx>wors to kill and exterminate
the body of my church, and who will finally succeed in put-
ting ^ou, my apostles, and your first converts, as a body,
to death \ but at the same time they will never bo able to
accomplish their puipose, namely, to destroy my doctrine,
which is the truth, the life, the very somZ of the body, the
church. This is of God, and they cannot overthrow it, because
others will rise up in succession as you are slain ; and the
truth which is the life of my church will stand against all the
assaults of men. But rather fear (to<1 ; because if you aposta-
tize for fear < men and for safety l)ec()me members of tho Jew-
ish body or church, and embrace the truth of that dispensa-
tio.., which is the national life of that body, I warn you that
God is not only able to destroy the body, but also the life
— for all tho sacrifices, all the types and shadows — the whole
truth of the Mosaic dispensation must ex))irc with the body
in your national destrnction and be no mow forever ", page
280. We will express this in fewer words : " Fear not them
which kill the body of the church [Christian], Ijut are not
able to kill the doctrine ; but rather fear him who after he
hath killed the [Jewish] chnrch,hath power to cast both its
doctrine and body into hell." This is too ridiculous for
serious notice. We denounce it for the following reasons :
The bodies and souls are in both cases dilibront ; tlio fii-st is
ol'the Christian church, the other of the Jewish, when
Christ, to ull possible delection, spoke in both cases of
tho same soul and body 2. The gentleman's rig of making
" soul and body" a proverb is upset by the fact that Luke
does not use tho phniso " soul and body" at all, which ho

I ,

150

VNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

must liavc done had the place in Matthew been a proverb.
3. Men are not able to destroy the body of the CJ istian
church, for this has boon tried, and yet Christianity still
lived. 4. lie says the word gchenna or hell here was made
an emblem of a '' destruction final and irretrievable " ; still
though the soul [i. c. of the Jewish religion] was destroyed
there, that is, in the destruction of Jerusalem, yet the soul
and lodjj [tlio Jewish church] exists yet. 5. Luke makes
this text, " But rather fear him who after he hath killed
hath poAvcr to cast into hell." Now if this hell means the
destruction of Jerusalem, God killed the body (the Jewish
church) in hoU itself, that is, in Jerusalem at the time
of its destruction, which Cobb, Dods, Thomas and all
others say gehenna or hell here means. Now if Godkillo^i
the body after it was in hell, what sense is there in saying
he Avill afterwards cast both soul and body in hell when they
are already in it! ! G. It was Titus who destroyed Jeru-
salem, and Iherefore destroyed both soul and body (of the
Jewish cluirch), according to Dods. Then Christ is made
to say, " Fear not men that kill the body, but are not able
to kill the soul like Titus; but rather fear Titus himself,
who will soon destroy both soul and body (of the Jewish
church), in the ovorlhrow of Jerusalem." What a sensible
oxjto: e J)i'. Dods has so triumphantly made of this passage ! !
We now proceed to inquire what we are to understand
by (his h'll or gchenna. D cannot mean the valley of Ilin-
nom, 1. Jiecauso (lod never punished by put ting the sinner
in!o the valley of Ilinnom, anil therefore it canjiot lie the
hell here spoken of 2. Admitting the assertion makes
Christ's reason to fear G<xl no reason at all, for it was the
civil autlioi'ity among the Jews that punished with the
tires of Ilinnom, besides it requires the admission on our
part that it was that authority Christ charged his disciples
to fear, which we with Mr. Cobb deny. 3. We have seen
that the soul here mentioned cannot possibly mean any-

UNIVERSALI8M UNFOUNDED.

151

)roverb.
I istian
ity still
18 made

" ; still
istroyed
the sold
! makea
h killed
ms the

Jewish
he time
and all
xlkilloil
1 saying
1 en they
\d Joni-

(of the
is made
not able
himself,
) Jewish
sensible
issage ! !
lerstand
r of Ilin-
e sinner
t be the

I makes
was the
ivith the

II on our
disciples
ave seen
^an any-

thing but that principle which lives after the animal Hie
has become extinct, and no one could suppose that the spirit
could be killed in the va]leyof Ilinnom. Should they turn
materialists, as many of them have done already, and Mr.
Cobb among the rest, and contend that the soul and body
die together, it will not help the ease, for any other Wityof
killing the body would destroy the soul as w j11 as the flames
of llinnom, and here again the Saviour is made to utter the
most conflicting nonsense.

The only reasonable and indeed possible conclusion to be
arriv td at is this, that this destruction of soul and body will
take place after the resurrection of the liody, for mark the
fact, the soul and body are to be destroyed after the dejttli of
tlic body. And as this death is iherefore not th.e first death
or death of the bod}-, and as the Saviour speaks of it as kill-
ing the soul, it follows that the language has reference to
ihG second dt'Kth. John the beloved disci])le, who was by
and heard these words, defines this gehennaor hell as " the
place which burnetii with fire and brimstone, v-Jiich /.s the
second death.'' Josephus, who lived in the days of Christ,
in his discourse on llaJos says : " In this region (in the
spirit world) there is a certain place set aj^art as a lake of
unquenchable fire, whereinto we suppose no one hath hith-
erto been cast ; but it is prepared for aday aforedetermined
by God." This is called hell by the same writer. Ilesa3's
there are angels set over the souls of the wicked who " drag
them into the neighborhood oi' hell itself '\ which appears
to them as '^ a terrible and exceeding great pr.:>spect of tire."
How strikingly similar are the words of Josephus to those
of the revelator. Both denominate hell a lake of fire. The
Saviour also used the same terms as this Jewish writer, i. c.
unquenchable fre, everlasting frc, &c. Josephus says no one
has ever yet been cast into this lake of fire, and Christ's ex-
pressions evidence to this identical doctrine, for he speaks
of this '' everlasting fire, prepaked for the devil and his

152

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

■Hi

aii^:olfs ", wliich iiiliinates thiit thoy luid not yet entered upon
that piiiiishniciit, bur it is j9re/jar«7. Thin is dtjiihtlesH the
reason Christ in the tt xt under consideration used the words
is able, that is, ho is able to do it, notwithwtandin^j; such an
act has never been done. I am aware that very many or-
thodox believe that the devil is in hell with the wicked, who
they imagine are cast there as soon as they die, and Uni-
versalists do not forget to cast a contemptiK)us wmile at the
idea of bringing the wicked out of iiv,U to be judged. This
mistake however arises from the Greek words geheima and
hades, both being translated 7te//, Wlien Christ was about
to cast out the devils, which he permitted to go into the
the herd of swine, they exclaimed, " Art thou come hither
to torment us hrfore the time " ? Matt. 8:29. This shows
that they understood a place of to/ment was prepared for
them. John speaking of the actuai punishment of Satan
uses this same word " torment." •• And the devil that de-
ceived them was east into the lake of fire and brimstone *
* * and shall be tormented day and night, forever and
ever ", Eev. 20:10. "And the smoke of their torment aseendeth
up forever and ever ". llev. 14:11. But it is said that hell
cannot mean the lake of tiro, because the apostle says death
and hell shall be cast into the lake of fire, and this would
be casting hell into itself. No one, however, would make
this remark but a man of ignorance, for while the lake of
fire, or gehenna, is hell it is hades (translated hell it ia true)
that is to be cast into it. " And death and hades wore cast
into the lake of fire (or gehenna) '*, Rev. 20:14-

Ah a last resort, when driven by the force of eridence to
admit that such a place as holl exists as a place of punish-
ment in the future state, it is urged that the words " is able "
only teach the power of God, but not that he will destroy
both soul and body in hell. But God ia not ablo to destroy
soul and body in hell if no such place as hell exists. It is
all nonsense. But the inference is not that he will not do

trNlVEHSAIJ.SM UNFOUNDED.

15:^

red upon
tlcsH the
lie words
such an
nany cr-
eed, who
and Uni-
le at the
d. This
iima and
as about
into the
LC hither
is shows
tared for
of Satan
that de-
istone *
)ver and
seendeth
:hat hell
-ys death
is would
Lid make
3 lake of
t ia true)
rore cast

dence to
f punish-
'is able"
destroy
) destroy
>s. It is
11 not do

it, but rather that he lias not yet done it. To alfirin ihc
former would be to charge the Saviour with the most ridic-
ulous trifling in holding out as an inducement or a reason
why his disciples should fear God, a punishment that did iu>\
or could not exist, and one to which no n)an ever w.'is «>r
will be in the slightest degree exposed. Such a course
may serve the cause of Universalism, but anyotlicr it*.N)ul(l
not serve. But we .shall show that the Scripture <loctriiu'
of Gud being tihle to do a thin'g is proof that he will do it :
and this we will do in sucli away that if Universalistsdcny
the proof they will as strongly deny the very evidences thov
summon to prove their doctrine of Universal salvaiion :
"Whereby he is uhh even to subdue all things unto him
self". Ph. 3:21. Does not tlie word able prove that he Avill
subdue ail things unto himself? Universalists say -u am!
make this one of their strongest proof texts. Agaiiv,
'* Wherefore he is ai^'? alsc> to save them to tho uttermosi
that come unto (fod by iiim ", lleb. 7:25. Ail Christiai: ex-
positors admit that tliis is .synonymous with saying, "hi'
?oi7Z save to the uttermost." Indeed Universalists. tlKyugh
they deny that the disciples were in the least dangei- of the
gehcnnaor hell of which Christ here speaks, actually vt<j
their own words by turning around and lighting to make
the word gehenna mean, as does Mr. Cobl), some great tcni
poral punishment, of which they were of course in danger
When all these little men of straw are tlriven from the fie ul
we hear such sarcastic interrogatories as these : Where ;-
hell? Who was ever there or saw it? You .say tiie devil i>
out of hell and going about like a roaring lion seeking to kili
somebody i who. ever saw him ?; and a host of (»ther ihi,
isenso, only the throes of a dying cause. Vvc might in turn
ask, Where is heaven? Who was ever there or saw ii /
Christ says, '^Nomnu hath ascended into heaveii ", John 3.13
Who ever saw God? "No man huth seen trod at any
time." Where is the hell of Universalism, and who ever

yr]

154

univehsalis.m unfounded.

Haw it ? I have hoard of porsona getting icsido thcm.solvot?,
but never i«sidc, or in tlio Universalist hell. In short
thin logic that would deny the oxiBtonco of hoUorthedovil,
would also den}^ heaven and tlio being of a God.

The ])hraso " .second death " is anything but pleasant to
Univcrsalists. They generally try to twist it into some kind
of «ha})e that will admit the go-by, as for instance, Mr. Cobb
in his discussion with Ilev. ]\rr. Hudson, says it moans, "the
second dissolution of the Jewish church anrl st^ate ", or, as
he expresses liimself in his commontmy, " their second na-
tional death." To make this plausible ho refers ihe^rst
and second resurrections to time, and makes hades, which
Univcrsalists contend is the place of the dead, as figui'ative
of earthly calamity, and yet, strange to say, none of tho
wicked were in it but Jews, and they were of course righ-
teous as well as wicked. Hero they make out that tho
righteous are cast into the lake of tiro with the wicked, and
the de . il to boot, for hades and Satan aro both to bo cast
into it, Eev. 20:10-11. Sui'oly tho Jews were eitlior righ-
teous or wicked, and as such would rank in one resuiTcction
or the other ; either in the first, whose subjects are blessed,
V. 0, or in the second, wliich is ofcour.se that of Uio wicked ;
but it 80 happens that John speaks of neitlier as from the
lake of tire. The phrase "second death "stands no way
connected with things national, but is in the four in-
stances in which it occurs ivwariahly j)crsomd. The follow-
ing are the examples : " Ijo thou faithful unto death, and I
will give thee a crown of life. He that overcometh shall not
be hurt of the second death". Rev. 2:10-11. No one would
say doalh in the first sentence was anything but temporal,
or the death of the body; and as we do not overcome till
we die, tiie second death must be after wo die. "Blessed
and holy is he that hath part in tho first resurrection ; on
such the second death hath no power", ch. 20:0. Ilerc again
it is personal, as shown by tlic pronoun he. '•' And they were

i.sclvot^,
I short
cdovil,

sant to
10 kind
:r. Cobb
IB, "the

, or, as
Olid na-
tho Jirst

which
^ui'ative
) of tho
BO righ-
Lhat tho
cod, and
bo cast
or righ-
tTcction

blessed,
idckcd ;

cm tho
no way
four in-

follow-
h, and I

hall not

would

mporal.
lomc till

Jjlcsscd

*ion ; on

ro again
icy wort'

UNlVEliisAlilSM UNFOUNDED.

155

judged, every man according to their works ; and irhoao'
<vcr (t. c. he who) waH not found written in the book of life
wa^4 cjittt into the lake of iire ; thiH i» the second death ", ch.
20.14-15. " But the fearful and unbelieving, and tlie abom-
inable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and norcerers,
and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their jjurt in the
lake which burnetii with lire and brimstone, which is the
wxiond death ", ch. 21:8. AM 2)ersonal / This expression
was common among the Jews, and they always used it (to
cito the words of Dr. Hammond, who is quoted on this very
plirase by Paige) " to denote such a death, from which there
is no release * ^- * the notion of utter destruction,
final, irreparable excision." Take the following as exam-
ploti • " Every idolater who says there is another Clod be-
nidos me, I will slay with tho second death, from which no
man c-an come to life again " (Pirke E. Elieso, c. 3-4),
** Lot Keuben live and not die the second death by which
the ungodly die in the world to come " (Targum of .Jerusa-
lem on Dcut. 33:()). " ThiL hath been decreed by the Lord,
that this sin shall not be forgiven them until they die the
Hocond death" (Targum on Isa. 22:14). David Kimclii,
one of tlio ablest Jewish doctors, says the Targumist means
'* tho death of the soul in the world to come." How forci-
bly this agrees with the words of Christ: " who after he
hath killed hath power to destroy both soul and body in
hell " (gohenna) or the lake of lire, which is the second
doiith. Joscphus speaking of those who will be cast into
tho lake of lire says, " to these belong the unquenchable tire,
and that without end.'' Wh ) can read this and yet say those
who dio the second death may still be saved ! ! !

Whether the book of Revelation was written before or
after the destruction of Jerusalem is a point of some inter-
est, but is still unsettled. Universalists of course have
brought forward all the evidences that can be mustered, to
hhow it v,-as written previous to that event. This they un-

15(t

CNIVERSAMSM UNFOtNDfir)

(l('i>taii(l would I)C' imich in tlieir favour, for if it appears
th.'i! i! was written aftcrtmrds, then thoso passages which
sjicak ot'tiio roHurrcction, iu(lij:nicnt and rccoikI death would
1k', on their systcan of interpn tuti<>ii, incx])lical)le, as they
ure all explained a.s referring to tho destruction of Jerusa-
lem , and would thoretore go to ]>rove the correctness of tho
orthodox doctrine of judgment and future punishinent. Sir
Is4ac Newton supposetl that this book was written heforo
the destruction of Jerusalcju, from its being " fuller of He-
braisms than John's (rospol ", which he thought would in-
dicate its earlier date. Sir Isaac is followed by Dr. Adam
I'larke, not from any ])articular evidence, but from th« o^in-
i(»i that internal evidence is in favor of the early date.
Ml" Wiiittemoro has conjured up all the internal arguments
possible from ch. 1:7, 6':10, 11:1-2-3-8, 17:10, in favour of its
i-arly composition ; but whisn thoroughly examined are not
tiveii worthy of notice, as his arguments throughout are
based and mananivred on Univcrsalist theories and asser-
tions Indeed the fii*st reference [(di 1:7] is proof tliat the
Book directs, not to the overthrow of Jerusalem, but to tho
end of time, when tho times of the GeiitilGs will be fulfilled
But we have reliable evidence that tho Book of fiovelation
was written after Jerusalem w.is destroyed. Irena-us, an
nj)right author among the ancient fathers, expressly states
diat this is tho fact; and ho Ih to bo creilitcii in preference
to any other evidence as he was a devoted disciple of P»>ly-
(.•ar]>, wh<t was the contemporary and affectionate disoipl*
of John himself. Prof. Stuart says : "As Polycai-p wnsth*
personal friend and attendant of John, bo was Iri^nans of
Pol^-tarp." The editor of tho ''Universalist Ex|>ositor "
>a}'s : " If we were to judge from tho balance of historical
testimony we should place '.ts date rt/i'er that event, or alxmt
I lie year ninety-six * * * Eusebius, in the fourth cen-
tury, is the first to mention the time of St. John's banish-
ment to Patmos. where he saw the Revelation ; and he ro-

DNIVERSALIflM UNFOUNDED

157

which
would
IS thev
Jornsu-
s of the
U Sir
hi^foro
• of IIo-
mld in-
. Adiini

y dato.
umontfi
ir of its
arc Jiot
out ar»*
d assor-
hat th(>
t to the
■uliiIlo(i
vehition
ii'us, an

• stutOrt

fcronee
ofPoly-
disoipl*
wns th*
nans of
Kjsitor "
istorical
or alwut
rth cen-
]>anish-
1 ho ro-

iiiv» it, on what authority we know not, tothu reign of Domi-
tian. and adds that ho was liberated on the accession of the
«;mperor Nerva, which took place A. D 96 There is in-
deed an ambiguous passage in an earlier and more compe-
tent witness, Irenjuus, wliich has generally boon understood
to authenticate this stateiaent, and to aswjrt that the Eevc-
lation w&H seen at tlie end of Domitian's reign * ^k *
These are all the historical notices concerning the date of
Ihe b(X)k, which are of any im])ortance, for the Htatemcnts
of Jerome arc probably bounded on tliose of Eusebius ; and
iiH to the contrary representatioBs tometiraes quoted from
Epiphanius, who refers it back to about the year fifty, nobody
acquainted with the romancing habit of this writer ought to
attach the least weight to them." It is worthy of remark
that all those orthodox ccmimentators who believe in the
earlier date of the book, unanimously explain the resurrec-
tion, judgment, and lake of fire, as pointii.g directly to those
events which they contend aa certain to take place at tJie
<?Dd 0^ time.

■"'II

i3i

III

\ 4

Mil

V-i .

•

CHAPTER IV.

ENDLESS PUNISHMENT.

haM boon fully shown, as UnivorsalistH aro Iwund
to admit, that tho futuro state will bo ono of rowards
and punishmonts. It is, however, denied as a last
struggle, in the face of all the testimony we have adduced,
that gohenna punishment is after death, and that post-mor-
tem punishment is endless. By a series of swindling in
keeping with every phase of their theology, it is made out
that the words in the Greek text translated eternal, everlast-
ing and forever, aro limited in thoir signification ; still none
have yet attempted to fix their mathematical extent, ex-
ec] )t Mr. Winchester, who maintains that tho heinousness
of some sins will detain the offender in chastisment for
144,000 years. But I will, after treating \\\y)n tho plfxce of
punishment in the future world, show beyond the powers of
successful controversy, that those woi-ds will bear no such
limitation as Universal ists assign them, and that if tho Bi-
ble bo true, this punishment must necessarily be endless.
Tho doctrine of Mr. Winchester, that the wicked aro uni-
versally subjected to post-mortem discipline and purifica-
tion, is advocated when driven to tho extremity by all tho
loading spirits of the doctrine of Universal salvation. This
was tho ground taken by Mr. Austin, who reprosontod Uni-
versalism in his discussion with Mr. Holmes. This doctrine
of the chuix.'h traces its rise to Origen. who flourished in
the third centurj- and is claimed as a Universalist, but
only so because his idea of hell suits thoir doctrine and

t>>%'',

UNIVER8ALI8M UNFOUNDED.

16 9

bound

rowardtj
) a lost
idducod,
)OHt-mor-
dling in
nado out
, cverlast-
till none
tont, ex-
nousness
nont for

place of
lowers of

no Huch
f the Bi-

ondlosB.
aro uni-

purifica-
Y all tbo
ion. This
itod Uni-
1 doctrine
rishod in
alist, but
trine and

ionclH to support the assertion of its antiquity. It is agreed
on all hands that ho imbibed this notion from Plato. In-
deed, it was from this same Origen that the church of Homo
first received this doctrine of purgatorial i)urification, and
hence Itomanism and Univorsalism are olV-shoots of the
same parent stock ; and it will be found on comparison,
that the latter is but the former refined. The liomanists
divide sins into two classes, mortal and venial. Mortal sins
oxiKwe the sinner to endless sull'erings, while the venial
may bo expiated by personal suffering. On the other hand
Universalists have but one cK'iss of sins, that is all arc veni-
al. The Itoman Catholic purgatory is '* a state or place af-
ter death in which the souls of persons are purified, or in
which they expiate such offences committed in this life as
do not merit eternal damnation," (Webster.) The Univer-
ealist purgatory ** is a state or place after death (or in this
life, or both) in which the souls of persons aro purified, or
in which they expiate all their offences committed in this
life, which [Univei-salists contend] do not merit eternal
damnation." The only difference in the two purgatories is
thatthe Romish provides expiation only for venial sins, while
the Univorsalist purgatory embraces all offences. The
Universalist system is therefore more fully and proi)erly a
purgatory than tliat of Popery. The Rev. John Murray,
who is regarded as the foundorof Univorsalism, proclaimed
this system of universal reformation of the wicked. On
page 295 of his Biogi'aphy we note the following: " But as
this does not seem to be glatl tidings to every creature, wo
would say to the unjust, who must suffer for their sins, that
their sufferings shall finally bring them to God ; tliat when
they have suffered as much as the justice of God shall de-
mand, so that on scrutinizing the account it shall appear
that the sinner \um j)aicl the uti7iost farthing, then they shall
come forth from the deep dungeon, where by the grace of
Josus Christ thcj' have been enabled to suffer so much, and

i '.n

' I

!()(»

UNIVEIISALISM UNFOUNDED.

11'

ill

. I

ill

give glory to him, who by sull'cring so much in his own
person, rendered it possible fur them to oltain saloadon hy
their own deeds and siijfemigs." llere is righteousness by the
huv; but Paul says: " If righteousness come by the hiw,
then Christ is d' id in vain ", Gab 2:21 ; and that '' by the
deeds of the law there shall no llesh be justified," l^m. 3:20.
Christ is no Saviour ; it is punishment that saves. Punish-
ment must be inllicted; from it there is no salvation, and
it yioldeth the peaceable fruits of righteousness to them that
are exercised tlierel)y. Sin is the cause of punishment and
the eftect aniiiliilates the cause. Universalists have cer-
tainly introduced a now system of reasoning, but it possesses
this remarkable feature, that it dilicrs from all others in
being oppo.sed to the deductions of common sense.

Univcrsali^ts liave claimed others besides C>rigen ; indeed
a great number, both of ancient and modern, as defenders
<d" their system. The Basillidians and Carpocratians are
regarded by them as ancient Universalists, not particularly
ti) defend their principles, but to show their antiquity,
while some ol" the most unsuspected orthodox philosophers
and divines of ?noderij times are laid siege to as supporters
of tinal restitution, as for instance, vSir Isaac Newton and
his contemporary and friend, Kev. Mr. Whiston, the well
known translator of Josephus ; also Dr. Thomas Dick, the
learned Thorluck, Moshiem, Dr. Jiurnet, Bishop Newton,
Dr. S. Clarke, Dr. Young, and others, men whose principles
MS orthodox arc unsullied, and who would no more advocate
I lie doctrine of Ballou or Cobb t.han they would that of
Kneedland or Paine. Kev. K. E. Guild in his U. Book of
References, after mentioning above one hundred and fifty of
the most distinguished preachers,scliolars and divinosof mod-
ern times, whom ho claims as Universalists, among whom are
ranked, in addition to those mentioned above, Dr. Franklin,
Dr. Isaac Watts, Dr. Philij) Dodderidge, Dr. Edward Young,
Dr. Samuel Johnson^ Dr. James MacKnight, the goutlemau

UNIVERSALrSJr UNFOUNDED.

161

reraarkn, that " it is known that Univcrsalism is believed
by Bome of the Unitarians of this country, both of clergy
and laity; that a belief in this doctrine prevails to a con-
siderable extent among the ITicksite Quakers, and tliat it
is generally embraced by the Shakers, and by the Tunkers
or German JJaptiHts " ; and to cap the climax, adds that
" there arc some very good reasons for believing that the
celebrated John Wesley was aUnivcrsalist ", p. 371-5. ^Ir.
Austin in his discussion with Kolmes, p. 663, when asked
for the names of some of the martyrs to his ctULse. broughl;
up " thist tndy learne<l and Christian Unitarian and Uni-
versalist and renowned Dr. Priestly ", and " the Quakers
(the Orthodox: (Quakers, for they of that name only existed
then) who were whipped, banished and hung by the Ev(in-
gelicals of Masiin<'hnsctts'\ff The gentleman might as well
have saved himself the troul)le of mentioning names and
use<l thoir latitudinarian assertion that all the world are
members of their Church. This would have been no more
inconsistent than this same assertion of one of their wi'iters,
coupled before it was cold with*one equally remote from
tfuth, that there was not a member of their church in u
])rison ar penitentiary in the whole of the United States ! !
But lot us hear the testimony of Moshiem, who is claimed
its a Universalist, on the character af the ancient ]^a.sil!i-
dians and Carjtocratians, that Universalists may have a IF
the beiR>fit of their atlinity to these sects. After de})icting
the- character of Basillidos, Moshiem remarks : " It is cer-
tain that he was far surpassed in impiety by Carpocrates,
who carried the Gnostic blasj)lurmies to a more enornioii.''
degree of extravagance than they had ever been brought
by any of that sect * * * He maintained the ttirtuty
of corrupt matter and the creation of the world from it by
angelic powers * * * Bvit besides these he }»r()j)agaled
sentiments and maxims of a horrid kind. He asserted that
Jesus was born of Joseph and Ilary, according to the ordi-

r''l

102

UNIVERSALISM UNPOUNPED.

4 ,

nary eourtso of nature * * -^ His doctrine also, wiih
respect to practise, was licentious in the highest degree,
for he not only allowed his disciples full liberty to sin, hut
recommended to them a vicious course of life, as a matter
both of ohlii^ation and necessity, asserting thai eternal sal-
vation was only attainal)le by those who committed all sort«
of crimes, and daringly tilled U]» the cup of their iniquity,"
(Church History p. 74). These are the characters witK
which Universalists claim relationship, and we confess
there are points of identity between the isms, as for in-
stance, that sin is over-ruled for the goo<l of the offender I 1
Mr. Bullou, Siicond, himself u standard Universalist writer,
says these seels of gnostics " retain the notion that the ma-
terial world was formed not hy the Sdf-existent but by the
inferio'' gods called Aeons, whose being was derived through
a long and intricate succession, as most of them thought,
from him. This led them to regard the Crod of the Jews,
the Jehovah of the Old Teatamcnt, ds hut a secomhiry Ining, the
princi})al maker of this world ; and they also concluded he
had npostatiz<d more or loss from the divine allegiance."
In another phice he says they held " an eventual restoration
or rather transmigration of all human souls to a heaven of
purity and hliss. iJut this tenet they appear to have iu-
volvtnl in other notions wild and ehimerical enough to war-
mnt thr >tu.y)!cion of lunoci/ were it not for the antiquity, jiro-
vaUnce and rejMUation of that whimsieal jiiiiloso])hy from
wliich they were derived ", ]>}). 31-33. This tloctrine of an-
ci»!nt Universalists, that the wurld was formed " by the
inferior gods ", reminds us of the following remarks of Mr.
Koyce : '' Universalism has a dillerent God, a dill'erent
Christ, adill'orcnt spirit, a dillerent sinner, a dillerent sin, a
dillerent atonement, a dillerent ])ardon, a dill'erent salvation,
.. tlillerent resurrection, a dilloreiit judgment, a dillerent
punislnnent, a dillerent hell, an<l adilI'er<Mithoa 'cn ; in fine,
u dill'ercnce with resjject to all the essential doctrinea of

UNIVEKSALIS.M UNFOUNDED.

1G3

Clu'istianity." ]\rr. WJiittcmorc, referring to tliis represen-
tation of Univorsalist doctrine, says : " To this we give our
Jissent. ]\Ir. Rogci'H is right. Wr confirm his words."

Tlie earliest explicit information extant concerning res-
toration from the torments of hell, is contained in the Sy-
hilline Oracles, a collection of heathen prophecies made be-
fore the coming of Christ, and piiMishod about the niiddle
of the second century, The^e are the constant go-to as
•proof that the doctrine of restorationism had an existence
among the early C'hristians, Avho, it is said, were the au-
thors of these auricles. TJ)is, however, is a sheer assump-
tion made in the face of condemnatorj' evidence; and even
Mr. Ballon condemns them as a gross forger^', " hrouyht
forth in in{(jin'fj/." Jlo also acknowledges that the fathers
of the church, who were the immediate successors of the
Apostles uniformly taught the doctrine of a future general
judgment und the future punishment of the wicked ; and
IVaidvly confesses, as he b.ad made particular in([uiry into
the doctrine of the primitive church, that he can lind l.»ut
one man who advocated the restoration of sinners from the
torments of hell. Tb.at the Syl>alline Oracles were pub-
lished by Christians, may be true, but that thc3Mvere cither
written or believed by them, we promptly deny, a denial
that is justified both by the liistorical evidence that they
existed before the time of Christ and )ty the fact that Ori-
gen defends them against the accusation of having corrujH-
rcZ ^/ttm to serve their ])urpose. If they hail forged these
Oracles as Unlversalists assert, how could they have been
charged with having corrupted thmi? The only reason why
these writings were countenanced at all was that they con-
tained some obscure predictions concerning the restoration
of the "(iolden Age" which some of the early Christians
supjtosed to be prophetic of the Messiah, which induced
their publication to convince the heathen from their f)W!i
testimony of the truth of Christianity, rniversalists may

1G4

UNIV KRSALISM UNPOCNDED.

prate as mnvh as they choose about tlioir ancient doctrine
ot'restoralioni.sni, and impui!;n the tenet of such a phice ex-
isting as he/l, yet they must ever be content to submit Ui ^
the mortitying concessions and historical evidence that their
dogma is only traceable to a heathen Sibyl, and which in-
stead of repudiating hell verily teachc;; it. K-en if we grant
ail for which Universalists contend upon tliis point, " the
same autliorily ", says ^Ir. Jlohnes, " which is quoted U)
establish the existence at the time (;f the doctrine o^restor-,
ationism, also proves lluil Christi:ins of that day Ixjlieved
there is lifntnn-. h<l/, that it is cndlrss^ and that simurs irill
he tonnentcd there.'' In his '' Nine Sermons", Bisho]) llors-
ley has the following : •' Aboui a century before Christ's
birth the book of the (,'umican Sibyl was destroyed by a fire
which broke out in tbe capital :iiiil consumed the temple,
where these writings were de))o.iited. The Koman Senate
thought it of so much importance to rcjiair the loss that
the}' sent persons to make a new colIecti<jn of the Sybilline
Oracles, in diU'crent j)arts of Asia, for in all these pxirtei
copies, or at lea.^t fragments of these pro|»hecies were sup-
posed to be preserve'!. Tbe deputies after some time re-
tui'ned with a thousand verses, more or less, from which
collections were made " t<» su])jily the ]dace of the original.
He further says that these oracles existed in the days of
Julius Cftisar, aiid that tbeir authority was claimed by him
as supporting bis riglit io aspire to the supremacy of the
empire. Friedlieb, who lias edited the twelve books of the
Sibylline Oracles, savs ibai the oldest was written about
the year one liundred and sixty before Christ. So Alexan-
dre, another ^-ditor. Sci- the McthodUt Qiuirttrhj 1855, pp.
510-512, where the subject is abl}- treated. In short, there
is not the slightest evidenct) that Universalism in any one
particular of its restitution theory was tulvocated by any
respectable author since the days of the apostles ; and we
further state that we challenge every or any Universalist

UNIVERSALIS^! UNFOUNDED.

165

I oc trine
lace ex-
bra it tl3 ^
lat their
Inch in-
v^c grant
nt, " the
noted to
) " restor-,
lx)liev>^'d
iners will
o\) llors-
Chrisit's
by a tire
temple,
,11 Senate
loss that
•jybilline
3se jjartb
vere sup-
time re-
in which
original.
Li (lays of
d by him
;,y ot the
jkri of the
ten about
) Alexan-
1855, pp.
lort, there
1 any one
id by any
; and we
liverBalist

4U Christendom to put their linger upon the first syllable
outside the scriptures that teaches that any one honest man
'jr body of men ever even dreamed of the present system
of Universalism, from Adam to the days of .Martin Luther.
The Universaliftm of Origcn was no more like that now ad-
vocatetl than it was like the ism of Jugge. . aiit. Origeii was
a Christian j)hil(^soplier of tlic Datoiiic school, hence lie
believed and taught the pi'c-existence and transmigration
of the soul. The hell in wljich he believed was endless ; its
lii'cs never Ijuriied out, and although he imagined tlie wick-
ivi who were ^^ent there wonld he purified, and would there-
fore migra " to heaven, yet he believed that they, witli the
saints in glory, might again sin and he consigned to lieli.
Thus his hell was alwavs full, and its inhabitants as well
as those of heaven, continually perigrinating from perdition
to glory. Moshiein remarks thai he taught that the souls
of all men were created at the same time, and therefore ex-
isted before thev came into this woj'ld, tmd were •' sent into
mortal lodies for the ])UnislH!iL'ni of sins committed in a
former state of lieing ; that after the resurrection all Ixwiies
will be of a round figure! ; that the sun, moon and stai's art'
animated heings, endowed with rational souls; that , the
damned may escape lioni hell ; iiud that as Christ has been
crucilied in lliis wmi-M [o .-a\e intinkin<l, so he will he ci'u-
cilied in the next to save tin- hevil.s ", .Mosliiem's Kec. His.,
vol. 1, i». VSi. In rel'ei'enee tcHJie character ot Origen. who
is summoned as a Ui "versalisi, and revered as the Abraham
of that system, we (pioU' the following from standard au-
thors. Dr. -Moshiem says : " The Christian doetoi-s of tla'
third century applied themselves to the »tudy of letters an<l
j)hilosophy, soon abandoned the frei[uenied paths and struck
out into the devioU> wilds of fancy. Origen was at the head
of this speculative tribe." lie tells us that Oi-igen ado|)ted
as a rule, that •• the Seriptures ari' (;f little use to those who
understand them as thev aiv writtiMi "'. which we confess

1G6

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

iiH!

kouiuIh very like the doctrine of his more modern brethren.
Again, he say.s, "Ho could not tiiid in the Bihie the opin-
ions he hud ad()[)ted, as long as he interpreted that sacred
book according to its litei-al sense. But Plato, Aristotle,
Trcno, and indeed (he whole philosophic tribe, could not
fail lo obtain tor their sentiments a place in the gospel
when it was ii\terpreted by the wanton inventions of fancy.
Hence, all who desired to model Christianity according to
theirfancy, or their favorite system of philosophy, embraced
Origen's method of interpretation." Dr. Milner says in tho
hands of Origen tho pure gospel sutlercd much l)y an ad-
mixture of (.iontilism, (Hist. Church, p. 243). Dr. Harvies
remarks : " IndectI, oven then [while yet living] many of
soundei" principles disputed liis [Origen's] Platonic dogmas
as heretical ; and his own diocesan of Alexandria in two
counrils deposed and degraded him from tlic priesthood for
false doctrines", [Church Hist, vol 1, pj). 229-30]. Such irt
the character of the " learned and Chnstian father" whom
Univcrsalists set up as their cliam])ion in the third century,
and whom Mr. "Whittemore calls " a decided Uinversalist."
1 see Mr. Whittemore in his "Plain guide to Univcrsalism ",
p. 8,. says, " Clement of Alexandria, the president of tho re-
nowned Catechal School in that city, held the doctrine of
Univcrsalism." Mr. Whittemore, like every other writer
upon the subject, has a most peculiar method of multiplying
their members. Whenever a wa'iter, ancient or modern,
is found to have dropped the lirst syllable that boars the
faintest semblance to an}' one point of doctrine in tho Uni-
versalist creed, he is immediately patted upon the back as
" a renowned Universalist." In this way Marcellus, Bishop
of Ancyra, Titus, Bishop of Bostra [A. i). 364], Gregory,
Bishop of Nyssa [A. I). 380], Gregory, Bishop of Nazianzus,
tho famous Jerome Hiodours, Bishop of Tarsus [A. D. 378],
Theodore, Bishop of Mo])suestia [A. D. 392], and hcveral
others, as well as an equal number among the moderns, are

lil

UNlVKnSAT.lSM UNFOUNDED.

1(J7

cthren.
c opin-
; Hacrod
riHtotlo,
uld not

gospel
f fiincy.
iling to
ibraced
'8 in tho
^' an ad-
ll.nrvies
iiany of
dogmas
I in two
hood for

vSuch is
" wliom
century,
r so list."
iiilism ",
f tho rc-
trinc of
1' writer
tiplying
modern,
cars tho
tho Uni-

Itaclc 118

, Biwhop
Gregory,
izianzus,
D. 378],
i hoveral
onis, arc

Jill ranked with tho Univci-isalist brotherhood. It is acknow-
ledged, however, that Ciementof Alexandria was " themotst
renowned and illustrious " ; and the only point in which he
apj)roached UniversMlism was that he believed that all who
<lied without a knowledge of Christ would have a space for
repentance ; but he did not helicve (til would then reprnt, much
less tliat any one could be saved u-itlnntt rcj)cntance. All
these instead ot denying ])ost-mor(oinpunishmoj>t. advocated
that doctrine, tntd the existence of hell. Jlence, according
to their own sliowing, Univcrsalists are bound to admit
that such a ])hH-o as a hell actually exists bej'ond the grave,
and that the wicked will be ])unisjic'd there. Tiiis is one of
the strongest proofs that this sainc doctrine was taught l)y
Christ and his apostles, which will bo still more convincing
when it ••• ''emonstrate«l thr.t tho same; words Avhich they
used to designate a place of future punishment were the
common tennsof the BiMe. No'one could reasonably sup-
pose that the imnnidiate successors of the ajwstles would
aj^ply the word giknuKi in a sense absolutely dill'erent from
the way in whicdi it was used in Christ's day, and yet we
tind that this vcM-y ^\in'd grhmna, which the Saviour us»'din
Matt. 10:28, where he wai-ns the disi-iplos to '• fear him
whi(di after he hath killed hath power to cast both soul and
body in gt henna [ he llj, occurs in tho writings of .lustir*
Martyr, who lived A. \). loO, ai\d which, as Mr. Steere (a
(Jniversalist) in his •' h'ootpj-ints Heavenward " ]>. 841, ac-
knowledges, is iisetl by this early Christian father " to mean
a place of punishment in the future world, notwithstanding
the wild asserting. Whittcniorci says : " We have m) ]»roof
that the word had ever been applied to j)unishment in the
future state, by any writer, sacred or profane ", (Plain
guide to TiniversalisFi, ]». 88). Mr. Thayer in his "Theol-
ogy of Universalism ", j). 8!H), sayK : " Justin Martyr, A.J>
150, and Clement of Alexandria, A. 1). llh"), both employed
Cichenna to designate tlie place of future punishment * *

!i!J

KiB

TNI CERSALIS-W UNFOUNDED.

* Aiii^ustino, A. I ■ 40(1 K.iypj (xohcnna ^^ utagnum ignis et
su/fihuftH ('orpoi'('u» I . cf'it "

Tho toi'ins emjiloy in ti •^ 8c'rij)luros to ilssignate tho
j)l;u'o ol" iuturo jiUDislimont, :. » Slicul, Hades, Gehmnu and
Tdi'tdiua. The term Slieol, is, according to Dr. Whitby,
tlori\cd from tlio root */trt^/^, to crave, ])ccyuKc it craves all
men, and is rendered hy the Grociv word Hailm in the Scp-
lujigint version (if ti:o Scriptures, Neitlier of those in it»i
)»n>jt(.'r sen^e is u>v<l t>> doscrilic </tfi yravr, hut the unseen
and invi.siljle world. IMato descrihes hudm us tlio invisible
world niid LMuturcii as a dark place where all is "one pal-
pable <tbscure." ".\ccording to the notions oft lie .lews " says
Kiito, "she(;l or iiades was a vast receptacle whore the soulrt
of the dead existed in a separate state until tlie resurrec-
tion of their bodies. The region of the Idessed during this
interval or the inferior para<lise, they siip|K)sed to be in the
i//;;/>f/'y>'//7 of this receptacle while beneath wjis the al»ysrt
into which the souls of the wicked v/ere s(d)jected to pnnish-
laent." Josephus desi-ribes llades as "a subterraneous re-
gion whertMii the light of this world does not bhino." lie
also stales that this is divided into two divisions, a tTi^!;-ht
world where its inhabitants are " ever enjoying the j>ro.^-
pcft of the good things they sec," and a place to tl»e " left
hand " where he sa}s the wicked are guarded by angels
who '• thi'cattMi them with their terrible looks" and '' drag
thcni inio the neighborhood of hell itself," who " when they
have a nearer view of this spectacle, as of a terrilde and
exceetling great prosjRfctof lire, are struck with fearful ex-
pectation of a future JTjdgnient and inetleet putushedthero-
?)y ; and not only so but where they seethe place (orchoir)
of the <^athers and of the just even hereby arc they })un-
ished ; for a chaos deep and large is fixed between them ;
ins(unuch that a just man that hath compassion upon them
cainiot be admitted, nor can ono that is unjust, if ho woro
bold enough to atteiil^)t it, pass over it> "* TJiis placo (of

i,i

UXIVKlvSVLISM UNFOUNDED

1(>0

ignis ef

ate the
nui and
Wliitl-y,
•aves al \
ho 8c]>

in itrt
unseen

nvisible
)nc pai-
rs " say.-^
Lho souls
Ofsurree-
I'iug this
bo in the
ic al>ysrt
punish-
lOouH ro-
0," lie

1 brif^bt
he ]»ro»-
io '' left
' ani^clft
I " drai^
lien Ihey
ible and
urf ul ox-
ed Ihoro
oreboir)
le}' ])un-
a them ;
)on them
ho were
)laco (of

the rigktmus) ve r/i?l tlw fxmom of Ahnihum.'' (.Iosej)Jius' di--
oourHO eoncerning ITades). Mr. Whiston, the traii-^lator of
his workn, believed .Iu>*ephiis to have been ciuverled to
Christianity, as may be seen from bin note on \)n<j:r !». and
I ask the rea<ler if the above from the pen of that exeolieu
Jew \s not a eomjtU'te ex])Osition of the doctrine t*li!''' t
taught in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Here
is tho " plaee of torment," the "great gulf" and •• Altrr-
ham's bosom." One thing is not to be disputed, seeiiif 'hat
JosophuH reju'esentod the universtd belief of the l*hiu ,>ees
in tlio apostles day if Clirist did not admit the tnitli nf u
future hell, even if bo did not teach it, in this pai'al)le of
the rich man, then eertainU' he Avas the greatest deeeiver
that over lived. Where the word hades motms n Ntate of fu-
ture punishment, Tsalms 0:17, "The wieked shall lu' tarn-
od into hell, (lleb. sheol Gr. hades) an4l all the nations that
forgot God." >Jeither conseicnec nor a state of punishnve^nt
in this life, nor the grave, can by any mameuvrc lie under-
stood as the sigiufieation of hades in this text. It cannot
be a guilty conscience for they are never sejiarated from
such a hell till they get '* past feeling;" and it cannot be
tho grave, as the righteous go there as well as the wieked,
bofiidea to turn them into the grave wouUl not be ])unish-
nacnt, as it would be sending them oil' to heaven. Prov. 15:
24, "The way of life is above to the wise that lie nvay dc-
\)tirt from hvW (^sh(U)I, ovkadfji) beneath." J fere it would
doHtroj' tlie antithesis and do violence to the connection and
obvifttis sense of the whole passage to understand liddes to
mean the grave.

Prov. 6:5, " ller feet go down to death, her steps take
hold on hell." On this Dr. Clarke remarks, " First tho death
of tlio lx)dy, then the damnation of the soul."

Prov. 9:18, " Butjhc knowcth not that the dead are there •,
that her guests ai'O in the depths of hell " (hades). The
twm dind is by so"^ of the most eminent C.V)m mental tors,

ill

17(1

UNIVEllSALISM UNFOUNDED.

here vcwdarod yliosts, that her ghosts are there. And it will
he found tiio i»UHf*ago requires this renderint^tomakcsonso.
ICowovor, UH it in, it can only bo understood as aj)])lied to a
pliice of future puninlnnent.

Prov. 215:13,14, <* Withhold not, correction from the child;
for if thou beatest him with the rod hoHhall not die. Thou
shall beat him with tJie rod and shalt deliver his soul from
hoU " (JuiJes). Hero ha<^les cannot mean the grave, as cor-
recting a child would not save it from death, neither can it
mean earthly punishment, for acconling to Universalism,
nothing can save from that ; it mu.st hence refer to a place
of future woo.

Matt. 11:23, "And thou Capernaum which art exalte<l un-
to heaven shalt be brought tU)wn to hell (haihs); for if
tl'.e mighty works which have been done in thee had been
(lone in Sodom, it would have remained until this day."
This declaration of Christ embraced two particulars: tho
first relates to the temporal destruction which this city suf-
fered in tlie wars between the Jews and Romans ; the other
to that future ])ei'dition to which the Sodomites were doom-
ed. Hence, tho next verso reads "it shall be more tolera-
ble for the land of Sotlom in the day of judgment than for
thee." The judgn.ent and j)unishmeiit here referred to
were not temporal for two reasons, 1. S<Klom, as to its tem-
])oral destruction, had already been judged and punished.
2. The temporal destruction of Capernaum was more toler-
able than that of Sodom. •

Matt 10:18, "On this rock I will build my church, and the
gates of hell (hades) shall not ])revail against it." Tho Lat-
in by which the (Jreek is rendered is " in/ert ", the infernal
shades, or spirits which inhabit the infernal regions. The
term gate according to Jewish custom, Avas cx])ressive of
wi.sdom, council and strength. In this case itreju'esents tho
powers of the Devil and his angels, whose centre of influ-
ence is hades.

UNIVEUSAHSM UNFOUNDED.

171

it will
)8on8C.
od to Ji

D child;
Thou

il from
1V8 cor-

• can it
sal ism,
a i»lace

Itod un-
for if
ad been
s day."

A'H'. thO
L'it>" 8Uf-

le other
•0 doom-
> tolera-
than for
ri'od to
its tem-
imishod.
ro toler-
•

and the
rho Lat-
Infenml
s. The
jssivc of
lonts the
of influ-

Lukc lG:22-3 "The rich man also diod and was huried, and
in holl (Juuha) ho lil'tod up his eyes boin<;' in tormont."
Whether the account of the rich man an<l Lazarus be a par-
able or a literal history, need not be coiihidered here, as in
either case it embodies the docti'ine of future punishment
— a doctrine in strict conformity with the prevailing and
osUiblished belief among the Jews. Hence, one of two con-
clusions must be taken, either that Christ meant to deceive
the Jews as well as all who might hereafter be his follow-
ers in reiterating a sentiment his hearers believed, or, that
ho himself believed the doctrine of the Jews with regard
to hadi^, and thereby continued it. Universalists Iiave made
the most turgid and sanguinu assaults by sophistical rea-
soning and (lusting up objections to bear down and cx])luin
away the evident force and meaning of this text, which
they well know is so peremptorily fatal to their system. To
the literal intorjirelation of this discourse of our Lord, Mr.
Whittemore rallies the following objections, 1. The narra-
tive, says this witty writer, "does not pi-ove that the rich
man was ])unished after his death for his sins. Not
a word is uttered against his character ; not a woi'<l
in favor of the character of Lazurus. Lazurus is not said
to have been gootl, neither is the rich man said to have been
evil. All these things have been taken for granted, but there
is no ])roof of them. For aught the parable states to the
contrary, we tlo not know that Dives was not the better man
of the two," ((Juide to U. p. 14!).) The remarks of Mr. A.
C. Thomas are something similar, " lie was covered with
sores, a beggar and in want — and the face of the reeon I, al-
lowing it to be a history, gives me as much authority for
declaring that he (Lazarus) was a hizy unclean sinner, as it
does you to affirm that he was a righteous man." On the
other hand the rich man " was truly charitable, and charity
is greater than faith or hope," Discuss, pp. 2'J8-9. 1 couM
inflict upon the reader much moi-e of the same piece from

Sil

«l>

!»

172

VMVF.KSAI.ISM UNForNDED.

the loadini^ orsu'los of IJiiiviM'sulism, Imt this is HiifBciont
lor our ]»ur)»o:<). Those arc cortainly woii^hty (►hjvctioii.s !
Iluro thu Saviour is chnrirod with haviiit; roprcsoiitiMl aman
[or nation as they have it] as " hcin^ in tornKMit " an<l yet
never uttered a word ii^jaiiut his [its] eharacter," and was
therefore only teafdiiiiir. il'tht^ (gentlemen becorreet, the in-
justiec of the j»nnishineiit. We lU) not know tliat the rieh
man should not have Iteen in heaven aTid Lazurus in hell,
sineo "we do not know that Dives was not the hetter man
of the two." or course then, it was inijtossihle for his
hearers to foria aiij' adecjuate conee})tion of tlie Saviour's
meaning, and henee the paraMeeontained no more informa-
tion than so mucli <;as, and was at best but exquisite non-
sense. IJiit "allowin^^ it (o be a real history," where does
the ioxi justi/i/ the assert i(»n of Mr. Thomas, that liazarus
was u lazy unclean sinner." Where? Such a lamjxxni from
the pen of one whon\ we s\ij)posed to possess at least some
degree of penetration, is totally unworthy the character of
a controversialist and is a haunhty outrage on the language
of Christ, and is most ccrtJiiidy unworthy the treatment of
common decency. J)o(';s not Christ say Lazarus ' inis/uUof
Mins " f How could a man in his state, rejiro.sented as ///-
iitg., and most probably u]ton the earth, poor, <lejccted, and
wo judge ti<(lkU<L as " the dogs came and liclccd his sores,"
whieli covered his boily — how could such a man bo accused
with lozifiras ? liosides, it a]>]ieHrs he was unable t(» move
himself front one ])hui' t«> another, not uidy Irom tho f'-w^t
of his being "'full of .soivs " but it is sui^l he " //v/.s Iniil "
at tliiJrich jnan's gate. Mai'k, (ho vorb isA/<V/nol A/y, which
f)eing transitive, plainly shows ho d id not <'omo there
liimself but Avas carried there most pndtably by Ids inv
]ioveris}ied family, who Avei'o no longer able tosu])]»ort him.
And how came Mr. Thonnis to know that the rich man wim
trull/ vhiritithle f The gentleman knows no sue!) tlnng, for
l.hi' a.Ci'Uimt do/!s not say that Ijegave Lazuruseven a cjrumb

UNIVEKHALIHM irNPOUNDED.

173

l)Ut inoroly that Ljuunis " was laid at his gato * * * ,U'-
Hin'iKj to ho fed " — that is alL There is no j)roo<' that the
licli man with his '* g()o<l things" ever gave him a morsel
to satisiy liis Iningcp, a droj) of halm for his Hores, or a rag
to cover his nakedness. indeed the contrary is not only
presiimjitive hut jio^itive, 1. The lK';i,u:ar dio<l, plainly
Hhortly aJlcr, Mv. Thomas says, p. 205, we '• assume that
JiJuaniH was huried. The text does not say so." No sir,
we do not assume ihat lie was huried, and the vcrvahsenco
of'sueh testimony is pro(»r that he was not buried^ wljidi
cviilences that the rieh man j)aid no attention to him, not
HO nnich as to give him the hurial ofadefcnt dog. 2. When
in hull the rieh man was told that Tia/.arus was comforted,
evidently hearing the inference that Ac did not coJiifort him.
3. The rich man was conscious of his guilt, for he wishe<l
the poor Lazarus to he sent to his five hrethri'ii, no douht
to warn them of the sin of hoarding u[) wealth anil of ro-
fusing assistance to the pooi*, '-lest they also come into thin
place of torment." He was also given to undei-st and that
JB^'dhedience to " J/o«<.v (tiid the projihcta'^ would secure
them from this pi^ce of miserw Where now is Mr. Whitt/O-
more's untoward assertion that the narrative " (h)OS not
prove that the rich nian was piuiisluid after his ileath for
HIS .SINS." liutoven allowing M(?.i.si's. Wiuttemore andThoin^
as the full to.v<» of theii' ohjections. and tht\v are as weighty
against their own exposition, lie what it will, as against
tluiir ojiponents, and yet the hoodwinked, one-eyinl eritics
could not see it. 4. Mr. W. remarks : *' The heggar is said
to have heen carried hy angels into Al'Vidum'a loM.m. Is
(his to he understood in the literal sense " ? Mr. T. asks, j).
205, '' Why was Ahraham's bosom csjXK'ially mentioned, if
so he that the society of the hlessed hereafter is signitied
hy that expression? Why not the hos(mi of Klisha, or
Enoch, or Isaac, or Jacob " ? The gentlemen no douht arc
most smilingly successful in heaping up these dinicuUies,

i ' i

k 1*

171

UNIVEU8AL18M UNFOUNDED.

hut ono breath is siillit-iorit to scutter them liko chatf, and
to expose th«!ir polished ignorance. J^id these men ever
read Jos('])liiis' dlscoiu'se on Jhules ? I tliink ii.ever, or they
would have saved their ink and pa])er about Elisha's or
Jacob's bosom, Ibr JosephuH states that they, the Jews, then
liolievcd lliat hades was divided into two ])ar(s, and that the
place of the rii;hteoiis they called fife^ " The homm of Ahm-
huvi." Xow take C()i;"nizance of this all-important fact, that
this liades coidd not possibly mean any temporal calamity,
for "Abraham's bosom '' is mentu»ned with it, and the Jews
could only understiind ii as mcanijii;" the hajijty part of hades
— tl^.e re^'ion of spirits. This fact will forever refute tlio
efforts of nuMi to ex))lain away this testimony of Christ to
the future j»unishment of the wicked.

1 trust Ave \> ill hear ivud see no more of tliese metajihori-
cal flourishes about Al'raham's bosom. Mr. Whittemoro
ami 3Ir. Austin assert that " the rich man was sent to hell
without havinjj; been judi^ed." But if tiie account is literal
why raise thiRolijection, which ai^ainstus does not possess the
wcdji^ht oi';i feather, but stands ai^ainst their own a,sHertion,
that the iudu-ment is in this life ? It mu.st be remembered
that hndes is not the ^ehenna of punishment, but, as Jose*
phus says, :i roijion " allotted ms a place af rHsfo<li/ for souls."
Mr. Austin's a.s.^ertion \.^ about as sensible as to ask, ^VJly
throw the culpi'it in jyrison boforo he is senttMU'ed to ])un-
ishment ?

But how do Universalists explain this parable ? They
have never yet been able to do it, but have shrouded it in
the most dense mysticism, and (dothcdand weiirhed it down
with insuperable ditilcultios. Ballon, Whitteinore, Thomas,
Austin, C-obb, and ii\deed all, try to satisfy their deluded
hearers l)y oxplainini;' it thus; 'l nu rich man represent**
the .Fewish nation and Lazarus tlie (lentilc, which thereforo
include all mankind, while the Lfrcat t^ulf, in tlie words of
J\Ir. Austin, "signifi(\s the unbeli(>f of the Jews", and JuicIch,

rNrVERSALI8M UNFOUNDED.

17.)

laif, r.nd
lon over
, or they
ishaV or
AV8, then

that the
of Ahra-
:ac't, that
ahimity,
the JewH

of hades
'futo llio
Jlu'ist to

eta})h()ri-

littenioro

it to hell

in literal

)ssess the

isHortion,

'inberod

as Jose*

V souls."

sk, Why

to j)un-

They

(lod it in
it down
'homas,
doluded
jpresonta
hereforo
words of
lid hadcn,

^Ir. Cobb thinks, " regards the vengeance of God on the
Jews, at the destruction of Jorusaloiu." To this, however,
we offer the following unanswerable dilUeulties, and dare
Universalists to budgo them a hair's breadth : 1. The rich
man being the Jewish nation, who were his " tive brethren",
that is, the live Jewish nations, when the Jewish nation and
the Gentiles included the entire world. iMr. Cobb saw this
ditlieulty about to alight u])on him and hence tried tod(x.lgo
it by saying, " The rich man may more directly rej)rescnt
the i)riest-hood and aristocracy whom Jesus was addressing,
and the tive brethren the masses of the })eoj»lc ", Com in
htw. Yes it «i'/// bo so. Mr. (!ol)b, to soothe the vilest of
men with the iiedantic doctrine that all will bo saved, dares
to risk the j)erdition of bis soul U[)ona])lank oi' vmi/he^ ; and
yet with his shutliing can gi\e not the leanest reason n'hy
the word ^'Jive " should be used any more than twevtu-fwv. ,
besides the word " broliircn ", if the rich man was the jtriesi-
hood, would imply tivi> j)riesthoqds. Finding even this
only a st<5[) above tlic ridiculous, he coaxes himself to be-
lieve itadniissable by solilo<|uising thus : ''Parallels are not
like a plane on a jilane bearing at every i>oint> but are like a
globe on a plane with a jiromiiiont jioint of contact." But it
appears to me that two glolics [luada I mean] like the one
that invented this ))hilosophy might tit " like a plane on a
plane", for certainly it is a flat-headed manceuvre, for ac-
cording to friend Cobb the discourse of Clirist is pro])erly
applicable to everything and anj'thing th'.t contains a sin-
gle point common. It is in this way Mr. Cobb goes with
his ^/o/>e and ji>/'nt»' throughout the Bible, and wherever he
finds a text where there is '' a prominent point of contact "
it is immediately quot^jd as [»roof of Universal salvation.
A globe tits a ])lane just about like the doctrine of Mr. Cobb
tits the Scriptures. 2. We inquire, who was the father of
the Jewish nation to whose house Lazarus, the (rontile na-
tion, was re(piested to go and testify ? If it was Abraham,

;4i

rMVEUSALlSM UNFOUNDED.

as IJnivcrsalists julniit, wlioro was the j)n)[)rioty of the Jow-
i.sh nation roqiieslin^' tlio (ieiitilo nation to ^o to liin Fatli-
cr'n house when he was alreaily thei'e?! 3. Adinittiiiif
M'ith Cobh, Thomas, and others, that this Jhuha of the rich
man was th*.* destruction of.Ienisalem — a point Mr. Thomas
took teti jiages to })rove, atid then missrHJ it — how did it
hapjien that Wmjiiu l>nihri n, or as .Mr. (,'. exj)hrins it, " the
masses of th" .lew is!; people", were in this self-same liell
at the self-saii.'e time with the priestiiood or rieh man ; for
to arniK.i that the live brethren, *'. *. the *' nnisses '", were not
invoht'd ill this na'ional ju(l;:;mei't wouhl \iv jierfeet mad-
nes>. jlow then could the ri( h man i-eijuost that they
mii!;lit he remonslralc I with, that tiic\' mi,ii;ht n:)t come to
this phieo of tornu'nl,\vhen they were alirady there, and he
knew it ? ! I ! -l. Ahrilunn'a luisum. accordini^ to .Tosephus,
was a jiart of hades, and tlierefori; jia/.arus was in h'ldes lu^
well as the rich man. Was the (icntik' nation in your ./<-
rusfiltin-h'iili H :' Vviiy \vliat part was Ai>raham's hosom,
where Lazarus or the (ieutile nation dwidt, where the tire
di<l not reach when the city wa>^le\(dled to the ^I'ound, and
the eai' (U whicJi it stood ploiiuhed u]iand sown withsalt,
as an em; lein of jjeijieluMl de-.olatio!i. .I(»hn tells us hades
is to (leli\'er up iis de;id, and to he destroyi'd ; hut h.ere the
dead are desli'oye(| ImjIoic it has i;iven them up, and hadeH
experienced the triilii of John's testimony hefore John got
into it I What a llouiid; rniversali'^m cuK with hades and
the rich nnm ! 5. If • ihe ^;i-eat i^idl" " sii^nities the unhe-
lief ol the .lews," as ( 'hrisi ,-ays. this canno^ hi^ j)assedover,
oi- rathei- this \v:i- tht; lan^'uage of " Father Ahraham ", it
follows thai till' Ji'w s "re tixed \nif(r)ial iin/>rlHj\ while
the (ienliles must hoiii-ve and cannot do othei'wise. Jhit
this is direeilv coniradicted l»v admitted faets. JFundreds
an<l thousands of Jews liave crossed this t^ulf of unhelief
Mn<l lieeome devoted lollowers of( 'hrist, while even a greater
numhij- of (ientih- wiio once hidievcd in ('hrist have apos-

Jow-
H Fath-

iiittiiig
lie rich
'homas
did it
t, " the
lie hell
in ; lor
ere not
•t mad-
it they
■ome to
, and he
isephuf<,
I'ules an
^oiir ./e-
bosoni,
(he tire
[\u\, and
itlit^alt,
s iiades
ere the
1 ha<leH
>hn got
Uis a'ui
un he-
ed over,

TJNrVBESALISM UNPOUNDBD.

177

iin , it
wliiK'
e. Hut
indreds
inheliel
greater
,'e ap<.>s-

iutized and crossed this gulf in the opposite directioTi. If
the rich man, as Mi*. Cobb foolishly asserts, moaaa tii<u
,])riest}iood, then the gulf has been passed over, for we read
that " muong the chief rulers alaomaany believed on him "
[Christ] John 12;-12 ; and that " a great company of the
pries* . were obedient to the faith ", Acts 6:7.

The last cxan\ple we adduce is llev. 20:13, " And death
and hell [tJianatos and haJes^ delivered i^p the dead which
were in them." Here an important distinction is made
between the grave where the lx)dy is deposited and the
place in which the soul is •* reserved unto judgniont."
Death delivers up its dead, i. e., the bodies of men are
brought from their graves by the resurrection, and hades
delivers up its dead, that is, the souls of tlu^ wicked, which
remain in it when death and hades shall be cast into the
lake of fire, which is the second death. Here hades cannot
mean the grave, as it is contra-distinguished from it by the
woi*d "death."

The word tartarus occurs only once in the Scriptures, 2
Pet. 2:4, " P'^or if God spared not the angels that sinned, liut
cast them down to hell", [tartarus]. Here the apostle, to
describe a state of punishment in the invisible world, instead
of using the w^oi'd ^'liades", takes the term tartarus. which in
the days of Peter the Greeks ami Komans applied to the place
in which they supposed the wicked to be in darkness and
chains. Parkhurst says: "The ancient Greeks appear to
'•have received by tradition an account of the punishment of
the fallen angels and of bad men after death ; and their ])oets
did, in conformity, I presume, with that account, make
tartai'us the place where the giants who rebelled against
Jupiter and the souls of the wicked were confined. Here,
saith Hesiod, the rebellious Titans were bound in penal
chains. But as the Greeks imagined the earth to be of
boundless depth, so it must not be dissembled that their
poets speak of tartarus as a vast ])it or gulf in the l"^\vels

:iiit"X^:

^Af\:i

178

UNIVERSALISM UNrPOimDKD.

He;

i}lf.i

[. . ^

of it." Ilosicxl speaks of it ha " Black tartanis, within earth's
spacious womb." Tn iromor\s lliuti, book VIII, Japitor
threatens the god who shouUi render assistance to the Tio-
jans, saying, " 1 will throw him into darksome tartaruH ",
and that he would bind him in chains of darkness. lu
another place Homer says :

" No BWn e'er RlldB the nJoomy horrors tboro :
No elieerlnl H'll'-'s refrt'Bh the luzy air ;
But murky tartiwus extouds a'ouud."

If Peter had been highly educated we cerUiinly should
have thought that ho was (quoting Ilomor as literally a«
Paul did the Poets and writers of Athens and Crete,
[Acts 17:28; Titus 1:12]; but as this apostle was illit43r-
ate, there is no conclusion but this, that the Holy Ghotst
introduced the term Tartams as testimony of a plao*'.
of future punishment, and yet Mr. Whittcmore modestly
says : " It is now generally allowed that uoither Sheol, Hades,
nor Tartarus, signify a plifco of ctifuui punishment; but
the whole de])endence for proof of such a place of punish-
ment is placed on the word gehenna ", [Cruide to U., p. 81].
It is true Mr. Whittcmore may huvo laid a looj>-hole in the
word eternal to crawl out, to avoid the charge of deliberate
pseudology, l)y saying that aheol, hades and t<irtarus are
taught only as places of future limited punishment, for a8
they ai'c to be cast into the lake of tire and destroyed, they
cannot be endless in point of duration. I5ut even here ho
would be ;^'ossing his own track, as it is argued that the
^vord eternal does not signify endless but ending. The gen-
tleman mu£c either bear Jie accusation of using a word in a
sCi. .•-».! i!0 I'igicily condemns in others, or be guilty of roundly
ascjcr J ing what he that moment knew to be blasphemous
and ff.i 0.

The iA'i'm gehenna is generally admitted to l>e derived
from Gee and //mwowi— the valley of Jlinnom. This valloy
lies south of Jerusalem, and was the place of those abomi-
nable sacrifices in which the Jewsotferod their children alive

Y;^,«l..

'■ "vP* '^'Sp^

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

170

earth's
Jap iter
ho Tio-
tiiruH ",
■>ss. lu

should
rally as

Crete,
3 illitor-
Ghot^t
place
lodoBtly
I, Hades,
)nt; but

puoish-

, p. 81].
lo in the
)liberate
anis are
t, for an
'od, they
here ho
that the
Cho gen-
vord in a
'roundly
[)hemou8

derived
18 valley
10 abomi-
Ireu alive

to the hodtlion idol ^Moloch. A i)articulnr placo in this
valley MnsculltMl Tojihot, from Iho ]lol)row 3oj)Jnfh. n i\vc-
.stove, from the I'uriiJU'C or stove in which the chiNhvn wore
suoriticed. Hence wo roa<l<)ftho hii»h place.s ofToj)hot, .Iir.
7:82. "The I{al)hin.s assure us," say.s Calniot, " that this idol
[Moloch] was of brass, sitting upon a throne oi'thesanu' met-
al, adorned with a royal crown, haviiipj the head (»f a calf [or
steer], and his arms extended as if to cmbi'aco any one.
When they would oiler any childi-cn to him they hoalod
the statue within by a i.ci"eat tire ; and when it was hurnin/;'
hot they ]»u( the miserable victim within his arms, whicii
was soon consumed by the violence of tlK' heat ; and that
the cries of (he children might not be heard, ihoy made a
great noise with drums and other i)istruments about the
idol." Af'lcr th(^ days of the good king Jo.siah, who de-
stroyed this idol, the valley of llinnom became the recep-
tjiele of all the otl'al of the city, with which the dead bodies
of criminals wore identified ; this rc([uircd a tire ])erpet-
ually burning to consume it ami thereby prevent disease.
This promiscuous mass of rublush and corru|)tion, even in
the fire, bred worms, and hence Iho origin of thi' |»!irM-e
^^ tJw innh/iu(f v<>rm'\ '^ thvir n'ontinhtdlnot Jlv'\ Isa. (1(5:24. <u'
as Josephus has it, '■'a nrtaiajicri/ u-onn." From tlu' tiines
of the j)r<)jtli('t.> till the apostolic age certaiti ci-imes were
punishe<) by burnitig alive in this \'allcy, and as these fu-i's
were never sullered to go out, hent'c arose the expression
^'■unquenchuih' Jin' ", ^^ciurfnatutg fire ", "jirc thtt .sh'iil never fir
tjiunrheil." Thr phrase geheMwi fire \\i\-\ among the Jews tlie
most expressive of guilt an<l suffering, and ever carrie i
with it the idea of the most loathsome and infern;il (tf all
punishments, aj>d as no earthly calamity could for a mo-
ment etmjpnre with the terrors of this valley, hence not-
withstanding the ipae (//.ri'< of Universalists to the lonlrary,
the term geheuno has never yet in any si»igle instance been
applied to any temporal (lestriiction or punishment. "The

¥:

1 !• -'W >1

*■

180

UNIVERSAL I8M UNFOUNDiiy.

I Eft

Jews in our Saviour'H time ", nays Parkhursl, " UHcd tHc
{■<)in])onn«l wonl gehimwm for hell, tho place of the damned."
Wo find that in tho (lnyt^ of Josephns, the undying irortn, nn-
qnrjirhdhlejire, phrases that had their origin in tho literal
valley of Ilinnom, were applied to tJic hike of fire, which it*
proof positive that this lake of fire of which the Eevelator
'spej ks, was then known among tho Jews as the fire of gehen-
no. This writer in his discourse on Hades says : " In this
rot^ion there is a certain place set ajmrt lis a like of mi-
ipienchnblcfti" , whereinto we suppose no one hath hitherto
been cast; Init it is pjx-pnrftd fov 9. day afore<leterminod by
(Jod." 8j)oal;ing of the wicked after tl. jiuli^^ment, he re-
marks : " To these belong the vnquenchfthle fire, and that
\nthont end, and a certain fiery vrorm never di/ing, and not de-
stroying the body, but continuing its eruption out of the
l)ody with never ceasing grief." How strikingly similar
are these cxpressioab^ to those of the Saviour. " And if thy
Iiand otl'end thcxv cut it oft": it is better for thee to enter
into lifo maimsd than liaving two hands to go into hell
(gehenna) ; infy ihe fir^i that never shall he qufnrheil. Whert
their trortn f^'yilil not and the fire is not qnenched, Mark 9:43-4-
Here Christ ealls (jf .V-Hna a placo where " tho firo is not.
quenched ''\ and.speHlcs .f this nnqneufhaltie fiiT and the vm-
di/ing worm j^rint as Jo opfms, only he sjwaks of it under the
term gehenna, whtle the latter calls it a lake of fire. But
we will (H' nonstral to a fixed cortaint}- that geicnwi and
(he lahc <■>■ fivt wore, in Ohrisf^s (i(ay, one and tiie same thing;
— that they were then used as names everywhere aiaong^
tho Jews for the same place of punishment ; and this wo
willdo»on the aitthority of Universalisnu Gehenna pun-
ishment, with which C^hiiiit threatono<l the Jews, was noth-
ing more nor less, it is argued, than the destnietion of Je-
rusalem. "Your questions in reference to the valley of
Ilinnom (Gehenna) ", says Tliomas tf) Ely, " touch not my
argument. I have shown in previous letters that said vuU

^•N1VER^ \l-(cM ryrorNDBP

IMI

wed the
unned."
orm, nn-

litorul
.vluch it*
evclator
of gehen-
• In thirt
ke of nn-
hitherto
lined by
t, ho EC-
ind that

1 not de-
t of the

similar
ndif thy
to enter
nto hell
Whert
i 9:43-4..
\n not.

the un~
ider tho
:o. But
nun and
[le thing

among
this wo
na pun-
as noth-
m of Jo-
alloy of
not my
mid vuU

, lev and Tcjihet iLeroin, ana ih» aboininalions tiiercof ar*'
used l>y tlie ins])iivd wi-jirr.- a:- •\ nil><»l.> oflomporiil cMlam-
itie.s which e;une on Jcrusjilcjvi JUid tl»e Jewisli ))eo]»ie. more
than Hcventoen centuries hiiu*.- l)ih( uss p. 2-n. The Pro
and (Vni says. j>. 274, thai v«. )), j, C'luist saiil to the IMiari-
HtHjs, " Jlow sliall ye escape li.' 'ian i.ation of (iclicnna ".
Matt. 23:3;5, '' it looked forward lu li^ '^vciw national Jud^-
niont on the Jewish j>coplo'" — th' .\t.'i throw ot'.lerusalem.
Mr. Thayer uses similar lan^u;t,,^', '1 iijol. \.. |>. ;j!>7. Mr.
Whitlomore says : •• Jt is cloari,\ >">.i tliat Jesus hutl'o!-
lowed the exanijiles of the Ji'wish y>j-<>}iiicts in ap])lyin^ the
j)hrases " (lehenna ", " the M'orm dial ttieth not ". •• the tire
that shall not be (quenched", to tlu>. (••inpoi-al iinlii'ments of
the Jews (Plain tJuide, p. 13'.'). Mr Austin )»aj'a)dirases
Murk 0:13 thus : " You had iu iter j(;ii ' with the wmsl valu-
able possessions '■*• '^ -^ than clini^ to them aii<i I>eeonie in-
volved in the (lehenna overt In-ovv jnid punisjiuwiit. which
is s<^M)n to come U]>on the (loointsd Jewish nation " , Discuss
p. 700. So ('obh, and every otluu' defender of the system.
We rni^-ht also liave added the name of l)r .1. H. J'ods. \vho
Aery jjositively c(»ntends that Gehenna in Matt. lO.LiS • was
:niade an emblem t)f the i\ational destruction of Ihe Jews ',
.Short Sermons, p. 2(>1. Hev. Iv E. (luild says, rnivej-salist
Bo4)k Kef., p. .35: " This valley (of Ilinnonn is luade an
emblem of thai terj'iblt temporal calanuty which came upon

the Jewish nation, in the destruction of their cii\ ant.l tem-

•

jde." Tlie jvadei' will plea^se bear in min<l that the :du>ve
authors contend that (ichvund njeans the ilesiruetiou of Je-
j'usalem. Now if we show that /'/u' A// r o/' y/r/' in Jlevi'lations
jilso means the destruction of Je)-i)salem, then eei'tainlv
(jlchoiii'i au'l fill hik< of fire are, oven aec«»rdin^" l<» rni\c>r-
sulism, but ditferi'Ut nann-s oi' the same places of loi-ment.
We now give (\»bb'.s definition of ^/je /"/.v of fin : • We have
seen ", lie observes, '' that the ])iirticular subieets of this
judj^nn'Tit jvjUH'sented by the lake (»f lire were the jn'ojile of

182

UNIVEttSALlSM UNFOUNDED.

i I

I ':

'm'SK'I ; aiul (hat the nulit)nal dissolution iiivolvod in this*
ju.'.i^nient, wiiicli was Ihon "at hand", was their second na-
tjjuial death '", ]Sote on Rev. 20:11. Dr. ])ods also conlend.s
that tlir /(//.'cwy' /'//•(■ means the deslruction of Jerusalem, and
(piotes Kzek. 22:lH-22, Isa. ;]I:8-H), as illustrations. Mr.
Whittemore says, in his Commenlar}" on the Revelation,
that '• the lake ol" lire isa}>arallel case to the use of (ielion-
iia ". Note on Rev. 11):20. H. K. CJuiUl remarks : - This lake
of tire and hrimstont' is said to he //ic second doith •'• * *
We liJive stated in oui- remarks on the jud«j;inent, that tlie
sii-'tiiif ifni/li is the tra^Mcal end and ruin of the J'wish ]K'0-
ple and nation", l>oo!c of Reference, j». 257. Our case,
therefore, is faii'ly made out, that '• (.ieluMina " and '^ the
lalceoflire ' ((Jlixirrc that thr firtulc is m /A/' <//vr/,-) denote
the same ]>uiii>lnnent. I'ut why do J(jhn and Josephus not
use gdicinift the same as the Saviour? No one ever read
three ])ai;es of any Universalist chai»tei' on the word i^o-
hi'una, l)iU they found this jiropounded : If (Jehenna is the
j)la(e of (lie <iannieil, why was it neve."' preached either hy
('hrisi oi; his aposths to any hut Jews ? We rejjly that we
see m()st clearly the reason. When our Lord addressed
.lews he spoke of lull hy the wortl i^'ehenna, a term they per-
fectly w(dl undi'i'stood ; hut who amouiJi; the (ientiles would
ha\e any idea of hell ))unishment from the word (jrhcriiio,
which they pei'haps never once heard in thidr existenee ?
Jt is ver\' evident Josephus avoided usini^ the word gchvnivi
ujton that very ground, and his evasion is clearly percepti-
hle to the most careless readei", for he speaks of every par-
ticular which Christ represented under (Jehenna, oidy he
d(^cs not nmntion that word. It might he asked with the
same propriety wh}- John did not use Gehenna instead of
the lake of tiro, when the}- meant the same thing, or why
the Jewish and a])ostolic writers who addressed (lentiles, did
not wi'ite in llel)rew, and why they never used the Hebrew
Slirmim (lu'aven), or Ahrah'im'a fios(tm. Peter, like Joso-

.11

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

183

in this*
'ond nsi-
onloiuls
um, and
IS. Mr.
'elation,
'Clcdicn-
his lake

( '!• 'K 'r

hat the

isli ]ieo-

u" case,

11(1 " the

) (Irnoto

)hii.'^ not

er read

rord i^e-

ji i.-; the

ther hy

that we

1(1 reused

icv per-

■s would

(ji h( tnin,

stenee ?

(jehcniiii

)ercej)ti-

L'ry i)ar-

only he

YJth tlie

jtoad of

or why

ihis, did

Hebrew

ke Joso-

phiiM, when writing to tho.se of u dilferent toni^ne, did not
U.4C his own nanios of ]i)arti('iilar j)laccH, but npoko of them
liH they were known among the pctrson.s he addre.ssed ; hence
to j>oint out hdihs lie uses the heathen word tni'tuniH (2 Pet.
2:4). Mr. Whittemore, however, notwilhstandinu the citu-
tion.s from Jose])iius, where the ])hrases loc /'lasting fire, iin-
qu/mchihlejirc, the undi/iiig worm, taken IVom the literal val-
ley of Jlinnom, and applied by the Jews to hell, which is
proof that they knew that place of jtunishment by the name
oigihntn^f, very gravely remarks: '^ \i^ any- person will
pnxiuce a passage in wlii<dj gehenna is applied to ])unish-
ment in the future state, from any wi'itci" who is l<iH.wn to
have lived before the linu" of Chi'isl, or even contem])ora-
neously with the Saviom-, \\c will acknowledge that there
is an argument in favour of such an ajtplicalioii of the term",
p. !^-t. Towards gratifyii»g ^^I•. Wliittt'moi-e, we adduced
(Hie instance where the wt^vdiji hnnm is used for ludl — in the
wintini'H of Justin Mart \r, who was born onlv a very lew
years afterthe deathof.John. ^fhis word is also vciy frequent-
ly found in tlie.I(>\vish 'J'argums or parajdirases of the Old
Testament Scriptures. Some of the Chaidee Targums are
traced back lo the days of !">,ra. in the tifth century before
the Christian era. Many of tlu-m ai'e |)()si(ively known to
have existed in the times of the ^fcccabees, .'nid to have
Ihhmi re]mblishe<l about a century before (IhrisI, and were
generally read in the symigogU(^s. Di-. ]'ri<leaux gives the
mof^t important of then\ an existence and great influence
and authority with the Jews in the v-futur}' before (Mirist.
J)r. Clarke gives us an examj)le of the use of (rehenna in
connection with Ps. l-iO:l(), where the Chaldee Targum
H|>oakin<i: of the talebearer savs : -'lie shall be hunleil bv
the angel of death and thurst into [^(j'honui'l hell." But we
ai-guo t'uit Christ himself used gdunitu to designate a place
of iKwtrmortem punishment, as will appear from the follow-
ing considerations :

'i n

M-

184

rNIVKllSAIISM INFulNDKIi.

1. l-'noii Miilt. 1(>:28, wlinv ('hi'i.st warns liis lu'urorH to
irar liim who /(/>«•/• <Itnth — " uI'I'T lie hath kilhMl hath jiowor
1«) cast Ijoth soul and body in lu'll " — I'oai' hiin. Iltsro the
word hr/f is from gdnnn'i, and snriiy this is ]\vvv u])|tliod
to a ]ila(H' (i| Tiitiii-c |iunislinu'nl.

2. (Mirist uses tlu; words, ' holl [ifnh»Mina] lire", un-
(|ii<jn(hal)h' lire ", '• I'vt'rhislino- fjro " as snhstilutos lor 7*.
hotnn, or as o<|iiivaknts, in Malt. l.S:S-!», Mark H:4J}-H. 'Thu
tiinii 1(111 Jhu [cvorlaslin^ tiro] ol" .\ratt. 1H:,S", says Mr. Cohh
n))on thai passairi'. '* isljjc sninc in its import aslho (fihnni'i
Jin of vi'rso !>. \a'\ ns(|Uott' these at len|;th. " U'lhy hand or
thy I'oijt olfi'iid thee, eiil ihem oil' and cast IJieni from thee;
it is heller j'oj- thee to enter into lil'e hall oj- maimed j'alher
than havin;,^ two hand>or two led /« A^ ,:i.</ intu m ihtstlmi I'lrv.
And if thine eye oD'end thee. ])hick it out and ca>t 'it I'rom
thee; it is heller lor lh<'e to «Miler iiit(» lite with one eye
ralJK'i' than ha\-e Iwt. e}-es to hr ins/ Intu h,)l jin [t;ehenna].
AikI il'thy iiand otVend thee, cut it oil'; ii is hctlci' for thee
to enter into lil'e niainied than haviu!.' two hands in (ji, /«,
lull [,i!;elu'niia] ; ////« ihi Jirr that „<fr slinll I), (piriirhiil"

.Vow we have sliowii hy (|Uotatioiis I'roin ,l<ise|)hus, that
these pjirav's were apulied hy the .lews in the time of ilie
Saviour, lo llu Inhr i>/ jlrr, or that |>lac(> \vliic|i lie descrilics
as a region ol' ])iini-hment in anothei' w nj-ld ; hence t he con-
elusion is irresislihie that ("lirist in thcjihove j)a>sa;j;e spoke
(;l"lhat phu'c of jninishmiMit under the a|iiicllaiio!i //iliiKitii.

I). The \V(U'd ^^'cheiina occurs t\vel\t' limes in liic New
^reslameiit — s, n,i liino in Matthew. f/in> limes in Mark,
"/"■'in Luke, and "/"■( ill .la)nes. "Andasii is iiiijios>iliK* ".
.-ay> ( 'amphell to Skinner. '• to sjiow I hat t he v;ill<'y of I! in-
iiom oi" any lemjioral ]mnishmenl was ever intcndiMl l.v
any ofihem, lliey may in ijicii" various occurrences he )\>-
i^arded as so many I'vidciici s of punislunent after d'jith. in
Mnolher stat<' of existenci'. "

h '■ Til' I'verlustinii- lire " heinix u suh-litiile for ''I'iienna

7PCI rTinsALi.sM iTNFonNnKn.

Ifi5

fire by tho Stiviour, (Mutl. IH:8,!>) •' Iho ovi'rljiHting Hrc/>rf-
pnri'<l/i>r the JJrvil (ind litH avgih," (Matt. 25:41), inunt inuun
one And the Kunie tiling; and .l(ih(']))iUH intoiniH uh that tlio
Jews l)olit'\H'(l that angid.s wcjiihl be brought to judgment in
another WO) hi, and that thoy,on oond unnution, would be e.v^t
into t/n' hike n/jire. The word y)rf'y</«nr/ strikingly i«lentiHe:4
the doctrine of Christ with that of .I()se|(]ius, who says tliat
thirt " lU'OMpect of tiro" is prepared, but that into it "no
one hath yet been eant." Jt is also well worthy of notiee-
that " flie everlasting tire " is nevor use<l in an indefinite
sense, the Greek article always being ]>retixed, which evi-
dences that these ]>hrases are not applied to any hap-iiazanL
punislnnent of a teTn[>oral character such as Mniversalists
invent to escape dilenunas but to some one of a fixed and
definite character, understood currenth' among the Jews bj-"
tho name of gchcnna, and no one would l)e silly enough to
supj^ >se that the dovil »uid his angels were reserved undcF
changes of darkness — prepared for ruin in the valley of
llinnon.

5. JesuH contrasts gehcnna ^ .m iife and " to go into go-
henna" (hell) with "to enter Luto»lifo." Jlear him address-
ing his " beloved discij)le " John : " If thy hand otiend theo
cut it off; it is better for thee 'tocw^r {}</« life/ maimed than
having two hands ^ to go into hiW (gthcnnn) into the fire that
novcr shall be quenched ", Mark 0:43. That those words
were directed to John is certilied in v. 38. Now, iftoentfo
ivto life means to go into heaven, then to go into gehenna
means to go into a place of punishment in the future world.
Mr. Cobb himself says,." the being cast into gehonna which
is the reverse of the picture, describes tho opjwsitc condition f""
Notes on Matt. 18:9.

Mr. Skinnev,. however, in Ins debate with A. Campbell,
denied that to enter into life in this text moans any more than
becoming a member of Christ's visible church upon earth
and thereby fought with biting vigilance to confine 'gehen-

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

1.0

I.I

lim

■10

!r 140

2.0

1.8

L25 iU |||il!.6

Photographic

Sciences

Coiporation

23 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, N.Y. 14S80

(716) 872-4503

186

U.VIVERSALISM VNVOVNJiED.

na' wliic'h i,s pu( in antithesis to it. to this life, but we will
hiy down a I'act or two wliich friend C. omitted to notice,
that will either compel Mr. S. to backdown from his objec-
tion or unlilushingly deny tlie doctrine both of the Bible
and Universalism : 1. ' To enter into life ' could not in this
place mean to become a ditsciple of Christ, as saj' Gilpin,
Pcarce and Kenwick, authorities rallied to the point by Mr
Skinner, tor John was already his disciple and it was to him
the Saviour addressed this language. Then one of two things
must be- ailiiiiicd, either that to enter into life means to en-
tor into hea . on or that JoliTi was not yet Christ's disciple.
2. A ricli vounj;- man asks the Messiah, " "What shall I do
that I maj' inherit eternal life," ]\rark 10:17, or as Matthew
has it " that 1 may have eternal life " ch. 10:10. Jesus ans-
wers, *' If tliou wouldst enter into life keep the command-
ments.'" Then to inherit or to hive eternal life and to enter in-
Ut life arc u.-ed synonymously by the Saviour. Upon his
disobedience he says " A lich man shall hardly enter into
the kingdom of heaven " or as it is in Mark " the king<lom
of God.' llcvc to enter into the kingdom of he'iven, as Uni-
versalists admit, is equivalent ^^f entering into life. Peter
startled at the reply exclaims, " liehold we have forsaken
all and followed thee ; what shall we have therefore? or as
Clarke rejKlors it, What reward shall we get?" :^\iiit. 19:27. Pe-
ter it seems had no idea that his J\[aster was referring to
joining the church, for he immediately understood the en-
tering into the kingdom to be reward still future, notwitli-
standing, he was a disciple, or a member of Christ's church
already. ]3ut Jesus answers "Ye shall receive an hundred
fold now in this time, houses and brethren and sisters and
mothers and children and lands, with persecutions; and in
the world to came eternal life,'' (or shall enter into life,) Mark
10:30. lEere eternal life or to enter into life is confined to
*' the world to come." But Mr. Skinner makes the world to
come to signify the Christian dispensation. " You aro doubt-

tJNiVERSALISM trSPorrJDED.

187

ve will

notice,
s oV)jet'-
3 Bible

in this

Gilpin,
it by Mr
s to him
thingrt
18 to en-
disciple,
uill I do
ilatthew
;sus ans-
)mmand-
? enter in-
!"pon his
tor into
king<iom

as ITni-
Peter
forsaken
re ? or as
.9:27. Pe-
irring to
. the cn-

notwith-
's church

hundred
sters and
s; and in
fe,) Mark
nfined to
le world to
aro doubt-

less aware," we iind him saying to Mr. Campbell, p. 160,
" That the scriptural expressions, olem Inzeh, and ohmhaho
in Ilebrew, outos aion and aion meUon in Greelc, and fhiswoz-Id
or age and the world or age to come in English aro often used
to designate the Mosaic diqjensatlon or age of the Law
and the gospel dupen^safmn or age of the Messiah the first
of which was drawing to a close and the second about
to open, when the Saviour spake the language under con-
sideration." But we deny that Christ here meant the Chris-
tian dispensation b}^ the world to come. 1. From Ihv; fa\jt that
the disciples suttered persecutions more in the Christian
age than in the Mosaic, whereas the Saviour in his promise
to Peter, confined ih.Q persecKtioiis to that <ime-''in the pres-
-ent time" or as Skinner has it in this Mosaic time. 2. The
" houses and brethren and sisters ", &c., they were to enjoy
" in this time " all agree, as they were always destitute, to
denote their agency and success in the gospel ministry
which of course, they did not receive till the ushering in of
the Christian disj>ensation. Then this time meant rather
the Christian age than the Mosaic, and therefore the world
to come has no reference to it. Universalists themselves
make the world to eome to mean heaven. To prove that all
will be saved they quote Luke 20:34-5, " The children of '
this world {aion^ the same as in the text under considera-
tion) marry and are given in marriage ; but they which
shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world (the aion or
world to come) neither marry nor are given in marriage.
Neither can they die any more, for they aro equal unto the
angels, and are the children of God, being the children of
the resurrection." They dare not say the world to come
in this text means the Christian age as they would be mak-
ing themselves adulterers, for they marry ; but Christ says
m the world to come " they neither marry nor are given in
marriage." Christ would be contradicted by every day
facts ; besides men are now daily dying , when Clu'ist says,

188

VNITEUSALISM UKFOrNUSirD.

:!i

V. i'

"neither nhall they die any more." 3. The Greek word
aion, here rendered world, cannot mean the Christian age,
even according to Universalistn, for as Judas did not live to
see it, he did not obtnin eteimal life, which Christ confined
*to the world to come ; and yet he was a member of the orig-
inal church. 4. If becoming a disciple of Christ is to enter
into' life or to inherit etental life, then ah those who followed
^him before liia ascension, beiBg his disciples, enjoyed the
promise of eternal life before the Saviour made it. All this
is so ludicrously absurd and revolting to the mind of the
:^ost careless observer, that no ovud would attempt such a
prostitution of the word of life but the tlesperato or the
insane.

5th. As the Saviour uses the phrase " to enter into life "
as equivalent to saying " to iuhorit eternal life ", or " to en-
ter into the kingdom of God ", he could not possibly mean
the gospel kingdom on -earth. 1. Because a man may en-
ter the kingdom of God here, and yet not enter into spiri-
tual life. In Matt. 13:47 Christ compares his earthly gos-
pel kingdom to a net that was cast into the sea and gathered
of every kind, of which the good were kept, while " the bad "
were cast away. Hence the kingdom of God here maycon-
' tain hud, wicked men who have no spiritual life, whic'h
plainly shows that " to enter into life " has only reference
to heaven itself. When the Saviour turned to his disciples,
on the young man's refusal to follow him, and said, " How
hardly Jiall they that hav« riches enter into the kingdom
of God," (Mark 10:23) if he had meant the gospel kingdom
the discijiles could have easily an8wered,why plainly enough
.for you just told us in the parable of the net and the tai-es,
Matt. 13:24, that both good and had may enter into the
kingdom of heaven, while they, on the contrary, "were as-
tonished out of measure " and exclaimed, Who then can he
saved! Mark 10:20. From this it is also evident that
the disciples referred only to heaven, far the Saviour had

^JNIVEUSALIBM tINFOITNBUD,

189

)k word
an age,
t live to
ionfined
he orig-
i to enter
ibllowed
yed the
All this
i of the
t such a
3 or the

ito life "
p " to en-
»}y Tiiean
may en-
ito spiri-
hly.gos-
^athered
he bad "
nay con-
), whic'h
eferenco
lisciples,
, "How
kingdom
iingdom
■f enough
hetai-ee,
into the
'were as-
can he
ent that
iour had

just told them that a man might be in his gospel kingdom
and yet not be saved, for at " the end of the world " he will
:gather out of his kingdom (here) all things that oifend,
and them which do iniquity ", Matt. 13:41. 2. To " inherit
eternal life" can pertain only to the kingdom of glory, be-
cause the Christian has no inheritance here. The apostle
says : " Grod hath begotten us unto a lively ho])e ; to an
inheritance incorruptible, reserved in heaven for you ", 1
Pet. 1:3-4. "While the unrighteous may enter the kingdom
here, we are told they '* shall not inherit the kingdom oi
God " in the future world, 1 Cor. 6:9. Then " to inherit
eternal life ", which the ycung man desired, must mean to
onter heaven.

6th„ " To €nter into life " cannot mean to enter the king-
dom of heaven on earth, for the Saviour was not talking of
his gospel kingdom, but of this future kingdom, for in the
minute before he addressed John about entering into life
(see Matt. ch. 18:1-10) ; he said to the disciples, who had
been disputing, " Except ye be converted and become as
little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of hea-
ven." Then he meant heaven itself, for a person may en-
ter the kingdom here, as we have just seen, and yet l)e un-
loonverted. The first five verses of 18th chapter of Matthew
are a great trouble to Commentators, for while the disciph^s
.speak of the kingdom of heaven as present, v. 1, by asking
"Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven ?", Christ
makes it future, ^' Ye shall not enter, &c. ", v. 3. But the
gospel kingdom was then present, and Peter and James antl
John were especially members of it, as they had but jusi
got down from enjoying the glorious privilege of seeing the
transfiguration, and most probabl}^, as Dr. Clarke as^icrts,
were not among the murmurors who wished to know wh(^
of them was to be the greatest, or who (of them) is great-
est in the kingdom of heaven. " The law and the prophets
[the Mosaic dispensation] wore until John ; siiice that time

J- 1

100

UNITSRSALti^M UNFOUNDED.

■\

the king'dom of God is preached, and every man jyresaeth into
it ", Luke 10:10. It may he said, however, tliat tho disei-
ples must have meant the gospel kingdom then present, for
they aL'ked, Who is greatest ? ; and tlie Saviour said, When-
soever sliall himihle himself as tliis little child, the sametJ*
greatest in the kingdom of heaven. I^ut we reply : 1. It
is absurd to suppose tho disciples would dispute which at
that moment was the greatest, as neither could imagine
himself as possessed of any dignity to dispute about. 2. As
just observed, conversion is not necessary in order to enter
the kingdom here, while it is to enter the world of glory, and
Christ here makes it imperative. 3. Dr. Adam Clarke tako«
the present here with a future tense, and his courso is justi-
fied by Mark and Luke, who both use tho future tenso —
'• who should be tlie greatest in the kingdom ", Mark 9:34,
Luke 9:40, 22:10-24. It is plain that tho favour gi-antod to
Peter, James and John of being present at the transfigura-
tion, was the cause of the inquiry and anger on the part of
the nine other disciples ; and Avhile Jesus gives them to
understand that they arc not even converted, and thoreforo
could have no ])lace in the king'dom to dispute superiority
with Peter, James and John, which is equal to asserting that
these three disciples were converted, he emphatically take«
the part of protector to these last, saying to the aggravated
nine : Whoso shall oftend one of these little ones that believe
in me [meaning the thvee converted disciples— John among
the immber] it were better for him that a mill stone were
hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the
depth of tho sea ", Matt. 18:0. Hence, from all this it is
beyond controversy that "to enter into life". Matt. 18;8,
addressed to Johii could mean no other than to ent^r the
life immortal.

Wc will now notice in the passing the principal objec-
tions that have been laid against the intorpretatior; of gc-
henna as denoMng a place of after-death punishment.

' I

meth into
ho disci-
CBent, for
lid, Who
c samew
ly : 1. It
which at
imagine
it. 2. As
I* to enter
jlory, and
rke takofl
JO is justi-
'6 tens© —
lark 9:34,
ji-antod to
ansiigura-
lie part of
J them to
[ therefore
uperiority
3rting that
3ally take«
Lggravateci
[lat believe
ohn among
5tone were
led in the
11 this it is
Matt. 18:8,
) eiiUoT the

jipal objec-
atioT; of ge-
nont.

I'NIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

191

1. Christ says, Matt. 18:8 : " If thy hand or thy foot of-
fend thee, cut them off and cast them from thee ; it is bet-
ter for thee to enter into U/e lialt or maimed, rather than
having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting
fire."

Of this it is said if "to enter into life " means to enter
into lifo immortal, the Christian will go to heaven maimed
— with one hand, a foot, or but one eye. But let us see
whether Univorsalists are justifiable in making this a point
condemnatoiy to orthodox views. Did Jesus actually mean
that his disciples should cut off" their natural feet or hands 'i
Did he ! In the light of Universulism, the answer must bo
iVo, for as Uni verbalists deny the resurrection of the body,
the Christian would not be maimed in the immortal state,
even if " to enter into life " does mean to enter hea^ en, for
the 7iuvim(!d\)i\Yi would as a consequence not be there ; hence
to keep the objection good it must be admitted, nay argued,
that the hand, foot and eye mean something else ; and this
must prove to be something in connection with the soul, oi
which the soul is deprived — maimed — in heaven, or this ob-
^jection does not possess the weight of a feather. When this
something is ciphered out, all we luu'-e to settle is that
whatever propensity of the heart or disposition, or what
not, that Christ referred to, it is evil, for the hand, foot and
eye are represented as offending, and for the soul to be
i)udmcdhy their absence would only be a proper instead of
an unnatural state to enter i)aradise. Let Universalists get
clear of this if they can, and until they do they can have
no ground on which to found this objection ; and it will be
proper to observe that if we went through the Bible like the
Univcrsalist Lam- imniin, Dr. Cobb, with " a globe " inono
hand and "a plane" in the other, and Avould wrest the
Scriptures to suit anj^thing but the doctrine of our oppo-
nents, we could very easily dispose of a fleet laden with
such objections as this.

! f ':

I?;

I'i

" i,

192

UNIVERSAL ISM UNFOUNDED,

The evident meaning of Jchus is to cut off oVGfy disposi-
tion of mind and heart that eumbers and offends — that do-
l)raves the entire man and unfits him for the service of
Christ and the joys of heaven. If a man be rich and have
a strong disposition talovo his wealth; whicli willof coursft
embody all his affections, as it did those of the young man
who inquired of the Saviour liow he might inherit eternal
life, he must cut off* this disjiosition by the forfeiture and
sacrifice of all that excites and depraves it> "Go " says Je>-
sus, " sell all that tliou hast and give to the poor and come
follow mo, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven. ''They"'
^;ays the apostle, "that are Chi-ist's have crucified the flesh
with the affections and lusts." Mr. Cobb says, " No Chris-
tian supposes that we are to feel maimed, in the immortal
resurrection life in consequence of having done so >7en in
this world as to deny ourselves of what would be offensive
to the spirit of Christ." To this we answer ??o, and if by the
eye, foot and hand we are to understand things in this world
that "would be offensive to the spirili of Christy ' we af-
firm that the Christian will not feel maimed while in the
kingdom, of Christ in this world, but rather will feei freed
from those things that offend. Worldly sacrifices will in-
crease their joys and they will be able to rejoice in tribu ra-
tion, and instead of feeling maimodonaccountof what they
have rejected as offensive will count all things as filth for
the excellency of the gospel of Christ. Mr. Rogers has a
very shre vd remark upon this entering into U/e. He s&yn
life here " Cannot mean a future life of bliss, for pei'sons do
not pass to a state of heavenly felicity with their bodies
maimed and mutilated," p. 273. It is wonderful the blindr
ness exhibited by this Magnu.i Apollo of TJnivcrsalism.
Friend George could not see that his o^vn logic was as much
opposed to his exposition that " life in this passage signi-
fies gospel faith and enjoyment " as the one he seeks to
overthrow. With similar reasoning we can say to ent<3r in-

UNIVERSALI8M UNFOUNDED

103

di«posi-
-that do-
)i*vice of
md have
of courses
img man,

eternal
itnre and

says Je>-
nd come
. ''They'"
the flesh
"^o Chris>
immortal
t >7en in
offensive
if by the
his world
r' we af-
1© in the
ieel freed
3 will in-
n tribnra-
vhat they

filth for
;Gr8 has a

He says
ei'sons do
ir bodies
the blindr
rcrsalism.
s as much
,ge signi-

seeks to
3 ent«r in-

to life cannot mean to ciitcr into the spiritual life ol' the
Christian, for persons do not pass to that state ^with their
fjodiea maimed and viatiUited.^ The gentleman in his oager-
ness to defeat his point throws aside all restraint and ar-
gues the most abominable absurdity in existence, that Christ
taught that those who entered into the enjoyment of spirit-
ual life on earth, should actually cut off their hands and
feet and pluck out their organs of vision ; and we hum-
bly confess if every true Christian were as blind as friend
George, we would certainly think that ho was at least mi-
nus an " eye." So much for Mr. Eogers'oaie-c^w^objectionl
Rev. E. E. Guild has somethiag siiaail^a*, " If Gehenna " ho
remarkSj^'signifies a place of endless misery in another world,
und if, in those passages where it occui's, it is set in con-
trast with heaven (as is supposed bj those who attach this
meaning to the word) it is certain that those who go there
nre to go bodilt/, See Matt. 5:29. And it is equally certain
titat those who go to heaven are to go there budili/, and not
t^nly 80 but are to go there " halt " and ^' maimed;" some
with only one ei/e, some with only one hand, and some with
only one foot," U- Book Eef, p. 41. The bare mentioning of
this is 8UjQ£cle.;t refutation. We have however, an apology
to make f<?r the aathor Gf the Pro and Con, and that is he is
naturally obstiaaate and hence very frequently opposes him-
self On page 140 of this book he says " that the everlast-
ing kingdom of Chxist is in eternity, is quite wide of the
fact ',*^ afterwards, on page 287, to keep up anti, " that through
Christ a glorious Kingdom should be established as wide in
its sway as the extension of being and as lasting as the age
of the Most Nigh " Is this not a contradiction ? On page
149, he says, fht tlieoiy that men go '' immediately from
earth to heaven (at dea fch) is a mistake ", while on page
183 of his '' Memoranda." where he describes a meeting he
held, he observes, that there was present one *' Jacob Fel-
ter, now in Iicaven" Why can not other folks go to heaven

194

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

15.

at death as well as Jacob Foltor." Again, as previously ob-'
fccrvcd in one place, (page 34G) ho affirms thorosurroctiou?
of the body, in another (page 276) ho denies it. Yes, all-
this in tho very sanio book. On page 206, the book of i^lev-.-
elations is aUirmed to be entirely figurativo wherever doatli-
is spoken of, but on page 217 tho identical passages, ha
says aio to bo understood literally. On pages 218 conscienip^
is made the certain punishment for tho wicked. On pagO;-
199 ho tells us that tho mariner, though " tho prayer of
agony quavers ou his lips," in tho danger of shipwreck^-
" but tho danger past he laughs at his fears and blasphemeB-
the name of CJod j8@"WITH0UT compunction." On page 290 *
and 300, he says, " tho notion of a free will is a chimera "-
and that " it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that all-
events take place agreeably to tho unalterable doereos of.
.Jehovah,'' yet on page 321 of his " Memorandn, " in dcs-i,
cribing one of the meetings he had called, which was atr-
tended with a great display of wind, lightning and hail, ho-
observes, "I confess that I felt a fearftil resiwnsibility resting,
on me, in havijig been the cccasion of so many being brought
together in so dangerous a situation." How Mr llogors could
feel such a responsibility and at the same time believ". it
was tho work of (rod according to his " unalterable decree " .
is a difficulty, I admit, not easily solved. On page 170, in
tr3Mng to keep " the end of the world" from denoting tho
end of time, he says, *'it never requires such an interpre-
tation but on the contrary, invariably means tho consumniJV
tion of the Jewish economy." Paul calls the period at
which Christ died " the end of the world." Mark, ho
makes out that Christ die<l at " the consummation of
tho Jewish economy." When did this consumjnation
take place? Georgo shall answer: "The sign of thy >
coming and of the end of the world (ton aiorws) end of the
age or Mosaic era nomij ; for tho disciples understood that tho
destruction of tho city and temple would close the Jewish

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

195

iisly ob-'
TOctiou
ires, all
of Kov-.
r (loatlt
gos, hQ

)n pago
ayer of
pwreck,,
q)hcmes
.ago 29^ >
limora"-
that all
tcreos of
in do8-
was at-'
hail, ho
r resting
brought
3rs could ■
)liev*j it
docreo " .
) 170, in
ting the
nterpro-
isumma-
oriod at
lark, ho
ation of
tnraation
of thy
d of the
that the
) jQwibh

disponsation," pago 183. Then Christ died at the destruc-
tion of Jorusalom, over thirty years after ho had ascended
into heaven. On pages 221-2, whore ho struggles to explain
away Dan. 12:2, John 5:28,29, ho says, " Christ has fixed
tho time of the event to which they refer at the peri-
od of the overthrow of tho Jewish state. Thus much re-
gards the time of this resurrection, which, instoail of being
at the end of t^A world as our opponent thinks B@" is past by
nearly Eighteen centuries." Here ho says, the resurrec-
tion is past by nearly 1800 years. Lot the reader turn over
ono loaf and ho will read, "Tho import of the passages be-
fore tis, is, that Christ by ho word of his gospel and tho
ministry of his apostles was "bout to call men from tho
graves of superstition an ' lorance in which they had
long been buried. This inipo. nt work had already begun
in Christ's day (which was long before the destruction ofJe-
rttsiileni), but it was destined soon to take effect upon a
much wider scale, and eventually it shall bo universal in
its extent," pago 224. How a man with half an eye, not to
say 'one eye,' can so palpably contradict himsolf within two
pages, cannot be accounted for but in one of two ways, ei-
ther he is dull of perception and therefore disgraces his sys-
teni by his book, or the doctrine of Universalism demands
this bare-faced contx-arioty to maintain an existence. Fii'st
he tolls us that this resurrection referred to '' tho overthrow
of tho Jewish state " and in the next breath, that it was
l\ilfilling " in Christ's day " and yot again that " it shall 1x5
(and of course is not noAv) univoi'yal in its extent." Wo
might inflict upon the reader much more of the t-ame i)ieee,
but deem this sutficiont to convince any man that this boast-
ed work, tho Pro and Con, is no naoro or loss than a bundle
oi' contradict ions and absiu'diUes,and what person would risk
h"a soul upon thecertainty of a system constructed by such
men as Mr. George Rogers, who only excels in erecting
cob-liousos to have the fun of kicking tUonx over.

19(J

TJNlVEltSALLSM UNFOUNDED.

il f

! fi

f.'

2. A Hocond ohjoction to <;ohoniiJi (IcMii^iiatiiig a place of
uttor death juiuishiuont, is raised on the fact of that word
Imving its origin in the earthly valley of llinnom. No one
upon this word ever converses with a Univorsalist ten min-
ntes without being told that it could not teach the " God
dishonoring doginn of endless misery " for it is only the
name of a tilth}' valley in Judea near Jerusalem, and to per-
sons not drilled to liattle so])histries, the assertion is likely
to prove embarrassing. But wo will call up a remark or
two that will forever move this objection out of range of
the subject. 1. J I is inconsistent and absurd to suppose that
a word cannot mean anything ditferent from or have an ap-
])lication more extensive than its original signification. This
would be an egregious error. Our word harlot for instance
is according to Dr. Johnson, only a corruption of the name
Arlctte, the mother of William I, kingofJ^higland, from her
being such an infamous woman, but according to Univer-
nalist reasoning the word luirlot cannot be used without di-
rect reference to king William's mother. 2. The same logic
that denies the existence of hell, will also deny the cxis-
toice of heaven, for as the llebrew AS'Atwiw, the Greek our-
(inos, Latin cofhan, and I'^nglis heaven, originally meant not
a placO of purity and happiness in another world, but sim-
ply tlic blue ail' or ethereal canopy, therefore, they cannot bo
applied to a place of future ha]>piness, hence these word-s
are no evidence that such a place exists.

3. Universalists themselves admit that the word gehenmi
does not, in the twelve places in which it occurs in the New
Testament, more than once mean the valley of llinnom,
!)Ut is used in afgurative sense, an admission that renders all
that can be said of its original signification unavailing, and
is all Ave contend for. In his notes on Matt. 10:28, Mr. Cobb
Bays : " Gehenna appears being a punishment from the
hand of God instead of a civil tribunal to he used in a second-
ai'i) or ficjiirative scnsf." lie also adds that it was used in this

UNIVErWALrSM L'NFOC'NDEf).

197

>lnco of
,t word
No one
on min-

God
nly tho
1 to por-
H likely
mark or
♦ango of
lOHO that
id an ap-
ion. Thirt
instance
;ho name
from her

Univor-
itliout di-
ime logic
the cxis-
rcok our-
leant not

but bim-
cannot bo
se wordn

•d gehcnna

the Now

llinnom,

onders all

tiling, and

Mr. Cobb

from the

I a second-

sod in this

eoc'ondary nonso by tho ()1<1 Totstamont writers an well as
by Christ. Mr. Whittcmore says ; ** With such abhorrence
and dread under all these circumstanccH did tho Jews in
time regard this place (gehonna), that tiny acme to me it as
a figure of drautful woes and judgment* ; and ho we tind it both
in the Okl and New Testaments ", Plain (iuido to Univor-
salism, p. 82. Mr. Austin, in liis discussion with llohnos,
remarks : " This Gehenna was a place of great dread to the
Jews. In some passages in the New Testament where it
is translated hell it means punishment literally administered
in that valley. In other instances It is used in a figurative
sense, as descriptive of iho punishment inflicted on tho Jews ",
Discuss p. 708. So Skinner in his discussion with Camp-
bell, " I agree with you ", he observes, in Letter 5, par. 18,
"that generally (though not always) the word (/f^cwna in
tho Now Testament is used, not in its primary and literal,
but in a figurative and metapliorieal sense." So George Itogers,
Pro and Con, 277 ; T. B. Thayer, p. 38G. Now lot us hoar
no more of this quacking aboutgehonnamoaning tho valley
of llinnom, and therefore cannot denote a place of endless
misery, for if it can bo applied tigurntively to one place of
punishment, it may to ax>other.

4. Another attempt at explaining awaj' those ]iassages in
which gehonna occurs, is made by paralleling its adjuncts
with similar phrases in the Old Testament. For instance,
the passage in Mark, " It is better for the© to enter into life
maimed than having two hands to go into hell (gehonna) ;
into the fire tJiat never shall he quenched ; u-here their worm
dieth )iot, and the fire is not quenched", ch. 9:43-4. To meet
this they quote Isa. 6G:24, " And they shall go forth and
look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed
against me ; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire
be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh."
But in these there are important points of distinction and
dissimilarity. 1. The prophet does not speak of this /re or

(\i

; 1?

198

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

worm in connection with the valle}' of Ilinnom, or that the
calamity had any reference to it. 2. Tho mulying voiin imd
the unqwnchaiJe Jire rww^t therefore be used in a figurative
sense as ex])ressive of the intensity of suffering experienced
by these Aviclved transgressors, in other pLaces of toT'inent
than the vaUey of llinnoni. 8. The ])rophet's Language in-
dicates tliat this *' worm " and "fire" are in this world,
while nothing could justify this inference from the words of
(Christ. 4. in the days of the ])rophet, the undying vorm,
vnqui.nch<'/jh'/ur, hud not yet been applied to the place of
the damned, but were thus understood in the days of Christ,
«.>< we have shown by quoting Josephus. Mr. Skinner says
that the passage in Isaiah is as emphatic as that in Mark ;
but this cannot be admitted, for one being in the Old Tch-
tument and the otlicr in the jS'ew, necessarily reno.rs them
absolutely different. To illustrate, we mention that the
New Testament writers use the terms of the Old Testament
to express spiritual and eternal things. The words Pani-
di^e, Jerusalem, Mount Zlon, the Rock, the Tabernacle, manna,
jKissover, temple, circumcision, all are used, not in their ^>rtmi-
tivc and literal sense, but in a figurative and sjiiritual sense.
"Would we not expect a similar application by Christ and
his apostles oi'gehenna and itHViulyivg worm, nnqu^Mchahh- Jirc ?
If not, Universalists v.'ould do us a favour in assigning a
reason, which, unfoi'tumite for their cause, has never yet
1x*en done.

5. Mr. Austin, with all the noted defendei*s of his system,
frames an argument in the absence of the word gehenna in
many of the epistles. It does not appear, in all the writings of
John, or in the fourteen epistles of Paul. But this is a very
weak and silly attempt to mislead his followers. We have
already stated that the evident reason Paul did not use g<i-
hcmui was that none of his readers were acquainted with
the meaning attached to that word. The Jews only could
comprehend its full import ; a-id if John'a Gospel was not

UNIVERSALISM UN^'OCNDED.

191>

that the
roryn and
gurative
oricnccd
torment
2;uage in-
,8 world,
words of
ng irorm,
place of
of Christ,
nner says
in Mark ;
Old Tea-
i.rs them
L that the
Vstamcnt
rds Pani-
le, manna,
eir 2^^^^^-
ual sense,
lirist and
hahlefircf
signing a
never yet

is system,
chenna in
vritingsof
s is a very
We have
\ot nse gcr
nted with
inly could
d was not

written till after the overthvow of Jenisuleni, ns ]\Ir. Austin
declares [Discuss p. 704] ; and if the Book of lievelations
was written after that, as Universalists ])oinledly urge, we
have a similar reason why John did not use it. Let an im-
partial reader examine Josephus' discourse on Hades and
the Book of lievelations and he must see a strained evasion
of the use of the word geheniui, evitlontly on account of the
Greeks and the Seven Churches of Asia, whom they were
addressing, being strangers to the import of that term.
But John does not give the genealogy of Christ — his mirac-
ulous birth, bai)tism, transfiguration, or the Lord's Prayer.
kShall we say from the absence of John's testimony that these
are not to be believed ? This species of logic would ex-
punge heaven itself from the Bible, for there ar<3 several
Books of the New Testament in which the word heaven is
not used. It is used only three or four times in all Peter's
writings, as referring to the future state ; so once in Philip-
pians, and twice in Colossians. In 1 and 2 Thestsaloniansit
is not mentioned once as being the future abode of the righ-
teous. It is not found at all in either of the Timothies, in
Titus, Philemon, Jude or Eomans. In the three epistles of
John it occurs but once, 1 John 5:7, and some suppo.se this
,to be spurious.

Those form the bone and sinew of the objections Univer-
salists lead against the Orthodox interpretation of the word
gehenna, as denoting a place of future punishment, which
the reader can see are got up only for etlcct, and thatM^hen
subjected to the ordeal of criticism vanish into thin air. It
is certainly very wonderful that Universal ists admit that
gehenna was used for hell, the place of the dajnned, in the
middle of the second century, when John had been dead
not half a century, and that the doctriui; of future endless
punishment was everywhere admitted at that early period ;
and yet when it is said gehenna was used in the same sense
in the days of Christ, it is denominated '' a monstrous, God-

^ I

200

UNIVERSALISM U:«FOUNDED.

IM!

:, !

■ ■

tiili'ti'

dishonouring assertion."

Having shown to an ocular demonstration that the
wicked will sutler punishment in " the lake ol' fire ", or ge-
henna, for sins committed in this life, we now proceed to
s1k)w that this punishment must, according to the teaching
of revelation, necessarily be endless. This we argue —

First, From the penalty of the divine law. All admit that
moral death is the necessary and inevitable condition of the
ti-ansgressor. This is the penalty, " The wages of sin is
death." Now if the punisiimont for sin is death, it must be
endless, for death is in its own nature absolutely eternal.
Death reigns eternal 1}" over every branch of creation, except
that over which his powtr has been repealed. The lower
animals die and will remain dead eternally, except they be
raised. Moral death must be equally extensive in point of
duration, as a penalty. There can be no life in death, else it
is not death. To say that it is in the power of man to re-
store himself from death, would be only saying that he is
his own Saviour, while God saj's, ** Besides me there is no
■Saviour." " If rightcouness come by the law, then Christ
is dead in vain," Drs. Cobb and Dods (Universalists) both
contend that " if Christ be not raised * * * then they
which have fallen asleep in Christ are ^;cmAec? ", that is,
they say, are cterwiUy dead. Hence Adam's transgression
subjected him, according to their own showing, to an eter-
nal non-existence ; therefore the death threatened to him,
as a penalty of sin, is in its nature eternal. It will Ix) una-
valing for Universalists to say with Mr. Austin that the
influences by which man is surrounded tend to raise him
out of the pit of sin, seeing that they all grow out of the
gospel of Christ, the gift of heaven, expressly to assist in
man's salvation. If any influences are brought to boar upon
man's heart to better hi^ condition, they do by no means
originate in death.

Second, Sin is an infinite offence, and therefore demands

lat the
, or ge-
;eod to
1 aching

ait that
n of the
' sin is
must be
eternal.
, except
e lower
they be
point of
I, else it
ri to re-
at he is
[•e is no
1 Christ
ts) lx)th
en they

that is,
^ression
an etor-

to him,

1x5 una-
;hat the
lise him
t of the
issist in

lar upon

means

1 e man (is

TDmTERSALlSSI IJNF0UND"E1).

-201

.an infinite punishment. 1. Because it is llie violation of
the infinite law of an infinito God. 2. An iiiliiiito atone-
ment was made to save man from it. That the Jclioviih of
the old Testament is an infinito being even Univei'salists
will not dare to deny. This Jehovnh became the Christ of
the new covenant. Zachai'iah testifies : " .Saith Jehovah
which stretcheth forth the heavens and laycth the founda-
tion of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him
* * * * They shall look upon me whom they have ^^'crccf/,
and fthall mourn ", ch. 12:1-10. Now read John 19:37, where
this is referred to Christ. Also Eev. 1:7-11, 22:13, " Behold
He cometh with clouds, and ovcry aye shall seo Ilim, and
they also which pierced Ilim, and all the kindreds of the
earth shall wail because of him * * H< i am Alpha and
Omega ; the Beginning and the End ; the First and the
Last ; He who is, and who was, and (//o Erhomenos) who is
to come ; the A Imighty (Hebrew, El ShadJai) who called
Abraham," Gen. 15:2. Again, John says in his gospel, ch. 12:41
''These things said Esaias [Isaiah], when he saw his glory
and spake of him [Christ] ". This is the glory Esaias saw,
" I saw THE Sovereign sitting upon a throne high and lifted
up ! and his train filled the Temple. Above it stooil the
Seraphim * * * and one cried unto another, saying. ' Holy,
holy, holy, Jehovah of Hosts ; the whole earth is full of His
glory.' Then said I, Woe is me! for mine eyes hath f-can
the King, Jehovah of Hosts ! ", ch. G:l-5. Everywhere llie
great aim of the New Testament writers is to identify
Christ, the jMessiaii, Avith Jehovaii of the Old Testament.
They affii'm that Isaiah saw the glory of Christ and spak'C
of him; in Isaiah it is the glory of Jehovah. That Christ
was the leader of Israel ; in the narrative of their jourjiey-
ings it was Johovali. That Moses preferred the reproaeli
of Christ to the treasures of Egypt; in {he Book of Exodus
it is Jehovah for whom ho endured all things. That at tlie
giving of the Law on Sinai the voice of Christ shook the

13 i

If i

202

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

eartli ; in Exodus it is the voice Jehovah. That the spirit
of Christ spake by the Prophets ; the Prophets themselves
attribute their revelations to the spirit of Jehovah. Now if
Christ, or Jehovah, became a sacrifice for sin, and ho was
an infinite being, then sin must be in its offence infinite,?and
therefore demands an infinite and endless punishment.
3. Sin is an infinite ovil in the same sense that holiness is
an infinite good ; and as sin displaces holiness and happi-
ness, and never restores them, it must be in its nature and
tendency, an infinite evil. Sin aims at defeating the high-
est pur^wse and design of the moral government of God, and
as that purjiosc is one of infinite good to moral beings, sin,
because it stands opposed to this highest and holiest motive
contemplated in the divine government, is an infinite evil,
and as such must subject to endless punishment.

Third. My third argument is founded upon the scriptural
evidence of the reward of the sinner. Thoy are said to -'■ re-
ceive their portion in this life ", Ps. 17:14, and their future
punishment to be their end — " whose end is destruc-
tion ", Phil. 3:19—-" whose end is to bo burned ", Heb. 6:8
— whose «M^ shall be according to their works ", 2 Cor. 11:15,
while the righteous are to have their " fruit unto holiness,
and the end everlasting Ufe'\ Eom. 6:22. The Scriptures de-
clare that the unrighteous shall not see — shall not enter
into — hath no inheritance in — and shall not inherit the king-
dom of heaven or of God. Jesus said to Nicodemus : " Ex-
cept a man be born again he cannot sec the kingdom of God",
John 3:3. Verse 5 says, he " cannot enter into the kingdom
of God." That this refers to and means the kingdom ofheaven
or of glory, in the future state, is evident fron. the 12th and
13th verses, where our Lord tells N'codomus that he is not
speaking of earthlj^ things, but of things in heaven. Also
from the fact that the spiritual kingdou of Christ on earth
'• cometh not with observation (or outward show as in the
margin) ", Luke 17:21, and thorefoi'o cannot be seen. Christ

tlNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

203

the Bpirlt

icmselves
1. Now if
id he was
finite^fand
nishmcnt.
oliness is
nd happi-
ature and
the high-
r God, and
eings, sin,
3st motive
inite evil,

scriptural
lid to •' re-
leir future
i destruc-
, Heb. 6:8
Jor. 11:15,
3 holiness,
■pturos do-
not enter
! the king-

LU3

Ex.
m of God",
e kingdom
I ofheaven
12th and
t he is not
ron. Also
,t on earth
as in the
en. Christ

*«'jwaking of his kingdom of grace on the earth fiaid : "The
idngdom of heaven is likened imtoa man which sowed good
•seed in hi« field ", Matt, 13:24. This field or kingdom, we
ai*e told, also brought forth tares, v. 27. In explaining this
■paifable to' the disciples he said : " As therefore the tares
are gathered and burned in the fire, so shall it be in the end
of this world. The iSon of Man shall send forth his angels,
arid they shall gather out of his Iclnydom all things that offend,
and them which do iniquity ", vs. 40-41. Thus we see that
we may enter the kingdom of God on earth and not he horn
itgnxn, but Cfmtinue to ^' do iniquity." This is the plainest
evidence tb.at the phrase ^'kingdom of God", in the conver-
sation with Nicodemus, could have been no other than
heaven itself Dr. John B. Dods, himself a Universalist,
preached a sermon on the above language of the Sa\ iour
to Nicodemus, and contended that the phrase " kingdom of
God " means the kingdom of glory in the immortal world.
Short Sermons, p. 80. Now if those who are not born again,
i. e., the wicked " shall not enter into the kingdom of God ",
or of immortal glory, how long will they be absented from
happiness ? Will they not, to make the Saviour speak sense,
be excluded from heaven etenially?

Matt. 5:20,"For I say unto you, that except your righteous-
ness shall exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Phar-
isees ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom ofheaven."
That this refers to the future heaven of the blessed is most
evident from the preceding passage, in which the kingdom
on earth is spoken of, and certain persons in this kingdom
are said to break the commandments of God, and " teach
men so ", and are called " least in the kingdom of Heaven.''^
But the kingdom in this passage will contain no such char-
acters — <' they shallin no case enter into " it. Then they will
be eternally, endlessly excluded from it !

Matt. 7:21, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord,
Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven ; but he that

■m

ill!

i,i'

1 h

204

CMCERsAr.isii tjfitotrtitiilif.

doctli the will of my futlicu' which is in heaven." ThisinusC
lefor to the Intiire world, 1. Because it is the saino in which
the Saviour roprosonts G<xl the Father existing as the cen-
tre of heavenly felicily. 2. There are those in the kingdom
of Gotl on ciirt h v.!i(> lA^ Ufit the mil o/hts Father in heaven, and
have entv.i\vl utXo it hy Haying Lord, Lord. 3. The fol-
lowing VV.MV es read ; •■ J\[any will say unto mi in that day
(the i-hxy of judgment — the Crreekis, '' that ve/y day ") Lord,
Lord, have wv v( 1 {»n>[)hesied in thy name ? (in the king-
liont of Gixl (»n (tf.'ili; :vud in thy name east out devils ? and
in thy tiamo <lofio iimsiy vonderful works ? And then will
I prolVss finto thoin, en* as Dr. Adam Clarke renders it,
• tlic'H trill I JhU>/ 'Ijh/ plainly tell them, I never knew you — /
liei^ei^ <!j'i)fon:d of i/uh ' ; depart from mo ye tliat worlc ini-
quity." These never shall to all eternity have a place in
hcaNcn. Keadcr, could Christ by the'., words po,ssibly
mwia ii'ijyUinjg but this ? t

1 Cor. GiO, " Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not
inherit the kingdom of God ? Be not deceived ; neither for-
uicntors^nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor efteminate,nor abu-
.-fvs of thiims^lves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous,.
nor drunkards,nor rcvilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit tlw
kiii(j*hn)i of God.'^ Xow thisjmust mean the kingdom of glory,
l;eciiuse I'anl says in v. 11 : " Ye are washed-ye are sancti-
iieil — ye are Justitied "; and therefore were most certainly
in \\\(. kingdom of GckI on earth, and yet ho speaks to them
of another kingdom : " Bo not deceived ; they shall not en-
ter into the kingdom of God.'' The fornicator or the adul-
terer may be a member of the kingdom below ; but he never
can enter the kingilom above. Besides the Christian hatt
no inheritance in the kintrdom of God on earth : bnt Gou
" hath begotten us [Avho aro in the kingdom on earth] to
an inheritance incorruptible, wseri^ec? in heaven ", 1 Pet. 1:3.
•' knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of
the inheritance ; for ye serve the Lord, Christ ", Col. 3:24,

UNIVERSAL ISM UNFOUNDED

205

rhisinusC
in which
1 the con-
kingdom
acen, and
, Thofol-
that day
") Lord,
the king-
vils ? and
then will
jndors it,
w you — /
worlc ini-
plaee in
possibly

shall not
ither for-
>,nor abu-
eovetoiiB,.
'uhcrit tJu.

of glory,
re sancti-
certainly
i to tliem
li not en-
the adul-
he nevci*
5tian ha8

but Gou
>arth] to

Pet. 1:3.
eward of
Col. 3:24.

Thiri also explains " the kingdom of God ", in the following
passage :

Eph. 5:5, ''No whoremonger, nor unclean, nor covetous
man, who is an idolater, hath any inherifance in the kingdom
of God and of Christ." Tlio term inherit in this connection
has peculiar force ; Christians are said to be " heirs accor-
ding to the hope of eternal life." '' If children, then heirs ;
'heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if so be that we
suffer with him that we may be also glorified together",
Eom. 8:17. "God hath begotten us to a lively hope * * *
,to an inheritance incorruj)tible, undefiled, and that fiideth
not away, reserved in heaven for you who are kept by the
power of God, through faith, unto salvation,, ready to be re-
•vealed in the last time ", 1 Pet. 1:3-4. Then if the wicked
are not heirs of God they liave no inheritance in heaven,
and therefore can never enter it. Now if the unrighteous
shall never enter heaven, they must be eternally miserable,
and therefore future punishment must be endless!

John 3:36, " He that believeth on the Son hath everlas-
ting life ; and he that believeth not shall not see life, but the
wrath of God abideth on liim,"

John 8:21, " I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall
die in your sins ; whither I go ye cannot come." The rea-
son is given in the 24th ver^e-"Jf ye believe not that I am
he, ye shall die in your sins." Now how long wiU they le
frora Christ if they cannot come to him. To dodge this
difficulty Universalists bring up the words of Christ to his
discij^les, which are in some respects similar. But there
are two ix)ints of difference. 1. Christ said to the Jews, " Ye
shall die in your sins ", which he did not say to the disci-
ples. 2. He said to his disciples: " Whither I go ye cannot
follow n>e now ; but thou shalt follow me afterwards " ;
which was not said to the Jews.

Fourth. Our fourth argument is that if the wicked are
punished at all ii? tke future state, that pu-nishment cannot

u. ij

li r:'M'-

t i

ilU

2UG

UNIVEKSALISM UNFOUNDED.

liu othonvi.so than endloriH. Wo have shown to ti f'xod cer-
tainly, wliich man or angol cannot deny, and as most Uni-
versal ists admit, that the wicked will bo punished after
death ; but they argue that this punishmen,. will be limited.
The gentlemen nev'. r wish to converse much upon the sub-
'ect of Purgatory, as they do not relish the use of that word ;
^till the name is perfectly appropriate to the doctrine, and
as we have already shown, Purgatory, that of Eomo as well
as that of Universalism, originated in Origen, the claimed
tbunder of the Univorsalian sect. But according to the
doctrine of Universalism, men cease sinnino- the moment
they die, and are therefore holy ; how then does punishment
in Purgatory make them holy ? And allowing that the
wicked are lioly before they enter upon that punishment,
we make out that God punishes holy things. This would
make God unjust, vindictive and cruel. If, however, the
()l)posite ground be taken, that the ungodly sin after death
— sin wliile in Purgatory — Pluto can never let tlienx out,
brth because unholy beings arc untit for and therefore cannot
enter heaven, and because punishment must succeed sin. We
may imagiiMJ anj- point of time in the future when the sin-
ner has become holy through purgatorial puriti cations, and
yet the punishment for his last sin must still be future, and
therefore be inflicted upon the now holy being. There is
no conclusion but this : Universalists have committed ihom-
selves to the doctrine of endless misery by committing tho
wicked, as Sklnaer did in his discussion with Campbell, to
a post-mortem Purgatory But what proof have wo that
those wicked will oyer get out and get to heaven ? None ;
It is the naked ijise dixit of Universalism. Endless punish-
ment is the logical corollary to the admission or rathoi* ar-
gument that the wicked are consigned to pui-gatorj'-, unless
the most formidable and positive proof be summoned that
tiioy will eventually get out! And of such proof there is
not a particle in existence. No amount of puuisboxQut cau

UNIVEllSALLSM UNFOUNDED.

207

i.iod cer-
lost Uni-
i(jd after
) limited,
tho sub-
iiit word ;
riiio, and
LO as well
) claimed
g to the
moment
lirtliment
that the
lishment,
is would
ever, the
tor death
hem out,
I'o cannot
sin. Wo
tho sin-
ions, and
ure, and
There is
od them-
ting tho
pbell, to
wo that
None ;
. punish-
athor ar-
)'-, unless
tied that
there ia

atone for sin, that is, can make tho guilty guiltless. Tho mur-
derer on coming outof prison after aconfinemontof iburtoon
years, ii us guilty, in tho face of God's moral law, as ho was
the day he perpetrated the horrid deed. Universalists in
proving that jiiirgatorial punishment expiates sin, must re-
concile tho idea with ILeb, 1:3, 7:27, 9:12-13, and many
other scriptures that teach that the sacrifice of Christ ex-
piates sin. If Christ's sacriiice expiates sin how can the ])un-
ishmeni of the wicked expiate it ? One or the other is redun-
dant. Universalists make out that righteousness comes by
the law, while Paul says : "If righteousness como bythe law,
then Christ is dea^l in vain." Mr. Skinnor saj^s with his fath-
er Origen, that the devil and his angels will all come through
the fire as [)ure as the silver from the furnace, lie is therefore
already getting better, and the Jews are more holy now than
they were two thousand }'ears ago. A few short years in this
after-death prison will puril'y and save more than the spirit
and sacrifice of Christ. It saves all its subjects. Of the
millions that have gone into this Umhus j)urgatoris xyowQ will
bo eternally lost. Cain, Ahab, Judas, Nero, and the devil,
are its splendid trophies ! On this, however, we observe :

1st. It makes punishment annihilate itself. In working
reformation in its subject it works itself out of existence.
This idea o:^' Universalism is very peculiar. First, God sub-
jects man to vanity, vanity suhject.s him to punishment, and
punishment in its turn subjects him to God. Hence it runs
in a circle, and by this course sin destroys itself, which re-
minds me of the story of tho two snakes which in a fit of
madness seized each other by the tail, and through the pro-
cess of suction kept up the spirit of tho action till nothing
was left of either,

2nd. It makes the effect destroy its cause. Sin causes
suffering, and suffering destroys sin. The man that sins
suffers, and his sufferings in Purgatorj' make him holy.

3rd, It represents tho sinner as being- saved by obeying

208

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

1 11'

a broken law. IIo is H.ivod upon his repentance, according
to Univorsalisni, wlion lio passes out of Purgatory, an(J
obejing the law he had broken on earth. This gives to
Pluto's law of justification a novel power — the power of
condemning uiid justifying the same person ! !

4tli. It robs God of his ability to punish or pardon, and
therefore snatches from the divine character tho attributes
of justice and mercy. God can only chasten the offender
whose own sutferings make him holy, so that he needs no
forgiveness. The sinner gets to heaven without any thanks
to Christ or God for his salvation. His pains arc his expi-
ation ; his chastisement his sanctification ; and his sor-
rows his pardon: so that he needs no Saviour; no Holy
iSpirit; no forgiveness.

5th. It makes two opposite causes produce the same ro-
eult- The love of God produces perfect love, and the wrath
of God produces perfect love. And yet more astonishing,
those who luxve been hardened by the love of God here are sof-
tened by tlie wrath of God hereafter I ! That God employs
all proper means here to save men cannot be denied, other-
ivise he is not infinitely merciful. But if here he goes to
the very boundaries of free agency, which Universalists
say he never passes over, and y<it fails to subdue them, it is
wholly gratuitous to affirm that he will succeed any better
in the future world. It is not a little remai'kable that, acr
cording to Universalism, God subjects men to sin to make
i!iem better, or to use the woixis of Mr. Skinner, to enjoy
" infinite and endless good, far superior to what otherwise
(t. e. without sin) would be experienced by the human fam-
ily " ; aEd yet ho has to subject th-em to the fires of Purga-
tory, sometimes 144,000 j'ears, to poirge them from it 11

Gth. It makes " the word of God of none effect.^' It makes
the dispensation of the gospel useless, and worse than use^
less. It makos it useless, because it will save all as well
w:lth&3it th« gospel as with it, and it makes it v^orse than

fNlVERSALfSM UNPOCNDED.

200

?cording
)ry, and
gives to
)ower of

ion, and
ttributes

offender
needs no
ly thanks
his expi-

his Ror-
no Holy

same ro-
the vrrath
;onishing,
ire are sof-
l employs
ed, other-
ic goes to
versalists
5hem, it is
my better

that, acr
1 to make

to enjoy
otherwise
iiman fam-

of Purga.'
ml it i 1

It makes

than user
ill as well
oorse than

Useless, because it is rejected by hundreds to every ono
that it saves, which, as all admit, entails an additional and
more fearfully aggravated i)uni'shnieMt ; ho that if the gos-
pel saves ono hero from passing through the tires of a future
purgatory (which must be proportionally mild to the unen-
lightened Pagan), there are hundreds whose guilt has been
accumulated by rejecting it, and will therefore be subjected
to a corresponding increase of misery. Then it would be
inlinitely better to have sullered all the world to be as ig-
norant as the red Indian or the Fejeeian, and to have so-
journed for a limited season under the gentle chastisemci\ts
of Pluto, and by an even and shorter passage reached heaven,
than to have enlightened them with the tsublimo gospel,
and subjected them to the vials of divine wrath, and the long
protracted miseries under the penal system, for the deeper
guilt of refusing the grace of God and rejecting his son.
Indeed this conclusion of Universalism is by no means re-
pudiated by them, as scon in the following language from
the pen of Eev. David Holmes : " A prominent Universalist
in Springport not long since declared it as his belief that
the Bible was not a blessing to the heathen, but only madt?
them worse j and another in Groton denounced all mission-
ary effort, and declared ho would not pay a cent to support
the gospel anywhere, even by Universalists, were it not to
oppose the orthodox ",(Iiuimes and Austin, note, page 582).
Universalist preaching is not inspired by Christian love,
for they preach Christ as ameremaTt, neither by compassion
for the souls of men, as they were never in danger.

7th. There is no proof that the wicked will ever find an
exit from this refining hoU. Universalists however man-
age the card by first assuming they tvill come ouf. 2. To
prove this assumption another assumption is made — that this
punishment expiates the guilt of sin. 3. As a corollary to
this a»stimption it is assumed that this punishment purifies,
happifies, and sanctifies all its subjects. And 4. That the

'teii'!

!]!■ I!

tti;

210

UNIVEIISAMSM tNFOT'NPKn.

Wk'ki'd I'CMso to bo wicktMl (lio iiiomont tlicy cntor holt.
This is Hi'iuUng sirilcs.s bcinjjjM to hoU to bo piirillod ! ! ! AH
this requires proof, mid iinlil liiis is <^nvon Univcrsulism
must eontiiuio to han^ on the skirts of (tHsimijifion. *'*'

8th. A strong reason against the escape of the wicked
from hell is that the law of (iod has a "curso ", wliich'it
could not liave if future punishment is discipr."irv. If fu-
ture torment is oniphn-ed as a means to purify and haj)pify
the wicked, it can no more be ccmsidered a '* curse " thaft
the Tuedicine administered to restore the invalid. Chris-
tians here never look upon the means of sanctitication i\h
the curse of the law ; and the sinner who by the severest
discipline is Fa-ought to Christ feels that ho thereby r^taijUnt
that curse. But could he over expect to escape it when ad-
dressed, " Depart ye cursed into everlasting fire prepared
for the devil and his angels ", Matt. 25:41. ''Yes ", says
Universalism, '' for future punishment whetherdenominatcd
a blessing or a curse is discijdinary, and altliough the Father
in his infinite love sent his Son to redeem us from sin, yet
his love nevertheless was not infinite, not onl}- because he
has failed to save all from sin in this life, for it is only iti
this life he saves, but because ho thereby prevented in a
great measure the manifestation of his love in purif^'ing
our souls in the fires of Purgatory. Calvary is not the cli-
max of his love, but the lake of fire, for those who will not
be induced by the former will certainly be washed and pu-
rified by the latter " ! I

The Saviour says : " The hour is coming in the which all
that are in the graves shall hear his voice and shall come
forth ; they that have done good unto the resurrection of
life ; and the}' that have done evil unto the resuiTOction of
damnation ", John 5:29. Here is the resurrection state ;
and how many of those who have been, some of them for
thousands of years in the furnace, are now purified ? Haa
not the long period between death and the resurrection

UNfVKUSALIHM UNFOINDEI).

211

tor licit.
I 111 All
•crwalism

J, .;

wicked
wliich it
r. If fu-

1 ha|)])ity
so" Hum
1. Cliris-
iciition m
! soverest
Ijy (scajtcs
: when ad-
I prcparcxl
'OS ", say 8
iominatc<l
the Father
n sin, yet
ccausc he
i8 only in
snted in a
purifying
lot the cli-
10 will not
Dd and pu-

3 which all
diall come
iTCction of
iTCction of
ition state ;
f them for
Red ? Has
esurrcction

]>oon tiufTii'iont to roclaim at leant Home of the more hopeful
of the wicked ? No, i\u: not a Hin^ijle exception is inatio hy
tlio Saviour. Tho ** rich man was ono of the early candi-
dates for this process of dihcipliiie, and ^et ho is not men-
tioned Jis " being througli ", and it must be confessed tliat
his experience of the reality was at all events at first — per-
ha])s time mado it more agreeable — not as encouraging aa
Universalism represents it, for ho not only wishes his
friends to escape this place of torment, but evinces no hope
of his escape and if he liad no faith in it, why should
wo ? When God designed to grant unto his ancient people,
forseeing their apostacy and punishment, a second proba-
tion, he informs them of it that they might have hope in
tlie midst of wrath. " When thou art in tribulation and all
these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days if
thou turn to the Lord thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his
voice (for the Lord thy God is a merciful God) he will not
forsake thoe j neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant
of tliy fathers which ho sware unto thee ", Deut. 4:30.
" If my covenant bo not with day and night, then ^'ill I
cast off tbo seed of Jacob ; for I will cause their captivity
to return and have mercy upon them ", Jer. 33:25-26. " [
will for this afflict the seed of David, but not forever ",
1 Kings 11:39. Here God makes it known that they shall
have a second probation, and verily, if no such j^romises
are mado to the wicked, tho presumption is that they will
1x5 permitted to enjoy no second offer of salvation. As wo
road tho denunciations against Edom, Babylon, Tyre,
and Egypt, wo find no word of promise in their doom, and
tho utter ruin of these kingdoms is a sufficient reason for
the absence of such testimony, and to convince all that it is
only attributable to tho fact that their destruction was to
be final.

On the phrase, " It had been good for that man (Judas) if
he had not been lorn'\ Matt. 20:24. Dr. Adam Clarke re-

I" '

212

univeusausm unfounded.

marks : '' Can tins be said of any sinner if there be any re-
demption from hell's torments ? If a sinner should suffer
millions of years in them and get out at last to the enjoy-
ment of heaven ; then it >\^is -well for him that he had been
born, for still ho litis un eternity of blessedness before him.
Can the doctrine of the non-etcrniti/ of hell's torments stand
in the presence of this saying? Or can the doctrine of
the anniliilation of the wicked consist with this declaration ?
It would liave been well for that man if he had never been
lx)rn : then ho must be in some state of consclons existence,
as noH'Cxistcnce is said to be better than that state in which
he is now found ", Com in loco. Solomon says : " There is
no work in the grave whither thou goest ", Ecc. 9:10. The
word gnive is hades in the original [the Soptuagint], and
means the place of departed spirits. Solomon, therefore,
was not a restoration ist, for he says there is no work there !

9th. "\Ye have positive proof that the inmates of this ge-
henna will bo unable to all eternity to obtain a possibility
of escape. As shown in argument 3, Christ and his apos-
tles declare that the unrighteous shall not see — shall not
enter into — and shall not inherit the kingdom of glory in
the future world. Let this he rememhcrexl!

Fifth. Our lifth argument in proof of the endlessness of
punishmeiit is from the parable of the tares of the field,
Matt 13:24-13. In this Christ represents the case of the
sinner as hopeless. Universalists manifest a great concern
and wincing when brought to dispose of this parable, as
they well know when fairly intei'pi-etod it sw"ee2)s from the
field every vestige of opposition. The exposition of Mr.
Cobb is the only one that has ever been made to explain it
away. The word \vorld in the phrase " thq, harvest is the
end of the world ", v. 39, he translates age, and asks : " To
the end of what age did Jesus apply the event of this par-
able ? He expressly ajiplied it to the end of the then
present or Jewish age." As usual, this destruction of the

TmrVERSALISM TJNPOUNraSD.

:213

>e any rc-
ald Buffer
the enjoy-
had been
.'fore him.
jnts stand
oc trine of
:^laration ?
ever been
existence,

in which
"There is
1:10. The
;'int], and
therefore,
ork there !
3f this ge-
possibility

his apos-
— shall not
f glory in

cssncss of

the field,

Lse of the

at concern

arable, as

s from the

on of Mr.

explain it

est is the

asks : '' To

)f this par-

' the then

ion of the

■wicked, with the numerous others, is added to the back of poor
old Jerusalem. But we regard it as utterly impossible that
Christ here had reference to the destruction of the Jews,
because, 1, Christ said ; " the kingdom of heaven is likened
unto a man which sowed good seed in his field ", v. 24, and
in no one instance did he ever style the Jewish dispensation
or the Jews as a nation, as the kingdom of heaven. 2. In
this same chapter Christ likens the kingdom of heaven to a
grain of mustard seed, v, 31 ; to leaven which a woman hid
in three measures of meal, v.. 33,; to treasui-e hid in a field,
V. 44 ; to a merchant seeking goodly j)eavl8, v. 45 ; and to
a net, v. 47 j and in every one of them the phrase " kingdom
of heaven " denotes the gospel kingdoui, and strange to say,
Mr. Cobb himself in commenting upon the fu'st says,^ 'Every
repeated occurrence of the phrase kingdom ofJi.ecuvcn in the
Jlecord renders more and more clear the sense in which we
have been led, by a fair exegesisi, to rjeceive it from the be-
ginning. It is the Messianic Ji»eign." And yet he picks out
the phrase in a single instance out of six and applies it to
the Mosaic dispensation and the destruction of Jerusa-
lem! It is well known that the parable of the leaven is
frequently referred to by Universal ists as proof that all will
be saved, or leavened, through the gospel. " How beauti-
fully", says Cobb, " are the beginning and advancement of
the gospel in the earth, and its diftusive and generative
qualities represented by the grain of mustard seed sown in
the field, and leaven hid in the meal." 3. "He that
fioweth the good seed is the Son of Man '' not Moses, and
therefore the kingdom here spoken of must mean the gospel
reign of Christ, which will eventually encompass the ter-
restial globe. 4. " The field is the world." Here the word
world is from the Greek kosmos, which never means any-
thing but the literal earth, and we can hardly suppose that
the Saviour would compare the land of Judea to the world,
much less imagine the good and bad were gathered from

,.'i I]

214

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

the entire field, the world, the same as wheat and tares are
harvested, and that the wicked were burned as these tares,
in the overthrow of Jerusalem. 5. •'The harvest is the end
of the world " (aionos). Now if this means the end of the
Jewish age, as it Avas the Son of Man tliat sowed the field,
then the harvest has been already reaped, and the period of
gospel growth and culture has passed by eighteen centuries,
and as the wheat field yields no second crop, all those that
hixve lived since that period can only be considered as a
second growth of tares, whose end is to be bui'ned. 6. ' ' The
reapers are the angels." Who were these angels ? The
Eoman soldiers that destroyed Jerusalem ? Very probable
they discriminated between the good and the bad, the same
as the harvester separates the wheat from the tares ! Would
they not have cast the good " into the furnace of fire " — the
destruction of Jerusalem — as well as the wicked ? Or were
these angels the apostles ? No^ for it was not their busi-
ness to select the bad from among the good, and to cast
them into a furnace of fire. Then who were these angels?
Who will answer ? These arc doubtless the same messen-
gers of which Christ spoke, at least Universalism makes
them the same — when he said : " And he shall send his an-
gels with a great sound of a trumpet (and these are called
holi/ angels, Mark 8:38), and they shall gather together his
elect from the foui- winds, from one end of heaven to the
other", Matt. 24:31. Indeed, Mr. Cobb on this passage, and
on Matt. 13:41, says tliese angels are agents of heaven. It
would be very natural for the reapers to gatJier together the
wheat and septirate it from the tares, but where is the evi-
dence that it was gathered at the end of the Jewish age ?
Who ever heard of Christ's elect being gathered then when
he commanded them to "flee into the mountains". Matt.
24:16. And whore were the churches at Rome, Corinlj,
Thessalonica, and Philippi, the fruit of the good seed sown
by the Son of Man, that they were not gathered, and that

imiVEKSALISM UNFOUNDED,

215

I tares are

hese tares,

t is the end

end of tlio

[ the field,

le period of

1 centuries,

those that

dered as a

. G. "The

els ? The

y probable

i\, the same

es ! Would

fire "—the

* Or were

their busi-

and to cast

3se angels ?

nae messen-

ism makes

lend his an-

3 are called

)gether his

iven to the

•assage, and

lieaven. It

together the

) is the evi-

nvish age ?

then when

ins ". Matt.

le, Corintii,

i seed Bown

>d, and that

the tares in them v^^ere not also cast into the furnace of
Jerusalem ?

The evident reference of this parable, is to the gospel
reign of Christ in the earth. No other exposition is pos-
sible without being crowned with difficulties and absurdi-
ties, and as the future punishment of the wicked is com-
pared to the burning of tares, there can be no release from
the " furnace," which is another evidence that punishment
is endless.

There are other and abundant scriptures that declare the
unending nature of future punishment. As in the para-
ble of the tares, the wicked are represented as being in
danger of pem^in^, ''That whosoever believeth in him
should Jiot perish, but have eternal life," John 3:15. Verse
16 is similar, "should not perish but have everlasting life."
From these appear two important points, 1. That salvation
is conditional — "whosoever heUevcth.'' 2. That the future
condition of the sinner as the result of not believing in
Christ will be irreparable, for such is the force of the term
perish. And it not only appears inat if eternal life means
to be finall}^ hol^^ and happy, that to perish means to be fi-
nally miserable, but also, that this unhappy state will be
eternallv fixed, as it is contrasted with eternal life. The
word ^£Tt.sA in this place is from the Greek '^apoletai " com-
j)Oundod of ^'apo," intensive and " aleo " to destroy, and
hence, according to Donegan and Parkhurst, means "to
destroy utterly," and in every instance in the New Testa-
ment in which it cx!curs, denotes utter destruction, whether
applied to life, property or morals. In this place it teaches
the wreck of the soul, for which there is no remed3\ IJni-
versalists try to evade the force of these texts by affirming
that it has reference to temporal punishment, but in this
they cross that vein of their doctrine which gives the sin-
ner his punishment as he goes along, whereas Christ in these
places teaches a destruction to which every human being

:»' ti

\-l-

216

tJNlVERSALlSM tNFOtNDlTi).

1-4 '■ I

iviti

will eventually attain, except he obtain salvation throtigfi
him. Again, it is asserted that eternal life is something
that is enjoyed in this life, and hence, that jpmsA is not an
after-death but temporal punishment. But this is of no ef-
fect, unless it be argued that eternal life is confinedto thislife^
a position that would scarcely be assumed by the advocates
of unvivoreal salvation. Bat wo deny thatt etemad life fe
actually enjoyed in this life. We only have it by hope and
faith. They quote " He that heareth my word and believ-
eth on him that sent me hath everlasting life and shall not
come into condemnation, (Gr. into judgment) [ but id passedr
from death unto life," John 5:24. Jobs also says " He that
hath the Son hath life," 1 Jo. 5:12, hence in whatever way
we have the Son we must in the same way have life. Now
how have wo the Son ? " That Christ may dwell in your
hearts ly faith " — '* Christ in you the hope of glory." H^.e-
we undei-stand that we have Christ by faith and hope, not
in reality. Your life Christian '-' is hid with Christ in God,"
but " when Christ who is our life shall appear then shall ye
also appear with him in glory," Col. 3:3,4. Eternal life is to
us only in promise. Paul says to Timothy "According to tha*
promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,"^ 2 Tim. 1:1. "And
thic is the promise that ho has pi-omised us, even eternal
life," 1 John 2:25 ; see Tit. 1:21 It is true there ai'e' two- or
three places where it is said we hav^ eternal life, but this
can only be understood as having inherited its promise.
In the same style Clirist said " Search the scriptures, for in
them ye think jq have eternal life," John 5:39. Did He
mean to sa}'- that his hearers believed they had eternal lifb
in the Scriptures? Certainly not, but that they believed
they had there the promise of eternal life. Obser^^e that
this and the text under criticism are both in the same chap-
ter, and were used in the same discourse hj the Saviour.
And wo are happy to say that we can add even Universal-
ist authority to this exposition^ and this from the pen of

UNIVERSALI3M UNFOUNDED

217

n tlirongfi
something
, is not an
is of no ef-
to this lifby
advocates
Ticrf life fe
;' hope and
nd believ-

I shall not
trf pas»edL
"He that

tever way
life. Now

II in your
y.'' Here-
hope, not

5t in God,"
n shall ye
al life is to
ling to tha*
Irl. "And
>n eternal
ai'e'twoor
?, but this
promise,
[res, for in
Bid He
temal lifb
' believed
5er\^e that
ame chap-
) Saviour.
(Jniversal-
he pen of

one of the clearest heuded men that is to Ije found in their
ranks — a conclusion all will endorse who have read his
<' Twelve Lectures." I mean Dr. J. B. Dods. He remarks:
" But, cannot a man pass from death unto life while on earth?
Yes ; he can pass from death to life through faith in that
truth." Jesus says, "Hethathearcthmy word and believeth
on him that sent me hath everlasting life and shall not come
into condemnation but is passed from death unto life." Oar
eternal life will be rca^t2e(^ beyond death, but is enjct i
here only by faith," S. Sor. pp 92,3. Al). we have to do
when Universalists quote Christ's words in John 5:24, is to
quote V. 39 of the same chapter, where he explains him-
self; and when they quote 1 John 5:12, or any other text
from the pen of that apostle where life is spoken of in the
present tense we can read 1 John 2:25, where he explains
himself as meaning eternal life in promise, so also John 6:
•27. In the following passages eternal or everlasting life
can only be interpreted to mean the life of the glorified in
heaven. " These shall go away into everlasting punish-
mentjbut the righteous into life eternal." Matt.25:46. These
righteous tlien had no eternal U/e here but are promised
it. " Who shall not receive manifold more in this pres-
ent time and t?i ^^e iccrW to come life everlasting," Luke
18:30. " He that hateth his life, i. c, who is a Christian in
heart, in this world, shall keep it unto life eternal," John
12:25. " That he should give eternal life to as many as
thou hast given him," John 17:2. Here those who were
Christ's disciples had yet to receive eternal life. "Who will
render to them who by patient continuance in well-doing
seek for glory, honour and immortality-eternal life," Eom.
2:7. If any possess eternal life in this world it is those
who ^^ by patient continuance in well doing (who) seek for
glory, honour and immortality," and yet Paul looks upon
it as still future — " Who ivill render eternal life,*' O man of
G-od— fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life,

*«i!i'
"•i\

i^l :

218

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

t f

'I!' i

1 Tim. 6:11,12. Timothy was a holy man and is here de-
nominated by Paul a " man of God," and yot ho had not at-
tained to eternal life, for ho was exhorted to " lay hold an
eternal life." This phrase has the same force in v. 19 — Paul
in hojye of eternal life which God, that cannot lie, promised
before the world began to Titus, mine own son," Tit. 1:1-4.
Here Paul himself says that he enjoys eternal life only by
hope, that he has not j-et attained to it, but by the promise
made before the foundation of the world. " That being jus-
tified by his grace wo should be made heirs according to the
hope of eternal life." Here again eternal life is said to be
to the Christian only in hope. "Keep yourselves in the love
of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ un-
to eternal life," Judo 21. This was addressed to Christians
— to those who already possessed eternal life — if enjoy-
ed at all in this life — for he addresses his epistle to those
" that are sanctified by God the Father and preserved in Je-
sus Christ and called," v. 1 — still eternal life is taught to
them as being yot future. Labour not for the meat which
perisheth but for that meat which endureth unto everlast-
ing life, which the Son of man shall give unto you," John
6:27. This shows that even the first followers of Christ did
not enjoy eternal or everlasting life but were promised it —
"shall give unto you." Mr. Cobb in his commentary
tackles several of these texts to oxpiiin them away, but
does not raise a finger on approaching this, "But now be-
ing made free from sin and become servants to God, ye have
your fruit unto holiness and the end everlasting life," Eom.
6:22. This text informs us of those who vjgyq free from siuy
and uho did not even then enjoy everlasting life, and yot Mr.
ykinner saj'S, " The aionios zoe, (eternal or everlasting life )
of the gospel almost always, if not uniformly, signifies the
continuous spiritual life or joy and peace which believers
enjoy, which pertains peculiarly to the Messiah's kingdom.
In not one instance ", he continues, " in all the Now Testa-

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

219

hero de-
had not at-
ly hold an
. 19— Paul
, promised
Tit. 1:1-4.
fe only by
le promise
being jus-
ding to the
said to be
in the love
Christ un-
Christiana
—if enjoy-
to those
•ved in Je-
taught to
eat which
) everlast-
ou," John
Christ did
mised it —
mmentary
away, but
it now be-
d, ye have
ife," Eom.
'e from sin,
id yet Mr.
iting life )
;nities the
believers
kingdom,
ew Testa-

ment does the phrase necessarily, une(iuivoeally and exclu-
sively apply to the immortal and endless state of a glory
hereafter " ! ! Let. 11, par. 14. What are wo to think of a
system that requires its advocates to make such inexcusable
blunders and anti-scriptural assertions. The last two texts
we shall quote will servo to illustrate and confirm most
positively the doctrine we contend to be taught in John
3:15. The first is the next verse after the last quoted from
Romans (6:23) ; but we will quote them together : " But
now being made free from sin and become servants to God,
ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting
life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is
eternal life, through Jesus Christ (»>ir Lord." Observe that
the original, rendered everlasting in the first and eternal in
the last, is the same, and hence the life in both cases is the
same. This is also shown by the word " for." In the first
instance, as just noticed, this life cannot possibly mean any-
tliing but the life of the saints in heaven which must also
be the import of the last. Here then we hiive death con-
trasted with eternal life, and as the latter is in the future
state, so must also the former be ; and as this life is in-
disputably endless, so also must be the reward or " wages "
of the wicked The second is Gal. 6.7,8, " Be not deceived ;
God is not mocked ; for whatsoever a man soweth, that
shall he also reap. For he that soweth to the flesh shall of
the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth td the Spirit
shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting." ''And let us not be
weary in well doing; for in due season we shall reap if wo
faint not." Who can read this Avithout supposing that Paul
was actually present and heard the parable of the wheat
and tares as it fell from the lips of the Saviour ? This can-
not be applied to the destruction of Jerusalem. Here ever-
lasting life must be the harvest in the future world, which
the Christian shall reap. Paul did not expect to reap as Uni-
yersalists do while he was sowing the seed, but looked for

220

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

\m •■ ■:(

it as hid with Christ in God. Observe here that corruption
is contniBted with everlasting life, as the harvest of the Bin-
ner. The word corruption here has the same force as the
word j3cm/i. in John, as shown by Peter — "shall utterly per-
ish in their own corruinion ", 2 Pet. 2:12. The harvest is
the end cf the world (or Christian age). As therefore the
tares are gathered and burned in the tire, so shall it be at
the end of this world. The word "■ corruption " probably
has reference to the bodies of criminals, which putrefied and
bred worms in the valley of Hinnom, or gehenna, which
was used in our Saviour's tijne as a figure to teach the hor-
ror of the punishment of hell. In the presence of all this
evidence who will yet say that punishment is ending and not
endless ? !

The phrase "' eternal death " does not occur anywhere in
the Scriptures, It is found however in the epistle of Barna-
bas in the following passage : " The way of darkness is
crooked and full of cursing. For it is the way of eternal
death with puni!-;hment : in which the}^ that walk meet
those things that destroy their own souls ", c. 20. Hero is
" a death that never dies ", for it is an eternal death with
punishment.

But we are told that it is an insult to common sense to talk
of sowing in one place and reaping in another. How would
it look, it is said, for a man to sow in Ohio and go west of
the Eocky Mountains to reap his crop ? But let me ask in
return, "Who ever heard of a man sowing with one hand and
reaping with the other ? which is the doctrine of Univ^rsal-
ism, and is neither nature, reason, common sense nor reli-
gion. But are Universalists sure that we may not, in a
spiritual point of view, sow in one place and reap in anoth-
(Or? I think hardly. Men, for instance, have sown the
iseeds of iniquity in Europe and reaped in America the
fruit of their evil doings. But how do Universalists know
tliat the righteous and the wicked will bp rewa.rded ii)

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

2211

I corruption
of tho sin-
I'co as the
utterly jjcr-
harvest is
refore the
ill it be at
probably
Lroficd and
ina, which
h the hor-
3f all this
ng and not

ywliero in
> of Barna-
irkness is
3f eternal
'alk meet
Hero is
lecdh with

se to talk

ow would

;"o west of

me ask in

hand and

Jniversal-

i nor reli-

not, in a

in anoth-

sown the

erica the

ists know

rardjjd in

another world ? Tho resurrection is to take place on this
earth, and as they are to bo rewarded at the resurrection,
it seems very likely that it will also bo upon this earth they
will receive the sentence of eternal glory. But Universal-
ists are the last men that should talk about timely tilings
being delayed to be settled in eternity, for according to»
their own doctrine this is the great scheme of Deity, to se-
cure the salvation of all men, for instead of exerting A1-'
mighty power to save them here, he lets all live and die in
their sins, and produces the desired result, either in Purga-
toiy or at the resurrection of the dead.

6th. The sixth argument we adduce in the affirmative of
the endlessness of punishment, is from the doctime of an-
tithesis. All agree to the deiinition given by logicians that
"^the words on both sides of an antithesis are to be taken in
the same extent of meaning." Universalists quibble upon
this point, but do not presume to deny the doctrine, as their
strongest proof of universal salvation is hung upos it.. For
instancG- :. " As in Adam aU die,, even so- in Christ shall all
be made alive," Here, we are told, is the evidence that all
who die will be made alive again, L e., the entire human
race' will be finally holy and happy. " For as by one man's>
disobedience mani/ were made sinners, so by the obedience
of one shall nvani/ be made righteous", Eom. 5:19. The
same many, the whole human family, in the first instance,
that were made sinners, shall all be made righteous, and
will therefore be saved. "We admit both these examples to
be perfect antitheses, but they do not teach what Universal-
ists afiSrm. The first only proves a universal resurrection,
i. e., that all who die will come to life again, without any
reference whatever to their character. The second Univer-
salists do not believe, notwithstanding their quoting it, for
they deny the doctrine of original sin, or total depravity-—
that all were made singers by one man's disobedience. But
allowing they believe it, w^here is the universal salvation ?

1!r

li.-il

i!-i

I u;

♦1

lis

222

iTNIVT.TtSALISM TTNFOirNDffDr,

The ovidont meaning of the passage is this : Paul is treat-
ing of the influence of Christ's death in contrast to the dis-
obedience of Adam. Through th^ latter all mankind be-
came dcsid in sin — totally depraved — while the death of
Christ repeals this sentence and all men are justified from
their original iniquit}'. The word " righteous " in the text
in hand docs not mean holy, but in a justified stale; there-
fore it may be paruphraiscd thus r "Fora^by Adam's trans-
gi'essioji all ma.ikind were made accountable for sin (which
they never committed), so by the obedience of (yhristto the
death of tlio cross arc all Justiticd from that sin, or made
r'ghtcous." But boar in mind thdt his death docs not take
awa}' the disposition to sin arising from the o: i/rinal trans-
gression, but only shields us from the penalty. llcnc«
those who die in iiifjuicy will be saved, whi'e the adult
is made accountable only for his own sins. Tlie ])as,';ag08
which form the Ijasis of the present argument, are equally
and purely iiiitithotical. " The wages of sin is death, but
tJie gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord,"
Eom. G,23. As just shown the wages or punishment of sin is
put in antithesis with eternal life, and this life can be no
other than the future life of the holy. '' These shall go
away into everlasting ])unishment, but the righteous into
life eternal ", Matt. 25;4G. In this "everlasting " and " eter-
nal " arc from the same Greek word aionios, and if, as seen
above, the word eternal (aionios) expresses the future and
endless continuance of the future life of the saints in hea-
ven, the Avord "everlasting" (aionios) must denote an after-
death i>uiushment, also endless in duration, for certainly
the word aionios when used in the same breatlr by the same
sjieakcr, must in all candour and fair dealing mean the same
thing. ()u this passage Dr. Adam Clarke remarks : "Some
are of opinion that this punishment shall have an end; this
is as likelj' as that the glory of the righteous shall have an
end; for the same word is used to express the duration of

UNIVERSAL ISM UNFOUNDED.

22.3

ul iK treat,
to the cliH-
uiikind be-
doatL of
tiriod from
in tlio text
Uo ; tlicre-
iim*H triius-
HJn (Avhich
irintto tho
n, or made
58 not take
inal tranw-
llciic'«
e the adult

])as,<agc8
re equally
doatli, but
our Lord,"
lit of 8in is
can be no
3 shall go
teous into
[ind "■ eter-
if, as seen
iiture and
its in hea-
;e an aftor-

certainly
r tho same

1 the same
s: "Some
end; this

11 i»ave an
iration of

the punishment, /cf/?a«m aa>/u*on, as is used to express tluMlu-
ration of tho state of glory, xocn alouion. 1 ha\c seen the
best things that have been Avritten in favour of tho redemj)-
tion of damned spirits; but I never saw an answer to the
argument against that doctrine drawn from this verse
but what sound letirning and criticism should l)0
iishamcd to acknowledge. The original word aiun is
cai'tainly to ha taken hero in its proi)er grammatical
sense, contimied beiitg, aiei on, never ending ", Com.
in loco. This evidence is so weighty that Univcrsalists have
practically owned it to bo unmanageable, for Mr. Cobb, in
his Now Testament "with Notes, and othor late writers have
taken another method of disposing with the argument, by
backing down and denying that the " life eternal ", and
consequently that the "everlasting punishment", refer to
another world at all, but that they are both confined to this
life. This is positive proof that the testimony in favour of
the endlessness of punishment in this text is to them insur-
mountable. All that is necessary now to their being check-
mated is to p:.*ove that the text cannot refer to any but the
life immortal, and let this once be made out and the ftite of
Universalism in denying endless punishment, is forever
sealed. This then wo argue because, 1. In this parable
Christ says, "When^the Son of man shall come in his glory
and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the
throne of his glory, and before him shall be gathered all
nations," vs. 31,32. The phrase ^' all nations " should have
been " a?Z ^Ae ??afiows " as it is thus written in the Greek.
Now, most certainlj'' Christ did not appear in this manner
at the destruction of Jerusalem, for instead of all the na-
tiont of the earth being gathered there, there was none at
all. The Jewish nation could not be said to have been
gathered, and the Roman army could not be considered a
nation.
2. When we quote 2 Thess. 1 :10, "where the apostle says

224

UNrVERSALISil UNFOUNDED^.

that tljo wicked " ahdll be banished from the preaence of the
Lord,'' \vc tti'o told tlitit tliis in to bo undoi'Htood iiw tlio hun-
ishmeut of the Jews from the temple of Jerusulem, -where
God's j[)j'e.senco, known a« the Hhekinuh, dwelt. Again, Mr.
Cobb and others contended that the wicked being cant into
the " evorhisting lire prepared for tlie devil and his angels,"
moans the tire that was kindled by Titus in Jerusalem, "pre-
pared for the liigh })ricst and his emissaries," for so thoy
ti'anslate it. Then whon the Lord said " Come ye llemd,''
meaning as a matter of coui'so, come into iiisi)resenco, tJmt
is into tlie temple, ho meant come into tbe everlasting firo
prepared lor the /t/(//t priest and his emissaries, that is,
the devil and his angels (see Cobb on Matt. 25:41.) And
whon the wicked were commanded to depart from hia
presence as being cursed, it signifies they were to be di'ivon
away from liell — fj >' ^ the overksting fire prepared ibr tbe
devil and his angeJs. What cannot Universalism make of
the Scriptures 1 I

3. Christ says in v. 34, at his second advent, he will say
to the righteous, " Come ye blessed of my father, inherit
the kingdom prepsu-ed for you from the foundation of the
world." This again eorld not be applied to the overthrow
of Jerusalem, as his disciples then iidieritcd no kingdom or
eternal life, (v, 40) but what they already enjoyed. In this
parable the righteous are represented as receiving their re-
ward, but Christ in no one instance promised his discijjles
their reward at the consummation of the Jewish religion
:aud polity. His language is,''Eejoice and be exceeding glad,
for great is your reward in heaven,'' Matt. 5:12. Again, the
word " inherit " is equal to affirming that this has respect
to the future state, as the followers of Christ have no inher-
itance here, " Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom
of God, nor dotli corruption inherit incorruption," 1 Cor.
15:50. Peter says Christ " hath begotten us * * * to an
inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that fadeth not

1l/N1\ER8ALIS.TI UNFOUNrTK-n.

225

ncc of tJie
w tho bun-
iin, ^vhere
\gain, Mr.
^ cunt into
i.s iingclH,"
loin, "pre-
»r 80 thoy

soiico, iJiat
asting tiro
), that is,
1.) And
from his
> be tli'ivon
'od for the
1 make of

le will say
!r, inherit
on of the
)v or throw
ingdomor
d. In this
g their re-
disciples
1 religion
(ling glad,
Vgain, the
IS respect
! no inher-
i kingdom
," 1 Cor.
^ * to an
■'adeth not

nway racnuid in, hcarai for yoii, (*"«)" 1 IVl. 1:4.

4. The ** otornal iifo " lnu'e h])oI<(!I) of as being inheritid
or entered upon could not l»y any ])luusiblo or indeed poss-
ible interi)rctalJon be made to denote any other tban the
life of the saints in light, for most doHnitely if eternal life
over could be iidiei-itt'd here, these eliaraeters whom tlic
tiuviour calls " blessed " and recogni//<5s as luiving <lone m)
much good, must have inlu*rited it before the destruction
of Jerusalem- But it so happens, as wo have fully proved
elsewhere, that eternal life cannot bo inhei-ited in this life,
and that the Christian enjoys it oidy bylhith in its pnmiise.
Wo therefore claim that the phrase '* eternal life " most cer-
tainly does mean the lile of the glorified in hoaven, and
therefore, that the punishment j)ut in contrast with it must
also be endless. Should Universalists shift the idea as some
already appear to luive done, and contend that ' eternal life'
only means the enjoyment of the Christian in the gospel
dispensation after the destruction of Jerusalem, all we have
to say is, that Christ in the pai'able makes < eternal lite' the
reward of those who had discharged their duty in doing
good; and henco as the apostles, especially to whom this
was addressed, were all dead, with the exception of John,
when Jerusalem was destroyed, the ])aj'able had no refer-
once to those who heard it, and eleven of the apostles did
not receive the reward of eternal life. Paul said to Timo-
thy, " O man of God * * lay hold on eternal life," (1 Tim
6:11, 12), and yet • eternal life' was so far away that nei-
ther Paul nor Timothy ever reached it.

The passage from Thessnlonians has been difficult of dis-
posal with Universalists, but they to a man have at lengtn
agreed to a single and only exposition — "Which is a man-
ifest token of the righteous judgment of Gotl that ye may
bo coutned worthy of the kingdom of God for which ye
also suffer, seeing it is ii righteous thing with God to recom-
pense tribulation to them that trouble you ; and to you who

II I

■ ; -i

|!!l

tip

22G

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDKD.

arc troubled rest "with us when tlie Lord Jesus shall bo r^
vealcd from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming tire,
(oi- rather in thunder <vnd lightning, as in the Greek — so say»
Clarke), taking vengeance on them that l;no\v not Goil, and
that o])ey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ ; who
shall bo punished with everlasting destruction from the
presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power ;
when lie shall come to be glorified in his saints and to bo
admired in all them that believe (because our testimony
among you was believed) in that day," 2 Thcss. 1 : 5-9. —
Tlicy explain this as tlu^y do nearly the Vvdiole of the IS'ew
Testament, as referring to the Jews — and there was a trou-
blesome synagogue at Thessalonica — and the overthrow of
Jerusalem. It is worthy of remai'k, that when contending
u])on the phrase " from the presence of the Lord," in this
passage, Mr. Austin (in hisdebate with liev, David Holmes)
observed: ^' God's presence tills all space." 'Whither
shall 1 go from thy spirit ? or whither shall I flee from thy
presence? If I ascend up iui.0 heaven thou art there; if
1 msike my bed in Hell behold thou art there ', Ps. 189:7-8.
If my friend (Holmes) insists this punishment is from tho
presence of the Lord, then it cannot be in hell, of which he
preaches so much. For God^s presence is there. Here Mr.
Austin, in his eagerness to destroy the idea that "the pres-
ence of the Lord" in tlio above text meant his heavenly pres-
ence, commits himself at once to the doctrine of the ortho-
dox hell, and quotes the Psalmist to prove it. Really the
defenders of the system are grievously perplexed. But this
Universalian flourish of this text, over old Jerusalem, we
deny, because L It was only eighteen j'ears from the wri-
tjp.g of this letter to the Thessalonians till the destruction
of Jerusalem, and certainly if this judgment was the de-
struction of Jerusalem, it was a judgment th;it wasat hand,
and yet Paul says to them in the very same epistle, and in
The same connection : '"'Now we beseech you brethren by

liNlVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

227

shall be ro-
flaming tire,
itik — so sayti
lot Goil, and
/hvist ; who

n from the

his power;
s and to bo
r testimony
ss. 1 : 5-9.—

of the Now
) was a trou-
vcrthrow of

contending
)rd," in this
vid Holmes)
' Whither
!ice from thy
irt there; if
, Ps. 189:7-8.

i* from the

of which he

Here Mr.

at "the pres-

eavenly pres-

[)f the ortho

Really the
3d. But this
I'usalem, we
i*om the wri-
! destruction
was the de-
was at hand,
istle, and in
brethren by

the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering to-
gether unto him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be
troubled, neither by spirit, nor by wcu'd, nor by letter as
from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand ", cJi. 2:1-2.
Paul puts this judgment i'nY in the future, and could not
mean the destruction of Jt;rusalem, for he speaks of " our
gathering together unto liim." Paul was dead before the
destruction of Jerusalem, and no doubt many of the Thes-
rialonians, yet he includes himself among the number; be-
sides no one but a maniac would contend that the saints at
Thessalonica were taken upwards of a thousand miles to see
the vengeance of Christ in the overthrow of the Jewish cap-
ital, and yet this must be contended for if the exposition of
Universal ists be the true, for Christ at that time appeared
(if even there) at no other place beside Jerusalem. It is
furthermore evident that Paul himself expected to be pres-
ent at this appearing of Christ of which he speaks, and that
the Thessalonians should also be present — '* v:ith ns.^' Again,
by reading the passage properly it is seen that Paul expect-
ed that he and the Thessalonian church would all be de.'itl
and gone to rest when this coming of Christ should take
place, for he says : " Seeing it is a righteous thing witli
<Tod to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you ;
and (to recom]»ense) to you who are troubled rest vifh us,
when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven ", that
is, when Christ came he would recom])ense the Thessa-
lonians with rest with the apostles in th<i Kingdom of glory.
This is the translation of the French by Ostervald : *' Car il
est juste devant Dieu qu'il rende I'atlliction a ceuxqui vous
affligent; et (pi'ii vous donne, a vous, qui etes atliiges, du
ropos avec nous lorsque le Seigneur Jesus, veuant du ciel
paraitra avec les anges de sa puissance " — " For it is righ-
teous he/ore God to aJfUet those who affiict you ; aud to give to
you — to you who are ojflicted — rest with us when the Lord Jesus
shall come from heaven ivith the angels of his power."

I :

■% i: !

tfl<

1 .

1 1

!
i

jBJ:

i -

\\ i

,»

;l 1

'»

1 ■:

i^H|

i ?

j^B m

*-ik,.

I i

228

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDIO.

Now it is no ways probable the TLessalonians whom Pan'/
addressed were all dead when Titus destroyed Jerusalem.
2. It is .lot true that the Jews were the only persecutors of
the church at Thessalonica for the apostle says it was their
own countrymen also, " For ye brethren became followers-
of the churches of God^ which in Judea are in Christ Jesus ;
for ?/e also have sneered like thinga of your own countrymen even
as they have of the Jews ", 1 Thess. 2:14. Ilencc since the-
Gentile persecutoi's were not bi-ouglit to Jerusalem^ they
either oscai)ed the "vengeance", or Paul did not refer to
that event. But even allowing thev were all Jews, does
it appear that the a])ostIe would threaten those wlio trouble
the saints with " banishment from the prescnceof the Lord "
— from tlie temple of Jerusalem — Avhen they werL> already
more than a thousand miles from it ? 3. Liistly, whde the
apostle declares that this coming or " day of Christ " was
not at hand, but far in the future, ho speaks of the judgment
of God upon the Jews as if present — " For the wrath is come
upon them {the Jeic$i) to the 'uttermoat ", 1 Thess. 2;1G. Wo
therefore claim that this ''everlasting destruction from the
presence of the Loitl and from tlie glory of his power " is
still future, and has res})cct to the day of judginent, when,
as the text (kclares, Christ ^' shall come to he glarijied in his
saints, and to be admired in all thcni that believe in that
da}' ", or as Dr. Clarke contends, "all them that /iare 5c-
licved." Upon this passage this noted critic remarks :
" What this eA'erlasting destruction consists in wo cannot
tell. It is not annihilation for their being contiiinous, and
as the destruction is rverlastinfj, it is an eternal continuance
and presence of substantial evil and absence of all good."

7. The seventh argument we adduce in the affirmative of the
endless natnrC of future punisliment, is the common consent
of mankind. All nations, both in ancient and modern times,
have embraced this doctrine. Like all other great truths
it has been more or less corrupted, but amid all the absurdi-

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED

229

wliom Paul
Jerusalem,
rsecutors of
it was tlieir
le follow erg.
hriat Jesus ;
fi'i/men even
ee since the
sal cm ^ they
lot refer to
Jews, does
itvho trouble
fthoLoi-d"
eri) alrpfidy
?-, whdo the
hrist " wa»
lO judgment
^rafh is come

2:1G. We
on from the
■^ power " is
:nent, when,
ori'jied in It Is
ieve in that
hat Tiave Ik-
D remarks :
, wo cannot
inuous, and
continuance

all good."
native ofthe
non consent
)dorn tiTnos,
threat truths
the absurdi-

ties connected with it among the heathen, it has ever stood
forth as a prominent doctrine iu their my iholog}'. It was
biught by Homer, Virgil, Horace, Socrates, Plato and Sen-
oca, and was generally believed both by the people and the
philosopher. The Jews believed it from time imjuemorial
as they do at this hour ; and since the days of Christ and
his apostles, has been taught by the Christian church. These
are facts which admit of no conclusion but this, that the
doctrine must have had a common source. The original dis-
covery of their religious truths the heathen never claimed
as due to any earthly person however great, but on the con-
trary, they regarded as the teaching of the gods at a re-
mote period, when they held intercourse with man. The
tradition of tke world's having ouce been destroyed by a
flood, is a sti'iking and parallel instance of the dependence
tJiat may be put on u doctrine that is common to all nations.
No race of people has ever yet been discovered that had
not preserved some disguised notion of the deluge ofXoah.
This fact will ap])ear even more astonishing to those who
may acquaint themselves with the instances collected by
tlie learned diligence of Bryant and Faber. Similar ti-adi-
tions are preserved among the Egyptians and the neighbor-
ing countries respecting the deliverance of Israel from
Eg3'pt and the overthrow of Pharaoh and his host in tlie
Hod Sea. ^JuTow general tradition must have a common source.
It is uo way probable that all uneulightened nations would
have a tradition of the destruction of the world by a iiood
if no such event ever took place. The same may be said
of the tradition of the deliverance of Israel from Ivgyptian
bondage. So of endless punishment ; it must have had a com-
mon origin, and this resolves itself into the revelations of
(xod tf) the patriarchs. ICnoch for three hundred years
'' walked with God" and must have receiv'cd revelations
from him, for he prophesied saying " Behold the Lord com-
eth with ten thousand of his saints to execute judgment up-

i '^'

iii

ill -

j 1; ,

230

UNIVERSALIS^ UNFOUNDED.

on all and to convince all that are ungodly among them of
all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly commit-
ted and of all thoir hard speeches which ungodly sinners
have spoken against Him," (.Tude 14, 15.) According to
Jude this prophecy refers to the final coH(?<7iow of the ungod-
ly, " to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for-
ever.'' Universalists themselves admit this by denying the
inspiration of this j^^issago, and arguing that it was an idle
tale of a Jew, about the time of Christ, (who, of course, be-
lieved in endless punishment,)who, it is asserted, forged this
book of Enoch. The patriarchs, then, who were acquainted
most certainly with this doctrine of Enoch were not ig-
norant of the doctrine of endless punishment, as Universa-
lists assert. Mr. Austin denied that the doctrine of endless
punishment is taught in the Old Testament, but turned
round and said that it is there contradicted. How could- a
thing b(} contradicted when there was no idea present of its
existence ? These gentlemen need no longer tell us that
the Jews were not acquainted with that sentiment, if Judo
tells tiie truth, and with respect to the prophecy of Enoch,
they must have been acquainted with it at least by tradi-
tion, and if TertuUian's opinion is to be respected, the book
itself tiien existed and was preserved by Koah in the arlc.
That the Jews in tlie time of Christ believed in endless
punishment there is no room to doubt, and so abundant is
the proof that Universalists have at length themselves ad-
mitted it. Mosheim, whom Mr. Austin and others claim as
Universalist, says the great body of the Jews (a few infi-
dels excepted) believed the doctrine of endless punishment
and were unanimous in excluding the Gentiles from heav-
enl}^ felicity, [Vol 1, page 21]. Dr. Doodrich in his eccles-
iastical history makes the same statement. So Professor
Stuart in his criticisms on s//fo/. But one infallible testi-
mony upon this point is as good as a thousand, and this we
have from the pen of a Jew — who lived in the times of the

\g them of
y commit-
\y sinners
icording to
the ungod-
'kness for-
enying the
vas an idle
course, be-
forgod this
acquainted
)re not ig-
i Univcrsa-
j of endless
but turned
)w could, a
o.scnt of its
ell us that
3nt, if Jude
- of Enoch,
it by tradi-
d, the book
in the ark.
i.'i endless
Inindant is
nselves ad-
rs claim as
a few infi-
unishmont
rom lieav-
i his eccles-
Professor
liblo tosti-
nd this we
mes of the

UNIVERSALISJI UNFOUNDED.

231

apostles-Josephus. In his discourse on Hades, he says that
God will " allot to lovers of wicked works eternal punishment.
To these belong the unquenchable iivaaiidthat without end."
It is without dis})ute a most singular fact that Christ, who,
according to Universalism, did not believe in endless pun-
ishment, and who never failed to openly reprove the Jews
of all their errors, never in a single instance pointedly cor-
rected them upon the sulnect. No, not once, but on the
contrary, spoke of the punishmeiit of the wicked in the same
style and language as the Jewi.-<h teachers then living. He
must then have admitted it, and the texts of Scripture just
examincil contribute to this lact by their testimony that he
not only admitted but taught it. This is another strong evi-
dence of the endless nature of future nunishment. All this
however, is overlooked bv the assertion of Universalism
that the Jews derived it from the heathen, who they con-
tend invented it. To support this assumption they quote
from Polybius, an ancient Greek historian, who says "since
the multitude is ever fickle and capricious, full of lawless
passions and irrational and violent resentments, there is no
way left to keep them in order but by the terrors of future
punishment and all the pompous circumstances that attend
such kind of fiction. On which account the ancients acted,
in my opinion, with great judgment and penetration, when
they contrived to bring in those notions of the Gods and a
future state, into the poi3ular l)elief " Again, Strabo, an-
other Greek writer says, " It is impossible to govern women
and the gross body of the people and to keep them pious,
hoi}' and virtuous b}' the precepts of philosophy. This can
only be done hy the fear of the Gods which is raised and
supported by ancient fictions and modern prodigies." Last-
ly, Cicero in his sixth oration says, " It was on this account
that the ancients invented their infernal punishments of the
dead, to keep the wicked in some awe in this life, who with-
out them woukt have no dread of death itself. "(Quoted from

,1)1

;; !

ill

s, (

in !

•f

232

UNIVERSAIiISM UNFOUNDED.

Austin's third Negative Argument against Holmes, p. 493)
Sach is tlie proof, unci what does it amount to ? Wliy it is a
fact that Univei'fcalists have here betaken themselves to the
savings of ancient intidels to prove that endless punishment
is an invention f Polybius did not believe in a future state
at all, neither did Cicero. The lirst says the ancients " con-
trived to bring in those notions of the gods and a future state
into the ' pular belief." Here he exposes his inlldelity in
the very words quoted, for he imputes the doctrine of "a fu-
ture state " to the notions of the gods as well as certain
punishments, and therefore, if his tastimony i^ good against
endless punishment it is equally good against heaven or a
future state at all. Ii\ this they might as well have quoted
Voltaire, Paine or Julian the apostate. With regard to Ci-
cero, bishop AVarburton remai'ks : " In his letters to his
friends where we see the nuui (Cicero) divested of the ]X)l-
itician and the sophist, he professes his disbelief of a future
state in the frankest maniicr.^^ To one friend he says, "E\-en
we who are happy should despise death, since we shall have
no sense nor feeling beyond it." But neither the words of
Strabo, nor the oration of Cicero, will bear the construction
put upon them by Universalist defenders, for they both
speak only of "■ certain punishments " and not of the idea
of future retribution. If it is good reasoning to argue that
Jjecause future punishment among the heathen was associ-
ated with the grossest absurdities, tnerefore the idea of end-
less punishment is an invention, we can say with the same
species of philosophy, that because idol worship and all
sorts of chimerical notions attended the idea of Divine wor-
ship, therefore, the i<lea ofDivine worship is a hoax ! Aion,
adjective aioniod translated.

8. Our eighth affirmative argument is that the words
eternal, everlasting and forever, signify fiwie without end, and
therefore, when applied to punishment make that j)unish-
«;eut cudless^ The word aion is derived fxom aei, always^

rmvEKSALrsM unfounded.

233

).s, p. 493)
hy it is a
vcsto the
nishment
ure state
iits " con-
'u tit re state
idelity in
eof "afu-
s certain
)d against
Lvcn or a
re quoted
ard to Ci-
vti to hi 8
f the ]X)l-
a future
\s, "E\'en
liall have
words of
istruction
hey both
the idea
rgue that
IS associ-
eaof end-
'ho same
and all
rine wor-
IX ! Awn,

le words

5 end, and

punish-

, alwajSj

and oon, being, and therefore, in its compound state primar-
ily signifies always being — eternally existing. ^If'i occurs in
seven instances in the Now Testament and in every case has
the force of our word always. "And the multitude crying
aloud began to desire him (Pilate-) to do as ho had ever (iiev-
— always) done unto them," Mark 15:8, " Ye stift'-neckeci
and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always ((tei) re-
sist the holy spirit," Acts 7:51), "For we which live aro
always (aei) delivered unto death," 2 Cor. 4:11. " The Cre-
tans are always (agi) liars, Titus 1:12. "They do always
(aei) err in their hearts," Ileb. 3:10. "Be ready aJivnys(^aciy
to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason for
the hope that is in you," 1 Pet. 3:18. " Wherefore I wil!
not bo negligent to put you always [aei] in remembrance
of these things," 2 Pet. 1:12.

Oo7i or on signifies " being ", witliout any intimation of
limit. This is confirmed by the fact that the Septuagint em-
ploys it in translating- the original Hebrew of Exodus 3:14,.
where Gotl says: "I am that lam." Also in Eevelation
4:8, "Holy, holy, holy. Lord God Almighty, which was and
is (oji), and is to come." In both these it is used to express
t] 7 idea of absolute existence. On the passage from Exo-
dus Clarke says : " It seems intended to point out the etcr-
nity fir\{\. self -existence of God " ; and appeals to the Syric, Per-
sic and Chaldee as sr> taining the iSeptuagint, and gives the
sense of the Arabic, where the English has "lam that I
am ", to be " The ♦-Eternal who passes not away." It is
evident, therefore, that aion signifies duration witliout re-
striction or limitation. This is supported l)y the authority
of all great lexicographers. Schlcusner says : ^^Aion answers
to the Hebrew Avord olam, whose various meanings it takes,

1. Eternity, the whole duration, whether it be without be-
ginning or end. Of duration wiihont end, it is used in imi-
tation of the Hebrew olnm in Matt. G:13, ' be glory forever.'

2. Every thing which is without end, especially what will

234

UNIVEIISALIS-M UNFOUNDED.

, ( ! 1

M . i|

Jftl i

corao lo pusH after tins life jind ilie end of the world. In
this sense the word is used in all those places in the New
Testament where the woj'ds eteriKil tire, v.tmud jiid^-nient,
ctcnml oondenmation, eicnial [)unishinent, kc, occur, for by
such cx])ressions the per[»etinil punishment of crimes which
the wicked suti'er after tliis life, their future uninterrupted,
miserable state, is jtointed out ; and so the ]>hrases of an op-
posite kind, (■ternnl habitations, eternal Wi'a^ki:., the state and
condition of the constant ha])piness of the pious, is pointed
out."

Donnegan says aion si^nides " a hjng period of time, eter-
nity, loni^ dui-ation, eternal, lastint;, perj)elual ", cS:c.

Parkhurst detines aionios, 1. " b^tornal, having neither
beg-ininng nor end, and refers to liom. 10:20, lleb. 9:1-1 as
illustrations. 2. " Eternal, without end." 3. " Duration
equal with the world." ^ItW he makes, 1. Eternity. 2, The
duration of (his world. 3. Aij;es of the world.

Pickeriui!; iijives similar delinitions — " indefniite duration,
everlasting." lie says the verb uionizcin signities " to make
lasting, perpetuate, to eternize ", i. e, to make its duration
eternal.

in translating '' aion ", '' aionios ", the Latin lexicograph-
ers employ acrum, aeternitas, acternus, sempiternus, perennis,&c.,
which signify duration without end, endless, perpetual,
everlasting, never failing, uninterrupted, &c. It is also
well knf)wn that these English terms which are used to
translate these words and the Greek aion .'aionios, primarily
signify endless. The radical idea of the Hebrew olam, and
the Greek aion, as expressed by the Latin aetemus and the
English eternity, is that of duration without end.

That aion [(( ionics] primarily signities eternity is proved
from theSe])tuagint, notwithstanding the outlandish remark
of Mr. Abel C. Thomsis, who says '• aion. cannot signify eter-
nity ", [Discussion with Dr. Ely, p. 152]. Indeed Mr. Aus-
tin contradicts Mr. Thomas, for he says that aion signifies

1JNIVE11SALI8M UNFOUNDED.

235

oi'ld. In
iho New
ii(l,i;'inoiit,
ir, for by
lo.s wJiich
urnipted,
of an op-
stiilc and
8 l)ointod.

iino, cler-
ic.

neither
\). 9:U as
Duration
2, The

(hi rat ion,
' to make
duration

cograph-
ennis,&.c.,
crpetual^
t is also
» used to
triniarily
>lam, and
and the

8 proved
li remark
lity cter-
Mr. Aus-
signifies

" in some casew, eternity", Dis. p. (JOT. Dr. Kitto ways tliis
version of the scripture is the most ancient extant in any
language", and Bishop Horno says " it was executed k)ng
before tho Messiah, and was the means of proj)aring the
world at large for his appearance." It was translateil from
the Hebrew Scriptures by order of Ptolemy Pliiladeliihus,
king of Egypt, the founder of the celebrated Alexandrian
library, about B. C, 270. In this version, which was exe-
cuted when the Greek language w\ns in its purit}-, the word
awn is used to express unending existence. In Gen. 21:33,
whore Abraham is said t<3 have called upon '• the e^ocrhiMhiy
God," the Hebrew olam is rendered in the Scptuagint by
aionios — the Thcoa aionios — " the ever-existing God." So also.
Dent. 33:27, " The eternal God is thy refuge and underneath
are the everlasting arms." In Isa. 57:15, ''The Holy One
who inhabiteth cternitjj " — eternity is aion in the Septuagint,
and translators might vory proi)erly have rendered the
original in Micali 5:2 by eternity, for it is not only olam in
the Hebrew, but aion in the Septuagint — " Whose goings
forth have been from old, from everlasting " — literally, as
in the margin, from the days of eternity. The Vulgate, the
most ancient Latin version of the Scriptures, which was
translated by the learned Jerome in the fourth century,
partly from the Septuagint and partly from the original
Hebrew^, also evidences to the endless import of aion, aionios.
Of this translation of the Scriptures Bishop Home ob-
serves : " Though neither insjiired nor infallible ;\et it is
allowed to be in general a faithful Iranslation, and is bj' no
means to bo neglected by +he Biblical critic." In Genesis
21:33, where the Septuagint has 71icos aionios, the Vulgate
hsiH Dei aeterni. In Dcut. 34:27 "tho everlasting arms ",
the Vulgate has '• sepiturna Irachiu ", literallj', " the endless
arms ", %. c, tho Latin makes aionios answer to the h^nglish
word endless. So also Isaiah 40:28, 'M.iod the eternal Jeho-
vah " is ''Beus scnqnternus Dominus " — "God the always ox-

236

UNITEIISALISM UNFOUNDED.

intiiig Joliovuh."

This meaning oH aion luvs never been controvorted till re.
cently by the advoeutes of Universalinni, who n tv doolaro
with Mr. Austin, that '* Angiistino, A. D. 415, was the first
writer who assorted that the Greek word uton, and its de-
rivatives, meant endless duration," when Ai-istotle [J5e Cdo
lib 1 eh. l»] several centuries Ixjforo Christ says it is com-
pounded of aei and 'on, and siynitios ahaii/s being, and this
is the detinition given by all great writers from Aristotle
to the present day. Plato in his Phadoii uses it to denote
the eternity or endless duration of tlv^ hfippinoss of the
righteous with the gods. The seventy learned Jews, as Just
noticed, B. C. 270. always used aiim in the sense of endless
duration in translating the Septuagint. This use of the
word was still kept up in the dcys of Jerome in the fourth
century after Christ, as seen by his ti'anslation of the Vul-
gate, where he renders aionios^ uetemus. So all the ancient
Latin writers, Sully^ Athanasias, Hillary and Ambrose.
Chrysostom s])eaking of aionion punishment says, " it is a
punishment from which they escape not." Theopholact
Biiys, " it is not remittiid here or elsewhere, but to be en-
dured both hero and .elsewhere." Cyprian, who translates
aionios by aetcrmis says, "guilty of an eternal sin never bo
to blotted out." In his commentary on Matt:. 2^-A\-^Hliese
«hallgo avaij into everhiHting imnishmcnl,^'' etc. Jerome re-
marks, '• Let the prudent reader attend to the fact that the
punishments are eternal and the life perpetual, that he may
thus escape tlic danger of i-uin." lledericus and Schreveli-
us define <itoii and aionios by words whose literal significa-
tion is eternity- Irena'us says, A. D. 202, "The fire is eter-
nal [not inside as Universalism teaches] which my father
has })repared for the devil and his angels." This holy bish-
op differed widely from Dr. Cobb who says it iiicans the
destruction of Jerusalem, for this city had then been des-
troyed 130 years. To these learned men who make aion

UNIVERSALISM UNKOUNDKD.

2au

rtod till re.
.V doclaro
as tho first
md its do-
ll [De Ccio
H it is com-
, und this
Aristotle
to denote
less of the
3WS, as just
of endless
use of the
tho fourth
3f the Vul-
the ancient
Ambrose-
's, " it 18 a
'heopholact
' to be en-
translates
1 never be

Jerome re-
let that the
:iat lie inay
I Sclircveli-
1 significa-
Hre is eter-
my father
1 holy bish-
nicans the
been des-
make a Ion

aionioR moan endless duration we mi^ht add the names (;f
Polycari). the friond and disci'jtU' of t;)<: npostlo John, Tlieo-
pliiins, Clcnicns liomanns and Jii-li)! Alartyr. These testi-
monies <'<)vor the liistor}- of the CiiriMian elinreh from tlie
dnys of Joim t() the death of .Jerome, a ]H>j'iod ol mf>ro than
ibui' hundrcM.i years; and tho (iriM'k iiuthoi'Itics licfiwo tliO
Chri;-;tian "cra, which we liavi^ enumoralrd, extend the liis-
vory nt'(//o//, as siijnilyini,^ en<lless duration, baek more than
four centuries, making in all al)ove eight hundi'od years-.
As to modern lexicographers, all give ctirnul or f'.crhisting
as the til's t >>ud most natural literal meaning iA' (lionloti. To
the names of Schleusner, Parkhursl, ])oimegaii and rioker-
ing, we add 8tokius, Schrevelius, Tliesauras Ginecn) I/uigute
[anci], Jiolx'irtson, Gi'eentield, etc. Among commentators
tho learneil Tho)'luck, MacKnight, Kosenmuiler, Lightfbot,
Dr. Campbell, IJammond, Waketiekl, VVhii)»y, Pearce, Ken-
wick, (irotius, Gilpin, Ca]>pe, Gill, Ijaivlner, and scores of
otJ)ers.

Universal i.st8 themselves admit ih'^ialonlos means eternal
when u]i))lied to God aD<l to the ha])piness of the glorilied ;
but strange to say deny its literal mea)iingwhen aj^plied to
punishment, and that too witliout any reason, for they im-
iniinediately turn round and assert that unless punishment
be shown to be endless in its nature it cannot be admitted
tliat nionius makes it endless. As well migbt we say that
unless it can be shown that happiness is i\i its own nature
eternal, it cannot be admitted to be endless bv the mere
quality of aionios. No one ever dreamed of disputing that
aionios denoted endless duration till Mr. Yidler, and subse-
quently Abner Kneedland, who afterwards became an
avowed intldel, adopted the following plan to expunge ;.'nd-
lesH punishment from the Bible :

1. To deny that aionios means cniUe.ss when applied to
punishment [which they argue is always reformatory and
therefore must have an end], for it is sometiines used in a

2:i^

INIVER8ALI8M I-NFOrNDEl).

'ti

liniitc'l Honso, as for exjim])lo, " (he eve •h.sh'ny lil/ls,'' — '• ever-
lasting possrHNtnna'^ of ('jinaini, '^ crcrhisfhKj covcnnut^' of cir-
c'Uinc'isioii — [\\q d'oimfiiKj jH-uttthood" of Aaron. In tlio.'-o
and (sovural other inslniu-yM, it is limited or used in a ligurn-
tivc. AVe often Uf-.e woi'ds in this nianner in common con-
\ ersation — " ??»// cnisf/css tmiihhx" — " mi/ ludhtis (h'jJiarUun,''
— '^ their cteniul iiiNi)nititi(>iis'' — " »<// eiurlastivy cnrrn,'' etc.
But hefore this could be (Unw, provision must be ma(U> ibr
resulting ditficultics. I. It would seem most impossible
that the Greek languan'O which arose to /i;roater ])erfection
than any other ever spolcen by man, possessed no word
which jiroperly and grammatically Hiy;nities cikUchs or cnd-
/r.s.s duration, es])eciall}' when it is talren into consideration
that the ancient (Jreeks believed and tau<^'lit the immortali-
ty of the soul — the eternity of matter, and the endless liap-
pine.ss of the rigiitcous in the future state. This could bo
cettlod only in one way, by finding- out some other word bo-
sides aionios, that signil'ied endless, when ap[)lied to dura-
tion, and that was not used in an uncertain sense, so that
the Greeks could have used this word if they ever wished
to speak of endless misery, that is instead of saying as
Christ did, dionios Jcohisis, everlasting punishment, Matt. 25:
40 — aionios Icrisis, everlasting damnation, Mark 3;20, or
aioni on j^in', everlasting tiro, i\[att. 25;41 ; they might liave
used some other Avord instead of aiunios. 2. But this is not
all. They must find out some word (»r words that would not
only teach endless miseiy if applied to ])unishment but would
l-e the most definite to a}>ply to the endless ^/or// of tlie right-
eous, and which, of course, niust bo found thus used in the
Xew TcstamcMit. The new founil word (or words)must ans-
wer the following conditions, else it will not meet the no-
cessitios of the case. 1. It must mean grammatically and
literally, endless. 2. It must bo applicable to duration, hap-
piness and punishment. 3. Tt never can be found Used in
a figurative or limited sense or it would bo liable to the

«, — '' ever-

»f" of cir-

(ii (Ik\'-o

M Ji li<,^uni-

nru(jn con-

iins," etc.

luiulo for
impossible
perlbction

no word
CSS or enii-
isitlorution
immortali-
ullcsH liap-
■i ooiiM Ijii
r word bo-
il to dura-
io, 80 that
er wished
Hayiiiji^ as
:, Matt. 25:
: 3;20, or
liii'ht Iiave
tills is not
would not
but would
' tlie right-
'•ed in the
)must ans-
t the no-
it'ally and
ition, ha^>
1 Used in
)lo to the

UNIVER8AMSM UNFOUNDED

23'J

samo objection as tiinnins. 4. It must be found in the Now
Tostanieiil n[>i)lic(l to tlie liappiness of the righteous, else
tlio endless lKH)i»iness of the righteous is not taught there.
5. An instance must be given where Christ uses such a word
or the i)rc.sinn|)tion will be that that he did not teach the
endless glory of the saints. All the;-e conditions must bo
fulliiied or y\v. V'idlor's scheme will [)rove a failure.

Tliose substitutes for (iio)i, itlimios, are the following, am-
arnnton. unfading — timrfithrfon, immutable — optho'shi, in-
corru}>!iliilily — aphth u'tii>i, incoi-ruptible — dthun'tsio, immor-
tality — ijmrtntos, unlin\ited — dk itihttos, indissoluble, and
lastly, acidlos, iteriidl, ever/ istiiig.

Neither of these words (aidios e\co])ted) will come with-
in any of the two above conditions. 1. None except a])cr-
antos, and this occurs only once in the New Testament, 1
Tim. 1,4, etymologically signilies endless and ai)crantos
means endless in sj)ace, not in time, derived from a notaud
penis a boundary. ^'■Pera, peras, pcr<m,^^ says Campbell, *'are
used by the best Greek writers almost ex'clusively with re-
gard to peace." 2. Not one of them is applied or can be ap-
plied to durjitio'i, hti)){)iness or punishment, unless we can
say immiit tUe, unfading, or incorruptible duration, ha])pine.ss
or punishment. 3. All except (ithannsin and apcrnntos may
be and are used in a figurative or limited sense. Not one
of these eight words was ever used by Christ in any of his
discour.ses as recorded in the New Testament. Not of them
is found in the four gospels !

Late Universalist write' Jinve dispensed with the two first,
and hence we will not give them special notice. Ap)tharsia,ihQ:
first reliable word upo)ithe list, is urged more determinedly
than any of the others as indicative of endless duration, but
is like all the others compounded with a negative, im(\ hence its
primary meaning is the o])posite of (^incorrupt ih Hit //) its sec-
ondary. It is found once in Kom. 2;7 ; four times in 1 Cor. 15;
42-51 ; once in Epliesians. G;24; and 2 Tim. 1;10, and2;7; in

\^i^''-

239

UNIVEUSALISM UNFOFKDED.

Pi'

all eight times ; and is novor ti'anslated endless hy any writer
Hacrod or nrot'ane. C'hriHt never used it in a single instance,
nor did any of llie New Tostanient writers, with the
exception of Paul, w ho distinguishes it from eternal life in
liom. 2; 17. It is novtr by any writer applied to God or
angels, reward or punishment, happiness or misery. In-
deed Universal ists try Ic prove universal salvation by this
word in 1 Cor.,beeause none in the resurrection state will bo
subject to con-uptihility. Pray then Law could it be applied
to punishment t

Aphthartos is found in Rom. l;23,lC6r. 9:25; 15:52 ; 1 Tim
1:17 ; 1 Pet. r.4;2o:3,4, translated &ix tunes incorrupt ihle an't
once immortal, and is never applied to a state-to happiness
or misery. None of the New Testament writers use it except
Paul and Peter. Christ never represented eternal life as
endless by the use of apkthartm. It is applied to Grod but
contrtiditvangiiished from e^enm? in 1 Tim. 1:17 — "Now to
the king eternal^ it)imortol,'^ aionios aphtharics. It is never
translated endltM t

-4^Aa7?-as?*r< is found three times in the New Testament: 1
Cor. 15;53,54, and is rendered immortality. It is never ap-
plied to God, except in a single instance, by way of poss-
essi(m, in 1 Tim. 0,10, ''who only hath immortality {atha-
na^a), neither to angels, happiness, misery, hell or heaven,
and is never translated endless (anything)! Paul only uses it.

Aparontos occurs but once, 1 Tim. 1:4, and is translated
ntdless. but raastbe apjillcd to some substance, as its etymol-
ogy means endless in space not in time ; hence the apostle
applies it to '' gfnenJogies." It is never applied to God, an-
gels, heaven or hell, happiness or misery.

Akatalufns also occurs but once in the New Testament,
IIol). 7: in, and is defined indissoluhle, m Greek Lexicons, as
its etymology im])orts,<T not and hitahioio unloose or dissolve
It is never a[)])licd to God, angels, heaven or hell, hnppi-
incss or misery. Paul alone uses it (once). It can only bo

UmVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

241

any writer

le inistaneo,

with the

mal life m

to God or

sery. In-

ou by this

tate will bo

be applied

:52 ; 1 Tim
rajpiihh awi
happinesH
ie it except
•nal life as
;o Got! but
-" Now to
;t 18 never

stament : 1
3 nover ap-
y of poss-
lUty (atha-
or heaven,
11 ly nses it>
translated
its etymol-
Iho apostlo
God, an-

PeKl anient,
>xic'ons, as
or dissolve
3ll, hnppi-
an onlv bo

the life of the Christian in eartli or heaven. " It is true,"
says Mr. Fuller, in hifj reply on this word." '-The term
ftkfltalutos is hero applied to life, but not as you insinuate
to that life of future happiness, which is opposed to pun-
ishment. The life hr>re .s])o]cen of is that which pertains to
our liord's priesthood— which is opposed to t.hat of Aaron,
wherein men were «t)l suirered to continue by reason of
death. Tlie word tsignilies indissoluble ; and bein<i; applied
to the nature of a , priest-hood, which death could not diss-
olve is very propoi'ly rendered endless. It jtossibly might
be applied to the endless happiness of good men, as opposed
to the dissoluble or transitory enjoyments of the present
.state.; but as to punishment of the wicked sup])osir.g it (o
3t>e endless, I qiuGstion whether it be at all applicable to it. 1
can form no i<lea how the term dissoluble any more than
inc/orruptible, can appl}' to punishment. The Avord katalm
to unloose or dissolve, it is tinie, is isaid to refer to travel-
lers loosing their own burdens or tliose t^f theii* beasts when
they are resting by the way ; but there are no examples of
its having been used in reference to the termination of ])un-
ishment ; nor does it appear to be applicable to it. In its
more common ai'coptation in the Is'ew Testajuent (i. e. kcti-
aluo) it signiiie;i'tO;i&ii(Vo// or demoh'sh — and you will scarce-
ly suppose the saered writers to suggest the idea of destnti'-
tion which ((Vuiot he iic^ivityed^'' (Eev. G. Peck on Universal-
ism, p. i'L) 1 'an 1, however, settles the dilliculty by fshow-
ung that imVwuVas is -a sti'ongeir term than akatcdutos, for he
says that (Jhrist was made a ]»riest "after the power of an
endless lilo," z/h'6 ahitaiuton, because God hath tcstiticd.
"Thou Krt a priest forever," eis UMiwma — that is that his
endless life as « priest was due to his being made a priest
forever ((lioni).

The last in the logomachy is ae.idios. Mr. Skinner intro-
duced this word in his discussion with A. Campbell, as an-
other Greek word signifying cndh^s (Camj). and Skinnei*

■' I ft

:> I Ifi

r''S'

242

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

applied to something compound as life is opposed to disso-
lution, and yet it is never in a single instance applied to.
(Let. 17, par. 23, p. 201). In this, however, the gentleman
experienced a signal defeat, for eoidios is found only in two
jilaces in the New Testament. It is applied to the power
of Grod, Eom. 1:20, " even his eternal (ajidios) power and
Godhead," and to the chains in which the fallen angels are
bound, Jude 6, " reserved in everkisting (aeidios) chains under
darkness^ Here Universalism seals its fate, for as aeidios sig-
nifies, according to Skinner, and also Mr. Austin, endless,
absolute, eternal continuance, then the devil and his angels will
endure endless misery, and as the wicked are to be punished
with the devil and his angels the doctrine of endless pun-
ishment is established ! But this is not all. Presenting this
word drives everything from the field which they have ral-
lied against aionios, for it so liappens that all the learned
world, without a single cxee/ptioji,dcc\iiVG that whatever of du-
ration is in aeidios, it gets from aei the root of aion {aionios)
from which all Lexicographers and Commentators say it is
derived. This single fact topples down all their little cas-
tles and makes the aionion punishment which Christ preach-
ed, e?idless. ■.

Mr. Austin, In his debate with the able Mr. Holmes, took
the same position upon aeidios — that it absolutely signifies
endless, whether a])plie(l to hap])iness or punishment. "If
any of the Jews in the days of the Saviour", we find him
saying,'' believed in endless woe, they expressed it b}- words
entirdij different from any Christ ever applied to punishment.
Philo, an Egyptian Jew of the time of Christ, was said to
be a believer in endless punishment. Eat in expressing
that doctrine he used the words rrftV/fVw, tithinatos, ateleutetos,
and not aionion, which Christ aj^plied to punishment. Jose-
phus, the Jewish historian who lived in tlio days of tlio
apostles, in describing the doeti'ine of the Pharisees, says
they believed ' the souls of the bad are allotted to an oter*

UNIVEBSALISU UNFOUNDED.

243

d to diaso-
applied to.
gentleman
only in two
the power
lower and
angels are
ains under
acidios sig-
n, endless,
angels will
13 punished
(lless pun-
enting this
y have ral-
he learned
ever of du-
7ti {aionios)
rs sa;' it is
1" little cas-
ist proach-

Imes, took
y signifies
ncnt. " if
) find him
t b^' Avords
iiislinient.
as said to
x])rosHing
ntehntetos,
it. Jose-
fs of the
ices, says
an oter»

nal prison [aeidios ergmos], and punished with eternal retri-
bution' [aeidios timoria]. In describing the doctrines of the
" Essenes ", Josephus says that ' the souls of the bad are
sent to a dark and tempestuous cavern, full of incessant
punishment [adialeiptos timoria]." Dicuss page 671. Hero
Mr. Austin admits that the Jews [as all must admit] in the
days of the Saviour believed in endless punishment, and
that they expressed its never-ending nature by the use of
aeidios. Hence, as the future punishment in which the
Pharisees then believed is endless [iieideos], so must be the
everlasting [aeidios] chains that bind the fallen angels, and
ther(;foi*c the punishment of the wicked. Mr. Skinner, how-
ever, pleaded that aeidios was not applied to punishment in
Jude 6, but " to the chains only, wMth which the wicked
messengers were bound under darkness unto [not after nor
during] the judgment of the great day " [Let. 19, par. 14].
In this the gentleman contradicts himself First he adduces
aeidios as a word the Holy Spirit might have used with
punishment that would unequivocally made it endless, then
finding himself boxed, turns round and makes its sense
here figurative, enduring onl^ to the judgment day, and there-
fore does not mean ahmlutely endless, and is liable to the same
objection that is urged against aionios I

These facts have led Universalists on to another trick of
desperation. To sustain their position thai acidios signifies
endless when applied to punishment, as the Jews who be-
lieved in endless punishment most unquestionably used it,
and at the same time keep it from teaching " the horrid,
soul-withering doctrine " in the New Testament, Mr. Cobb,
Mr. Thayer, and others, have actually gone in for expung-
ing Jude 6, the only place aeidios occurs in connection with
punishment, from the New Testament, affirming that it is
a quotation from the book of Enoch or some id)oapocry])hal
tale which is no more to be credited than the " witches " of
Shakspeare. This however is only a cavil, and is enough

liii:

244

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

to iiiiike the most dtiriiig so])liist blush for shame. As long
as Ihr opiHtle of Jiide has a '>laec among the canonical scrip-
tures this j)assage must I. received as inspired, for he
states the pansage as fact — "The angels which kept not
their tirst estate, but left their own habitation, he iiatii
HESEllVED /// cvcrlu ting \(iddios~\ chains under ddrknesg ", &e.
But granting that this text is not genu ,ie will not help
their c".se. for as aeidios was used by the Jews in the days
of Christ in the sense of endless, when applied to punishment,
aimion punishment must also be endless as both these words
are derived from «<•<*, and Mr, Austin says of aimi [/lioni'^s],
*' It will be allowed that all its meaiiing of duration is xle-
rived from aci ", [Dis. ]). 744], vrhich ina}' be said with
o<|ual })ro]iriety oi' aeidios ; and Mr. Slcinner himself admit-
ted that aeidios is derived from aei. They l)oth signify th<3
t^ame thing. While CUirist says the ])unishment of tlie an-
gels is aiouion, everlasting, Matt. 25:41. J'lde says with the
Jewish writers that their punishment is aeidios, everlasting.
They then must be equal in point of duration, for they ai'o
applied to the same punishment. But this shuffle on the
part of Universalists in saying that Philo and Josephus use
aeidios when they speak of endless punishment, is calcu-
lated only to deceive, for it is a fact that these same writers
use aionios also — sometimes the one, sometimes the other.
The evidence is irresiBtil)lc that Christ used the identical
word to express the endlessness of punishment which the
Jewish writers emj)loyed, and of course the common people
of that day, to point out the unending nature of that pmi-
ishment in which they then and have ever believed. There
is no dodging this con(.'lusion, ■

But Mr. Skinner in his contest with Campbell did not
wish to expose himself to the lashings of his opponent by
taking such libertioj-j with the Bible. In order to ease his
fall, therefore, he said tirst that " There are some respecta-
b\Q critics who suppose it to be derived from ades [^a<^J,

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

3. Ah lonir
iiiealscrip-
■od, for he
L kept not

1, HE IIATII

'knesg ", &c.
I not help
in tlie days
unishnient,
liGHe words
n i/uoni^s]^
•ation is tie-
said \vith
iself admit-
siguity th-e
; of the an-
js with the
n-erlasting.
or they are
itHe on the
)sephu8 use
t, ift cak'ii-
me writers
the other.
identical
which the
non poopJc
that prni-
od. Thci-c

11 did not
jionont by
to ease his
5 respecta-

which i:i derived from a, r.egutive, and id'im^ to see ; and
hence, among other detinitions, they give hidden, invisible,
unseen, unknown ", [Let. 10, par. 2]. Mr. Campbell then
in roply asks : " ^^'^hy did you not give the name of Bome
lexicographer who has so derived and explained aeidios ? "
and adds, " I am .sure, Sir, jxm cannot name ime.'' In reply
to this Mr. Skinner gave the names of two. " I mention
the name of Nathaniel Scarlet of London, who in conjunc-
tion with Mr. Croighton, a learned clergyman of the Church
of England, gave a new translation of the Now Teistamont
in 1798, which was highly commended both by the Critical
Heview and the Monthly Eeview, contemporary therewith.
See a note on aeidios in that version ; also a note of similar
import in Ivneodland's translation, published in Philadelphia
in 1822 ", [Let. 21, par. 10]. Listen to Campbell's reply,
and witness the unprincipled resorts of Universalism : " I
said '\ says j\Ii'. C, " 'I am sure yon cannot name one.' Thus
did I put myself in your power that every one might see
what is the literary and moral worth of your arguments.
Now what is your defence ? Who are the lexicographers ?
Where are tlie ' respectable critics ' ? Where the page,
chapter and verso on which they have thus derived and ex-
plained aeidios ? You have not given one. You have nam^d
an obscure TJnivorsalist and an Atheist, and yet you have
Hot quoted thoir words. Now Sir, are thepe your respecta-
ble critics ! I have their ciriticisms lying before me. and T
posiiively affirm it is not as you represent it. It is just as
true as your assertion that Scarlet and Kneed land are of
Bimilar import — that neither of them derives aeidios from
hades. They go no further than to say * it mai/ have the
same etymology as ades.' Thej- do not sa^' it has ! ! ! And
if they did they are no better authority than vourself.
These are your ' respectable critics ' ! There is not a dic-
tionan/ nor a scholar under the broad heavens that does de-
rive AYiiDios from ades, Mr. Skinner himself being deponent

p '

24G

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

■

i^i*«

in the case !" [Lot. 22, par. 3.] This vais a fatal attempt
for Mr. Skiimor. JIc, liowcvcr, undertook to get quietly
out of the difHculty l»y assertini? that ho did not thus hira-
8clf derive aeidios, hut onJji said some critics so derive it. lie
then conceded thai: it was derived from ai'i, always. " But
while I concede ", ho remarks, [Lot. 21, ])ar. 11], ''that
acidios is derived in part from aci, 1 sliall he ohlio-ed tocross
^•our path in another very important point where you [Mr
Campbell] say [as Mr. Austin also says] 'it is incontrovertr
ably certain that ^r^jWio.s derives all its endless duration from
aci.' For it has another and a \cvy important root, which
I must thank you for putting mo in tlie v/ay of examining
a little more clearly. It is dlos, which Jones' Lexicon de-
fines thus : ' J)ios, divine [from z>us'i divine /// nature, incor-
ruptible as salt is said to be." " Ii is this ", continues Mr
Skinner, "ihat gives it [iicidios}^ a much stronger im])ortof
endless than aion has ; for while the second root of aion
tumply denotes Jieivg, the second root of acidios denotes the
divine being. It signities not onl}' cndlc.'is, but divine in na-
ture. This also beautifully confirms the cx})h-ination I l>o-
fore gave of Jude G, that the chains there s]ioken of were
tlio divine counsels, or the endless and changeless })urpose of
Crod.'' Mr. (Jam]»bell replies : " But you have turned critic
uj)on dins, and quote Jones' definition of dios. But Sir, doo.s
},h'. Jones — does any critic — any dictionary, derive acidios
from (it'i and dios, or from dios, divine. No, Sir ! No
learned man could do such a thing. Dios, Sir, is the rtwt
of no woi'd in the Greek language. It is an adjective de-
rived from zcos, dios, Ju]>iter. As Jove comes from Jujuter,
so dios comes from zciis.'^ Thi;; is tiie last attem[)t (o keep
aJonios and acidios from sifj-nifvini^ the same thinii-. There-
fore, so surely as acidios in Pliilo Jind Joscphus signities ab-
solute, endles-;, when a])iilied to punislnnent, as ^Ir. Austin
and all Univorsalist authors that have written upon tho
subject admit, so surely docs aionios, when ajqdied to pun-

I'^V'

tJNlVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

247

al attempt
^ct quietly
t thus liiin-
ivc it. Ho
ys. " But
11], ='that
etl to cross
e you [Mr
t'oii trove rt-
alion from
oot, wliich
examinini;
jexicon do-
tinr, incor-
ilinues Mr
r im])ortof
)ot of aion
icnotes the
vino in na-
ation I l>e-
m of Averc
purpose of
rued critic
it fSir, does
•ivo aridios
Sir ! No
s the root
jectivo do-
(Ti Jupiter,
[>( lo keep
••. Thero-
li'iiities ab-
Ir. Austin
upon the
kI to j)nn-

it^hment, alt^o signify mdhss. Mr. Skinner did not mc that
his making aeicUos signify endless would necessitate Mr.
Cobb, Thayer and others to rise up arid O.vha Judc from tlic
Bible, or he ^vould not have taken the trouble t()exi)iain tlie
chaiiis with whicli the fallen angels are held bound to mean
the " Divine counsth ", for most certainly if tliis text le taken
from " an apocryphal book " the cliains must be understood
literally, for it was the po])ular belief in the times of Jiide
that tlic fallen angels were bound in chains, in a dark abyss,
where they would continue imprisjoncd till the judgment day
AcitUos has in short Init one root, aei, always, while dios is
but the adjective termination. "^4c/," saj's Campbell, "indeed
signifies endless, whether in uion or aiedios; for whatever force
it has in the one it has in the other; yet because of omi,
icing, in the former [for it is a real compound], uion is i)Os-
itively more indicative of absolute eternity tlian neidios.
So end our remarks upon acidios, and so completes the de-
feat of Universalism.

That aion and aionios signify endless duration, and estab-
lish the eternity of that punishment to which the wicked
iU'C exposed, has been admitted b}' some of the most intelli-
gent Universalists. Mr. John Murray, the Modern founder
of Univcrsalism, taught that the penalty of Cod's Law is
endless torment, and that the security of universal salvation
is the vicarious atonement of Christ, a doctrine Universalists
now ridicule in a manner approaching to blas-phcmy. He
also admitted that the words ition and aionios express end-
less duration when a])plied to pmiishment. Like Ori-
gen, the boasted cham})i()n of Universalism in the third
C(Uilury, but \Qvy unlike Univer:-alists now, he admitted
and taught the existence of a hell whose tires can never
burn out. Mr. Winclicster and Mr. Hartley admitted that
aionios means cteriuil when applied to God and to the future
glory of the righteous; but were of opinion that its signifi-
cation when connected with future punishment, hi limited

247

UNIVERSALIKM UNFOUNPEl).

H tii

I •'! !;

I !■

by otlioi- Scripture.-.; uovcrthcloss, thoy tlioiit;)it i-omo of
tho wi(.!v(>d would siillci' 144,000 yoiivH heforo tlioy would
got out ot' rurgalory. The livv. Joliii Foster wu.s too hon-
est a man io rof^ort U» the tlio nsuid e.\])cdionl!s 1.) tixplain
in\iiy (liar, and aioi,ios\ but frardcly >ays : "I ackuowledt^o
myself not coiruncod of the orthodox doclrino ; but if asked
why iJOt, I shonld have Utfk to stij/ in the way of rnficism, of
imjdic'iitions tou lid orsoUj^ht ill what may be cnlled imd-
dontal exjiiossions of scripture, or of tho passages <lnbious-
ly cited ill favour ot final universal reslitution" (Vol. 2,
page 2()8). x\,ii:ain, Mr. Foster says: "The language of
Scripture is formidably stromjc? ^o strong! hat it must
bo an argument of extreme cogeiiey that irovfd authorize
a Umitcd intirpretatlon,'^ IV. ThomaA Burnett, an En-
glish (iivino, claimed in the Universalist Boole of Refer-
ence, as a Universalist writing in favor of final restoration,
says: " Human nature revolts from tho very name of fu-
ture punishment. liut the sacred Scriptures seem to be on
tho other side." ("Xatura humana abhorret ab ipso nomine
pa3narum loternaruni. — At Scriptura sacra a partibus con-
trariis stare videtur '', De Statu. Mort. et Eesurg., p. 228,
2nd edition).

The Ilev. T. S. King, who stoutly contends for tho rcsto-
ration,of the wicked after death, has the candour to say,'*And
yet [ freely say I do not find tho doctrine of the ultimate
salvation of all souls clearly stated in any text, or in any
discourse that has over been reported from the lij)s of
Clirist. I do not think that wo can fairly- maintain that the
final restoration of all men is a prominent and ex})licit doc-
trine of the four Gospels " (Two Disi-ourses y. 5.)

The liev. Thc(;doro Parker, who was also a rcstorationist
and who most certainly would have denied the endless na-
ture of alon when applied to punishment, if such a denial
could with any degi-ee of plausibilitj' bo made, and who
therefore, gets round the difficulty by styling ''' the notion

lit fomo oi*

]\o\ "won Id

'i.s too hon-

1') r,>:i)lain

'knowledge

mt if asked

n'iffrism, of

<^*:illcd inc'i-

OR diibious-

i" (Vol. 2,

mgnag-o of

tt it must

'd imthorizo.

)tt, an En-

k of IJofcr-

rostoration,

lame of fu-

cm lo Lc on

pso nomine

irtibns oon-

vg., p. 228,

r the rcsto-
tosay/'And
lio ultimate
, or in any
lie lij)s of
lin that the
x})licit(loc-

•)

--loi'ationist
LMidlosH na-
fi a denial
, and who
t!ie notion

UNIVERSALI8M UNFOUNDED.

249

that the words of the Now Tcstamont are all miraculously
inspired by God," "a monbtrous one," — makes the foUow-
ing Btatement in a letter to Br. Adams.

** To me it is quite clear that Jesus taught the doctrine of
otornal damnation, if tho Evangelists — the first three I
mean — ai*e to be treated as inspired. I can understand hia
•language in no other way/'(Adam's and Cobb,Discuss. 70)
But Dr. lluntington, himself ,i well known Universalist, is
Btill more plain and emphatic. Ho remarks : " Does the
Bible say that sinners of mankind shall be damned to inter-
minable punishment ? It certainly does, as plainly as lan-
guage can express, or any man, or God himself, can speak.
It ia quite strange to me that some who believe that all
mankind sliall in tho end bo saved will trifle with a few
words, and moat of all with the original word [aioii] and its
derivatives, translated forever. All the learned know that
this word in Greek signifies interminable dui'ation, an age,
a long period, according as the connected sense requires.
Tl "^y, therefore, who would deny that the endless duration
of sinners is fully asserted in the word of God, are unfair in
fJidr reasoning and criticism ", [Galvanism Improved].

Aion and ai^nios occur In the Greek Old and New Testa-
ments six hundred and eighteen timt3s, and are translated
five hundred and eight times by tho strongest terms in hu-
man language indicative of endless duration, such as " eter-
nal ", "everlasting ", and "forever ". These occur in the New
Testament, referring to the continuance of the happiness of
tho righteous, sixty-one times, and to the continuance of the
punishment of the \v'niked,fft€en times, translated " eternal",
"everlasting", and "forever." Now by what canon of
criticism shall we grant tin endless sense to the former and
deny it to tho latter ! ! Of the 320 times in wliich aion it-
self occurs in the Old Testament it is translated ** ever ",
"forever", and "forever and ever" 290 times! In tho
Psalms alone it is found more than eighty times, in such

250

UNIVERSALI8M UNFOUNDED.

phrases as those : ' The Lord shall endure forever ", 9:7;
"Thou hast madf him most blessed forever", 21:6 ; " The
Lord is King forever ", 29:10 ; Thy throne, O God, is for-
ever and ever ", 45:G ; " All the workers of iniquity shall
be destroyed forever and over ", 9:2-7 ; "His saints are pre-
served forever ", 37:28; "The Lord knoweth the paths of
the upright, and their inheritance shall be forever ", 37:48.
Another writer gives 199 places in which aion and aionios
arc found in the New Testament, and he distributes their
aj)plication in the following manner :
To the Mosaic dispensation 9

The world with its various ages and revolutions past 34
To God, Christ, the Holy Ghost and reign of Christ 46
To eternal life and blessedness 65

Ascriptions of praise to God and Christ 24

Eternal death and punishment 21

Total 199

Of these the forty-six applied to God can only be taken
in the unlimited sense; so of the twenty-four connected
with praise to God. The sixty-five in which the word js
rendered eternal when applied to life can likewise be taken
only in the unlimited sense, as the phrase eternal life in
every single instance means the future life of the saints in
the spirit world. Even if it be argued that eternal life is
enjoj'cd in this iifo, the result will be the same, unless it be
said that it iss confinedio this life, which no man, not even a
Universalist, in his right mind would assert. Here then
ai'o 46 + 24 -I- G5 = 135 places where the word unequivocally
signifies endless. Of the remainder, 34 -+-9 = 43 only are
used in the limited sense, leaving the remainder 21, which
are applied to punishment, as unsettled. Hence if we were
to decide upon the sense of the 21 by the sense in which
axon and aionios are generally used, the evidence would be
in favour of the unlimited over the limited, in the proportion

UNIVERSALI8M UNFOUNDED

251

over", 9:7;

1:6; "The
(tocI, is for-
iquity shall
intH aro pre-
ho paths of
-er ", 37:48.

and aionios
butes their

8 past 34

hrist 46

1 199

\y bo taken
r connected
tlio word JH
iso be taken
ernal life in
;he waints in
ernal life is

unless it be
, not even a

Here then
I equivocally
43 only aro
)r 21, which
e if we were
so in which
?o would be
) proportion

of 3J to 1. The following are a few ox.traplos in which the
word is to be taken in the unlimited, endless sense : " Now
unto tho King eternal {(uoaion), immortal, invisible, tho
only wise God ", 1 Tim. 1:17; ** We have a building of God,
a house not miuio with hands, eternal (aionion) in the hear
vous "; "Tho gift of God is eternal life ", Rom. 6:23.

There is one particular circumstance in connection with
the use oUaiou aionios that tends greatly to justify tho idea
that the remaining twenty-one instances in which the word
is applied to punishment aro to be understood in the end-
lees sense, leaving every other consideration out of tho
question. It is this : The word cis is never found with aion
except where this term has tho endless signification. The
following arc examples : " Thine is tho kingdon, the power
and the glory [c/s aianas] forever", Matt. 6:13; "Lot no
fruit grow on thee [m ton aimo^ forever". Matt. 21:19.
" And 1 give unto them eternal life, and they shall never
perish", [shall not perish, eis ton aiona'], John 10:28 ; " And
whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die", [shall
not die eis ton aiona'] John 11:26 ; " If a man keep my say-
ing he shall never see death ", [eis ton aiona], John 8:51-52;
" Whoeoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him
shall never thirst", [eis ton aiona] John 4:14; " IIo that
doeth the will of God abideth forever '', (eis ton aiona) 1 Jo.
2:17 ; " To God our father be glory forever (eis tons aionios)
Phil. 4: 20; "Grace reign through righteousness (eis 5;om
aionion) unto etermil life." The use of e«s in these places,
and others in which it is found, seems to be to render tho
sentence more definite. Donnegan mentions its use partic-
ularly in definitions of time, and illustrates its use by an
example from Homer. Now it is a fact well worthy of no-
tice that although cis does not occur in every place where
aion signifies endless (yet it is generally present), still it is
never found coupled with aion where the sense of the con-
nection docs require its limited signification ; and as eis in

252

UNIVERSAL IHM UNPOUNDED.

I I

very ninny plncca \h used with airm [/lionios] when appHwI
to punishment, the prcsumj)tion is irroHiHtihlo that aion m
in siicli eases is to ho regjinlcd in the Honso of ondltws du-
ration.

But Univcrsniists can fcet over all tin's evidence hy finding
a single instunco of a/on heingusod in a limited sense. Mr.
Skinner says to Mr. Camphell, "Were yon to find them (aion
aionios) six thonsand timof* instead of six hun<lred times, in
their various^ forms and flexions, in the Old and New To«-
taments, and out of that numhcrfivo thousand nine hundred
times applied to CkA and his pei-fections (and of course then
means duration without end), yet if i-n the othci* hundred
they were applied to a yarioty of things of short darnMon,
and which from their nature could not bo. endless, you would
not ha\'e gained one step towards estcihlishing endless pun-
ishment from the force of them, unless yon proved by somo*
thing else that punishment must be endless ", (Lot. 15, par.
14.) Mr. Skinner here puts earth and heaven at dofianco-
to express absolute, endless duration by any word when ap-
plied to punishment, since there is no word expressive of
endless duration^ in any language beneath the broad firma-
ment^ that in not used in air accommodated or limited sense.
Even our word eternal, which in the mouth of Methodist and
Universalist is used in an endless sense, is frequently em-
ployed in connection with objects and subjects of short da-
ration. IIow often we say, " Ho is eternally annoying me **,
" lie is an eternal nuisance to society ", &c. And indeed
hail God himself introduced a now word as expressing end-
less dtiration when applied to punishment, how soon could
Universalists defeat the doctrine of the Deity by finding out
some instance of its limited use, perhaps by Balaam or the
devil, as recorded in the Book, and thereby pronounce end-
less punishment "a soul-withering and God-dishononring
doctrine"! "//i all languages'', says Dr. Adam Clarke,
" words have in process of time deviated from their origi-

CNIVER8ALI8M UNFOUNDED.

233

•n applied
luit (lion in
iiidlcsa du-

l»y finding
eiiso. Mr.
lliom (fwm
i times, in
Now Ten-
no hnndrot}
ionrsathen
T hundred
't d arn+ion,
, you would
ndlesK pun-
id by hsomo*
iot. 15, par.
at dcfianco
•d when ap-
prcssive of
road firma-
lited Hcnee.
t hod inland
iicntly em-
>f short do-
>ying mo ",
Lnd indeed
esHing end-
soon could
finding out
aam or the
lonncc end-
shononring
im Clarke,
lioir origi-

nal aceoptationH and become aeeommodatod to partieular
purposes. This has ha[)i)onod both to thu Hebrew okm and
the Greek aion. They have been both used to ex])rcss a
limited time, but in general a time the limits of which are
unknown, and thus a pointed ret'erenee to the original ideal
moiining is still kept up. Those who bring any of these
terms, in an accommodated sense, to favour a particular doc-
trine, &c., must depend on the good graces of their o])po-
nents for permission to use tliem in this way. For as the
real grammatical meaning of both words is eternal and all
other meanings arc only accommodated ones, sound criticism in
all matters of dispute concerning the import of a word or
term must have recourse to the grammatical meaning, and
ltd use among the earliest and most correct writers in the
languaL''e, and will determine all accommodated moanings
by this alone. * Now the tirst and best writers in both lan-
guages ap[>ly olem and aion to express eternal in the ])roper
meaning of that word."

Skinner, Austin, and others, define aion as meaning, not
endless duration, but " continually ^\ '' constantly ", " vninfer'
■niptedly.^' If then it rei'er to a voyage across the sea, it
means during the vo}'age. When aj)plied to a night's sleep,
it means duriuj' the ni«'-ht. \^ it refer to the vovasxe of Jo-
nail, it means till his vo3'age was ended, if but three days.
If it refer to the Aaronic pl-iesthood it means during its
existence. If it refer to anything connected M'ith human
life, it means during human life. When applied to the pun-
ishment of the wicked in eternity, it means during eternity ;
and yet they quote passages of Scripture to disprove the
endless sense of aion, when these very identical scri])tiires
are but perfect illustrations of their definition. They quote
such texts as these : *' What shall be the sign of thy com-
ing and of the end of the world " (aionios'), Matt. 24:3. Here
the word aionios is used in an accommodated sense and
njwms the dm*ation of the present system of things. Wo

254

UNIVEBSALI8M ITNrOUNDED.

««

i i

il;

often in the same way speak of " the end of time ", when
strictly speaking time can nover have an end. " The har-
vest is the end of the world " (aionios), Matt 13:39. " So
shall it be in the end of this world " {aionios), Matt. 13:40.
" The restitution of all things which God hath spoken by
the mouth of all his holy projihets since the world (aionio»)
began ", Acts 3:21. "For all the land which thou soest to
thee (Abraham) will I give it, and to thy seed, forever ",
Qiionios), Gen. 13:15. The word forever in this text is sim-
ilarly used with that word in our deeds and patents — "Hie
heirs and assigns /o;'c«;er " ; and who would contend that
Ibrever could not mean eternally because it is used in this
sense ? " You shall keep it (the passover) a feast by ordi-
nance forever " (aionion), Ex, 12:14 ; that is, as long as this
order of things exists. " I will give thee the land of Canaan
for an everlasting (aionion) possession ", Geli. 17:8. This
may be regarded as a deed to Abraham, and " to his heirs
forever." *' For their anointing shall surely be an ever-
lasting [dionion'] priesthood throughout their generations '\
Ex. 40:15. In this aionion is explained as meaning '* continr
wdltj existing." " Perhaj^s he [Onesimus] therefore departed
for a season that thou shouUlst receive him forever " [tiicn-
ion'\, that is, during his life, Phil. 15. " They shall bo your
bondmen forever'* [^/tonmu] — lil'e-time — Lev. 25:40. Ob-
serve in all these the word aioa and its adjective aionios mean
the entire dunition of the objects with which llu'V are con-
nected. The ]»ass{igo in Jonah is over sounded in our ears
when the limited sense of oion is being urged, ''The earth
with her bars was alH>ut me Ibrover" ((lionion). ch. 2:6
Hero wo are told that aion signlties only three days. This
is a mistulvo. The word hero is used in the endhvss sense.
Tlio ])Vopiiet is speaking of wliat ho considorod his eternal
consignment to the <lopths of the earth, but adds .- " Yet
hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O Lord my
God."

UNIVERSALISM CNFOUNDED.

255

e ", when

The bar-

39. "So

itt. 13:40.

poken by

I (jOLxonioB)

u Boest to

forever ",

xt is sim-

its— " His

tend that

cd in this

t by ordi-

)ng as this

of Canaan

7:8. This

his heirs

e an ever-

orations '*,

ig " ctyntin-

J departed

or" [(lion-

ill bo your

r):4(). Ob-

>rt ios mean

y are con-

ti onr ears

The earth

). ch. 2:0

iVK. This

loss sense.

lis eternal

Ids : " Yet

liord my

Suppose I were to say, when speaking of endless punish-
ment : " The wicked shall always remain inptrdition ", is there
a man under heaven, Orthodox, Infidel, or Universalist, that
speaks English, who could understand me as moaning any
other than interminable punishment ? No not one ; and yet
perform upon this the Universalist argument on aion, and
a limited punishment, according to their reasoning, can
only bo admitted from my words. They will first proceed
to find instances of always being used with subjects neces-
sarily limited the same as the Greek aei (always.) " Ye
stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do «/-
icays resist the Iloly Spirit ", Aets 7:51. Always ib this jdacc
could mean no longer a period than the natural lil'e of those
persons. "For we which live are always delivered unto
death ", 2 Cor. 4:11. " As sorrowful, yet always rejoicing "
2 Cor. G:10. ''The Cretans are always liars", Tit. 1:12.
" They do always eiT in their heart", Ileb. 3:10. "Be
always ready to give an answer to every man ", Philip 3:15.
" Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in re-
membrance of these things ", 2 Pet. 1:12. In all these the
word always can be understood only as cotormiiious with
human life. Jlouce, according to Universalism the wicked,
in conformity to the doctrine of my phraso. will get out of
|K'rdition in about sixty years. All this is so incom]iatab!o
with good reasoning anil so fraught with sophistry that no
intelligent person but a bigot could believe it.

As a final resort we ai'o told that <//<'/' cannot signify end-
less duration, because it is foinid in the ])hiral form. Even
Mr. Skinner urged this us an olijeetion. 'Die form of the dou-
Itle plural occurs niM)ut twenty-one times in the S( rij)tures,
in such texts a.s this : "To whom be glory yo/vfVr and ever"
{funs aionas ton ahnon), 2 Tim. 4: IS. This is certainly a
learned objection — "forever and ever" means longer than
'' forever." This (U-feuts Universalists themselves, and Mr.
Skinner among the rest, for that ^^entleman in his discus-

I I

•il!

)::ii:i.

i :'

'I !

■i. -

256

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

sion with Campbell, and Austin in his tedium with Ilolmos,
quoted Ps. 103:9 ; ** lie will not always chide, neither will
he keep his auger forever ", Sam. 3:31 ; ''For the Lord will
not cast oil' forever " — to prove that all will be saved. Here
forever, according to their own showing, means duration
mthout end ; how then can "forever antl ever" mean any
longer ? Again, the phrase *' forever and ever " is used in
a limited sense, and means no more than " forever " — lie
asked life of thee and thou gavest it him, even length of days,
forever and ever '\ Ps.''21:4. This life could have been no
longer than his length of days ! '• I will make thy name
to bo remeihbered in all generations; therefore shall the
people praise thee forever and ever'', Vh. 45:17. "Xovr go
write it before them in a tabic and note it in a book, that it
may bo for the time lo c-ouxq, forever and ecer'\ Isa. 30:8.
"Then will 1 cause you to dwell in this pl:i(,'*', in the land
that I gave to your fathers, forever and <rrr". Jer. 7:7. In
this passage "for<ivor and over" exj)resses the same dura-
tion as '' forever'' in the promise to Abraham, of whieh this
is Ijut areiielition — ''Feu- all the land which thou (Aliraham)
seest, to tliee will J give il, and to thy seed f>r<ver'\ (Jen,
13:15. But if the pliu-al form changes the nu'aning of the
word we are still sustaineij in reference to punisjunent. for '
tins same ])hi':ise is applied to (he doom ui' tlie wicked.
John sa3's : ''Tite snioki' ol'lheii' toi'inent aiHendetii up /f>r-
ever andev(r'\ Hev. 14:11; aii<l that they shall lie tormented
day and night/'/vrr/- (0/(/(rrr,''Rev. L't*: ;0. 15nt this objection
is ehiidish and only exposes the ignoi'anee of the objector,
for alKlreek and I iebrow scholars know that the ])Iiiral form
is often used for the singular without any int tion whatever
lo change the sense. OUni in the Hebrew, which corres-
ptMids to the (Jreek alon, occurs in Psahns 17:H,7,8, (n:5,
145: 13, Isa, 45:15, 2 Chron. el:2, in the ])lural form, and
means exactly what it means in the singular. The words
(rod, Creation, dwelling, the wicketl, ki'., in Hebrew, have

UNIVERSAL ISM UNFOUNDED.

251

1 Holmes,

ithcr will

Lord will

)d. Ilerc

duration

ncan any

is used in

er "—He

li of days,

; been no

ihy name

shall the

"Now go

)()k, that it

Isa. 30:8.

I the land

I'. «: <. In

anie diira-

uliii'h this

Abraham)

ver , Lien.

iiig of the

iment, for '

I' wicked.

'th [\\)for-

lormented

^ olijcction

' ()l>jt'ctor,

lural Ibrm

whatever

ch forre.^-

,7,S, 01:5,

form, and

riie words

rew. havo

the same signification in both nunibers. Thus we hare '* u
cruel lords ", Isa. 19:4. " If I am a lord.s where is my fear?"
Mai. 1:0. " Where is God my makers?" Job 35:10. '' Eo-
member thy Creators in the days of thy youth," Ecc. 12:1.
" Thy husbands's is thy makers," Isa. 54:5. " Jehovah m
thy keepers," Ps. 121:5. Sahbata and ouranoi [the pliiraf
of Sahhaton and ountvnii^ — the Greek for Sabbath and Heav-
en, are frequently found in the New Testament for the sin-
gular.

Mr. Austin has drawn up a rule to ascertain the meaning
of aion and its derivatives, " liule. When aionios or aionion
is applied to that which contains within itself eternal exis-
tence, then it necos.sarily signifies literally time without
end, as when applied to God in liev. 4:10 — " Worship him
that liveth forever and ever," (tons aionas ton aionion). Or
when applied to God's attributes, ** His mercy entlureth for-
ever," (aionos). But when appliwl to that which doe-snot in
itself possess endless duration, then cn'onion or (fio?i<'os,doesnot
import that quality to it, but signifies simply duration long-
er or shorter, as the nature of the subject requires. In i"e-
latiou to the duration of the Jewish priesthood aionion sig-
nifies some thousands of years. In reference to Jewish
slaves, it signified a life-time. In relation to Jem ah it sig-
nified but tln*ee days," (Discuss. 673.)

In this we are told that " when aionios or aionion is ap-
plied to that which contains within itself eternal existence,
then it necessarily sigidfies literally time without end."
How a word can literally signify time without end and yet be
dependent upon the subject with which it is connected for
its meaning, appears somewhat dillicult to explain. Cannot
aionios when a^tplied to any substantive express duration
without end when it can, literally, signify " time without
ond," even if the duration of that substantive is not known ?
And how is its duration to be known without aionios ? While
Mr. Austin in his rule gives aionios the literal meaning of

268

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

time without end, he at the wamo time makes it a perfect ci-
pher, and heiK'c Jiis rule iH both falwo and foolish. A cipher
phiced before 1 means one-tenth of a unit, but when placed
after it, mcanH 10. Indeed all adjectivcH ai'C ciphers ac-
cording to the philoloi^y of Univensalibts, for they allege
that aiouios when a])j)lied to God, does not of its own virtue
or })ower of meaning, express his eternity unless wo found
other reasons for that meaning. So of the happiness of the
righteous. ]kit these reasons not being found in their phil-
osophy of punishment, it means momentai-y or limited.
Hence, in Mr. Austin's new grammar ''Anoua is a word ad-
ded to an adjective to expretis its quality or limit its sig-
nification." Thus happiness, aionios means endless, and pun-
ishment alonios means with an end ! ! In short, according
to Mr. Austin's rule, aionios has no meaning whatever, and
is thoreforo useless and indeed worse than useless, because
it is used to cxpi'css an idea of duration that can only be
known ii"oin its subject.

;f:

f ^

, 1 ma

tP"!l

)orfoct ci»
A cipher
en placed
phors ac-
ey allege
wn virtue
we found
ess of the
heir phil-
iiinitcd.
I word ad-
it its aig-
, and pun-
according
ever, and
;, because
I only 1>9

CHAPTER V.

UKIVERSAL SALVATION.

HE doctrine of Universal Salvfition is not only ar-
<s,{.iod from Scripture declarations — from these pas-
safj^cs that speak of the restitution of all things but
from a species of reasoning known as a priori — that is test-
ing the cause from the effect. Wise men, however, like Ba-
con, Locke and Newton, reasoned a jwstcriori in eliciting
truth, and this is the only sure method of reasoning. This
beau idml of Univcrsalists conceives a universe that will in
the routine of time become purified and jiurged from all
Bin and sorrow ; ))ut had I drunk as deeph'' at the Castilian
fount, I would have constructed an a priori system better
than theirs, for I would have had a universe in which sin
and suilering had never been known — a creation where a
sigh could never rise, and where death could never roam,
but where everlasting bloom and vigour, and unsullied peace
and serenity must ever pervade all. The most foolish and
yet the most deceptive of all logic is their a priori system
that argues universal holiness and hap])iness. This is the
stale and stereotyped plan in which this argument is pres-
ented and is as old as days of Murray. 1. " God's infinite
goodness would prompt him to desire the endless hnppinesa
of the whole human race. 2. His infinite wisdom was suf-
ficient to devise means adequate to the accom])lishnient of
the most desired; and 3, His infinite power is all-sufficient
to carry into effect the means dovistd I y infinite wisdom ;

!•

i,'.

200

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

80 tli.at the end prompted by infinite f^oodncss will be at-
tained ! Tlic result is Univorf^alism ! ! "
Upon this saiiio foundation is predicated another argument,
"One of three grounds must be admitted : cither 1. God r^n
save all men luit will not or, 2. (Jod will save all men but
ainnot or, )i. (Jod can save all men and ?ri7/savo all I If you
take the first and say (lod mn hwi will wot yon limit his
goodness. Tf you prefer the sec ond and say (rt>d will but mn-
not^ you limit his power, init if you choose the thinl and say
he can and will, you admit Universalism."

This is the argument, and as formidable as it ma}'' appear
at the first glance, on applying it to other things it resolves
itself into the most sophistical of all logic. The defect is
made by breaking up the Divine harmony and taking out
the attributes oi power, gooibirss and tcisth/m. In this way 't
conclusion may be arrived at entirely opposed to the re-
maining laws of the moral (xcjvernor of the universe. Ven-
geance is an attribute of (rod as much so as goodness, nay ex-
clusively more so, for while men are commanded to exorcise
yoodness they are denied the exercise of vengeance, for
" Vengeance is mine and I will repay, saith the Lord." Sup-
pose this infinite atti'ibute of vengeance were subrttituted
in the place of goodness, by the same reasoning avo can
8how that all mankind will bo absolutely and eternally lost.
1. God's iniinite vengeance would prompt him to damn the
whole human family. 2. lEis iniinite wisdom was sufficient
to devise means adequate to the accomplishment of the end
desired, and l{. His infinite power is all-sufficient to carry
into effect the moans devised by infinite wisdom, so that the
end prompted by infinite vengeance will be attained. The
result is eternal damnation ! If Universalists do not like
this conclusion they must abandon their (ipriori reasoning,
for it is l)ut the logical fleduction of their own promises.

The failaiy of such reasoning is also ap])arent when
brought alongside of facts as they now exist. 1. (iod's infi-

will bo at-

n' argument,
'r 1. (Jod can
Jill men but
all I If you
on limit his
I will but ca 71-
tliird and nay

may appear
gs it rosolvoH
Hio detect irt
d taking out
n thin way «*
ed to the re-
ivcrye. Ven-
IneyH, nay ex-
ad to exercise
mgeance, for
le Lord." Sup-
e Bubfttituted
)ning wo can
eternally lost,
n to damn the
was sufficient
lent of the end
lent to carry
mi, BO that ♦^he
.ttained. The
B do not like
lori reasoning,
n premises.
i])areiit when

1. God'ti inti-

■CNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

201

iiite goodness would prompt him to desire the holiness and
hnpj)incsHof all men in this life. 2. His infinite wisdom wa^^
sufficient to devise moans' adequate to its accomplishnient,
and 3. His infinite power was all-sullicient to carry intoex-
.ecutioii tlie means devised by infinite wisdom, so that the
end prompted by infinite goodi\«ss would be attained. The
result is the univei'Hal holiness.iind haj)piness of nil men in
this life ! a conclusion that contradict-! the testunony of our
nienscB, and therefore the reasoning of Univcr«alists u])on
the atti'ibutes of God is false. They are at legist compcllod
ito take one of two grounds, either 1. God wills the present
=iiolinesB and happiness of all in this world, or 2. He does
not. If they choose the second and say he does not, tlu^y
oppose his word which declares that he desires all may
be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth, besides
if God docs not now will universal holiness and happimsS;
2io never will desire it, for mark the fact, he is without
variableness or shadow of turning. If they choose the first
iiiid say God is in favor of universal holiness and ha})pincs.s
now, they admit that (rod's will is not done, and therefore,
that universal salvation remains an uncertainty, for if CJod's
desire is not fultilled in thi.s life, notwithstanding the exor-
cise of his power, wisdom and goodness, it may not be ac-
complished in the next.

The second form of the argumcni may be disjtosed of in
a similar manner. One of three grounds must be tako!i ;
cither 1. God can damn all men but will not; or 2. God will
damn all men, but cannot ; or 8. (iud am damn all men, raul
will damn all ! If they admit tho first and say he can but
will not, Miey grant his power, but dony his vengeance. If
they admit the second and say lie will I'Ut cannot, tiiov
grant his vongcance, but deny bis ])owcr ; i)iit if tljcy ad-
mil {li'" third an<l say he can and ,'/.•/''/, iliey ];;vc a Unj-ei'
sal damnation, or tho gcnllcmcn's logic is not wort;> v
straw '

2(12

UNIVERSALISM rNrm^NDEP.

fi 11 :i

lUn Id lis lest Ihihiii nnotlior way j onoof tlirco grounds
iDii.st be lukcn : Killior 1. (iod caii save all inojifrom Hin in
liii lilo, but will not ; or 2. i\o will save all men, but can-
not , 3. lie can wave all men and make them holy and
Iiai)py iti this lile, and will nave all. Jf they admit the
fwst, and say ho can hut will not, they lulinit his power, but
deny his goodness, ll'lhuy choose the second, and say he
will bui cannot, they grant his gomlncss, but deny his pow-
er. If they adopt the third, and say he can save all in the
present lii'o, and will save all, they assert Avhat every one
knows to bo foolish and false.

If Mr. Ballou had accosted Milton's IJapliael when he wa*<
standing on the solar orb and looking down upon the beauti-
ful and newly-created earth below, forseeingand contemplat-
ing the future of the human spccies,what an argument would
have been struck up ! The mighty " Bera{)h" informs the
apostolic critic that God is about peopling this netherworld
with a race of intelligent beings that wilJ shortly sin against
God, and thereby introduce j)ain, sighing, sorrow and death
How Mr. E. would bo startled to heai" that this race will so
increase in number and wickedness that they will array
themselves in battle and hew down nine thousand millions
of their number in the horrors of war, and so defy the Deity
liimself by their crimes and blasphemy as to call down the
infinite ire to swoop them from exiptence by the descent of
a deluge, or of raining fire from heaven. Oh Xo I rej lies
Mr. Ballou, I can never admit your cruel dogma that will fill
the universe with sighs and tears, and clothe heaven in
sackcloth for six thousand years ! I can demonstrate to
you, " brightest serapli ", from the attributes of God, that
no such disaster can possibfy befall the Almighty's creation.
You must admit, 1. His infinite goodness would prompt
him to desire the unsullied lK4)piness of the whole human
race. 2. His infinite wisdom is all-sufiicient to devise means
adequate to the end desired; and 3. His infinite power is

wo <,^roiin(Is
lV(»in sin in
on, hut can-
n holy and
admit the
[»o\vur, hut
and say he
iiy his pow
all in the
every one

vhen ho wa*<

I the heauti
eontemphit-
nicut would
inform.s the
let licr world
,' sin against
^■ and <leath

raec will so
■ Avill array
ind millioDH
Py tlio Deity

II down the
5 dcHCont of
So I re| lies
that will fill

I heaven in
oiistrate to
)f God, that
^''s creation,
lid prompt
hole human
.'visc means
to power is

UNITlRWALItsM UNFOUNDED

2«i;'«

sufficient to carry into oftoet the means devised l»y inrinite*
wis(h)m ; so that thoend jirompted by intinito goodness wilt
be attained. The result is, they will and must be hap))y.
Again, one of tlirec grounds must be taken : either, 1. Godl
could prevent such a state of things i>^ you predict, but icilfi
not; or 2. He would jirevent it, Ini* ca lot; or 8. Ifo- caru
and will prevent it. if you (diO(v th^' .irst Rjijthacl, and!
t^y God ran pi'ovent it, but wiU uot, you admit his power,
but deny liis goodness; Which all lie ven knows to be infi-
nite. If you take the second, a 1 say he would but cannot^
you a<lmit his goodness, but dt^ny his power. B\it ifyoic
juiopt the third, that God can and wiU prevent such a state
of sin and su fieri ng, you not only admit the infinite perfec-
tion and fulness of the divine constitution, but rid yourself
of the "tormenting fear" of witnossing anguish and mur-
der upon that beautiful world of intelligences, where hap-
piness and '* immortal beatitude " will ever exist. Before
such a cliarge of intelligence and logic the high seraph
must have yielded the point and become converted to the
Univcrsalist faith, till the raging conflict of sin, and a world
of woe, stared him in the face. Take care, reader, that
your pri)i('i}>lo may n6i bring you in such a condition in the
•xreat and dreadful dav of the Lord. T3e careful when ridi-
culing " hell and damnation" that you are not ridiculing
tJie judge of the human race I

Universal salvation is urged in every book upon that su I'
jeet irom the p('terniti/()f (iO(\. Paternity in their hands
has been exalted to an attribute, and forms the basis ot
their congeries of propositions. Mr. Austin s.iys, page 23.'} .
"If paternity is not an attribute of God, tlion in no sense
can he be the fatlier of a created being", and that " Patt r-
nity is as much an attribute as wisdom ", page 597. With
these assumptions an argument is built upon the "paternal
government of God, based u])on the single attribute of pa-
tcrnlfi/, while the nwral government of God, which develops

•^ni

irNI VEUSAMS.M U." KOtlNPBiT.

all the tittribuJo;

I'iiii uvor ari'J l»>hl ^i(fikt of. llonio Mt

U I

Austin with otlu.i's oi' his tlas.-* Bivy : '' \V'haU>vt*i* a wise un<l
ij^ooil earthly ^larcut v. uul«l da /i>r hi.s <liiiUi'cii, J'.jhI ha tlw

ilv I'lUhc

power, we suuy ox]>eLt ana Uoiiove our Heavenly I'lUnor
'viU do Ibf li'S oll'spi'irig-, il-.i hiiviii;:; .'ill power ". ]»u^^'o i4H,
iJui (lod iiuidi tluj crealiu)), ficcovdinm" to UniveiTiullsDi. sub
i'.et t'< \'unity, u^-ainst their will, and brougiit uj)()n hischil-
Iren all the ruin and misery whieh they have ever snll'ered,
inasmuch ay j\fr, J^ull<ju, tho Pro and Con, Air. Flanders, and
others, aay tJiat "a// coi'itLs tak(^ place agreeably to d)0 un-
.'Itorablo decree of .Jehovah," He allowH r.onc of his cmCi-
turcs who ha^•c binned to «sc}ii>€ hir) iron lingers till they
ii'coive '' the vory last mite " of vongeanco for thoir ini-
i^uities, and in,steu<l of exercising mild ch.iytisement to re-
form hiri " oll'spring", he clothoH the high heavens in black-
ness and horror, and poui*y down his lightnings and thun-
ders and sweeps away or burns up the trausgrossoi*s of hifl
law. How in this does he reHomblc *' a good earthly father "?
An earthly parent would saves his " rt'.bellious " son from
death, when God commanded to " .'stone him tcilh utones till he
(lie ", Dent. 21:18. Who, among earthly parents, did he pos-
sess tlie foreseeing wisdom of Deity, would so arrange lii8
allaira that he might lead his children into error M-tid evil
to provoke his wrath, and thereby cause him who does " all
his pleasure " to delight himself in arming the angel of
death to smite the tirst-born of the millionth of his e4iildren,
vud hang the droo})ing weeds of mourning from the thresh-
old of the slave to the royal chambers of Vharaoh ? But wo
must tell Universalists that all men are not tho children ol
G<xl, as respects his paternal government and their salva-
tion. Though all are children of God by creation or natural
relation, in a moral sense thoy ai'e not so, and it is clear
from the declarations of Scriptures that thotie who sin forfeit
the blessings of their natural reJaiiBon. The apostle says.
that Christ " came to redeem thefiv that were under thft*

tTNIVERSAMBM rjfFOT'NDED.

Ilonro Mr
i' u wise uii<{
jimi ha th<
nly, F:uhor

'iullsm. sub
)on hisj tliil-
er siill'ered,
aiidoi's, an<j
' to dio nn-

of hlH t^» C'l

rs till tlity
r thoir ini-
(iient to ro-
iKS in black-
s and thun-
>HOi*ft of his
ly father"?
" son from
iftoncs fill he

did he pos-
in-ango hi^
ov M'tid evil
o does " all
anjijcl ol'
•B e-hildron,
the thresh-
i ? But wo
children oi
thoir sftlva-
» or natural

it is clear
sin forfeit
postle saya

under thft-

265

Xa/w, that wo might rocoivo the atloption of 8on8. And be
cause yo are Honn God hath Kont fortli the Spirit of his Son
into your hearta, crying Abba Father. Wherefore thou art
no more u .servant, but a Hon; and if a son, then an heir of
God through Christ ", (Jal 4:4,7. *' For rh many as are led
by the Spirit of God, thet/ are the sons of Go<J'\ Rom. 8:14.
" They which are the children of the flesh are not the chil
droa of God ", Rom. 9:8. The wickod are not the children
(if God, but of thoir father, the devil, for his works they do.
•' In this the children of God are manifest [in their works],
and the children of tho ^oyii ", 1 John 3:10.

\i a modern Universalist hml lived in ancient Sodom he
would have reasoned the eyes out of tho !i"ng»ils when they
oamo to warn those wicked cities of their overthrow. Why
God is infinite in goodness, and is too kind to destroy us.
Talk to usiibontnGod of love, him who has declared himself
to bo our father, pouring down lire and brimstone U]>on the
heads of his children to burn them to death!! How could
a being, who is tho centre of all pei-fection and justice, cre-
ate us beings whom he foreordained to be Just as we are,
iind who governs ^' all things after the council of his own
will ", HO that our wills are lost in the his, as *' the motioio
of a free will is a chimera" — be so cruel as to now .scorch
and melt us up in tho ruins of our devoted city ? We <lon't
l)elieve it, for God alwaj's punishes for the good of the otfon-
der, and what good would it do us to bo roasted to death in
firo and (»rimstone? How could this ctl'cct reformation "i*
What earthly father would sutler his child to be waiIin^ in
tlames, much Itiss a (rod who is infinitely more att'ectionate
and kind than any earthly jiarent could j^ossibly be? Besides
you need not persusule us to fear the lln'eatencd judgment, for
'fear hath torment", and we do not believe that (iod ever
intended us to fear anything, for '' perfect love castcth out
uU fear."' Thus could tlmSodomites have philo.-^ophi^ed and
logically com;luded thut the angels were publishing a false

26G

UNIVER8ALI8M UNFOUNDED.

i ■'

report ; but tho firo and briiuHtouo came down upon thorn
and burnt up thoir philoHOpliy, and 6ot thorn forth as an ox-
amplo to thobo who might aftorwarda livo ungodly.

Tho scriptural argumoiitH of UnivorHaliHUi aro dilVubod
ovorywhoro throughout tho Bible and aro much moro ox-
tenbivo than dolinito. The asHumption, that prouiiwoB aro
alsolute or unamditional, forms tjio hoad and heart of tho&yt^
torn, and let it bo proH.sod to al>audon thin ground and ita
case b}' all tho Honsibleand reading class of the com»x,niiity
nuL'it bo regarded as hopelosB. "Wo intend fu'iiy in our i-o-
inaining pages to deal with every '^^ssago Hopnralely, that
is quoted in support of thj^.'^ aoctrine, and drive Univerbalibm
Irom every no'J^, a^j corner that it has rosortotl to as hi<l-
'"i!! f^^^^'' ^or the last fifty years. There is -no ono passage
more reiterated than tho promiwo to Abraham, and as this
seems most important we will examine it first.

Gen. 22:18, " And in thy seed shall all tho nations of the
earth be blessed." This text, we are told, toadies that all
the human family will be finally lioly and happy. The
whole force of tho argument is bused on th^ word nhdl — " in
thy seed shall all the nations of tho earth bo blessed." No
condition is expressed, and therefore say Universalists it
must be absolute. But let us bri.ig along side of tliis other
passages of scripture and see whether the al»senjL'e of an ex-
pressed condition ju, rifles the conclusion that such are to
be understood as unconditional.

I. '' Whei'c fore the Lord iUA of Israel saith : [ said indeed
tluit thy house and the house of thy father should walk U*
foi'c me forever j but now tho Lord saith: Be it far from
me [to do as I promised] ; fur them that ho lor me I will
honor, and they that de-pise me .shall be lightly esteemed ',
1 iSani. 'l-.'M). Here we read that God had pronusod, with-
out any condition, that tho house of Eli and the house of
his father should walk f)cfore him f oncer ^ but now, accor
ding to Universalist interpretation, in consequence of ICli'.'^

ITWIVEaaALISM UNPOUNDED.

267

:>'

1 upon thorn
•rill uttan ex-

.aiy.

uro dilluttod
ch nioro ex-
>i'oiiiiHOH arc
rt of tlioByd-
Dund uud ita

ly in our !•«-
arjituly, that
TnivorBulibm
«xl to U8 hi(i-
ono |)a8Hago
and as thid

utionH of the
chosthat all
ia|)py. The
I'd MhiiU—^' in
lesscd." No
iversalists it
of'diis other
njL'o of an ex-
Huch are to

t said indeed
uld As\ilk Ikv

it iiw from
r jjic I. will

esteemed ",
mised, with
ho house of

now, accor
ence of FAi:*

wickodnesH, ho violatOH his pledge in stripping him of the
(ittcordotal dignitiou. The only conHiflt<»nt exponition is that
A condition in hero impliod, ns there is in every proniiao of
Heaven to raao,

2. "Thon said David : O Ijord God of iRraol, thy Borvant
hath certainly heard that Raul sookoth to come to Koilah
U) doatroy tlie city for my isako. Will the men of Koilah
deliver nie up into his hands? Will Saul como down an
thy servant hath heard ? O Lonl God of Israel I l>o.scoch
thee toll thy Horvant. And the Lord naid : He will com*
(lawn." No condition oxpresHod. Then mont cortainly thin
wiyingoJ'God muat be absolute, and Sanl with equal cor
tttinty must have como down to Keilnh. Jhit road on ;
" Then i^aid David, will the men of lleilah deliver mo and
my men into the hands of Saul? And the Lo>*d said, tim/
irill deliver ther. up. No condition yot. Saul must have come
down and David must have been delivered into his hands.
But roiul on still ; "Then David and his men, which were
about six hundred, hi*ose and departed out of Keilali, and it
M ail told 8aid that David was escaped from Koilah, and fu
firriarc to tjo forth "y 1 Sam. 23:10-i:{. Then one of two
^n'ouJids must be taken : Either 1. That Saul did rome down
to Koilah, and tlicrefore the Bible is false ; oi', 2. A condi-
tion is to bo undorstoo<i ; either of which kills Universalism.

3. " And Jonah began to enter into the cit}'^ a day's jour-
ncy, and ho cried and !^ aid : Yet forty days and Vinoveh
shall be overthrown ", Jonah '.',A. There is no coT;(r:ion in
tlic case, no if in the matter. It is j)Oivitive. But how did
the Ninevites understand it? " So the peo])le Irlleiod God
(not a,s a TTniversalibt would have liclievcd him), and jiro
('lain\ed a fa^ t, and put on sackcloth, fiuni iho greatest el
them even to the least of Ihom." The}' then must have
uudcritood tlio Divine threat as coujiled Avith a condition,
or humiliation would bo unavailing; and in this they were
correct, and proved to a demon titration the falsity of Vni-

26a

UNIVERSALI8M UNFOUNDED.

Ill

I ■!■

b ■

11 '

• 1

4' i

varsalist interprotation, for in tho uoxt vertjo wo road : "And
Gbd saw their workH, that they tiu-ned from thoir evil way,
and God repentod of tho evil ho said ho would do unto tliom,
aiid he did it not.''

4^ But God made another promiBO to Abraham in language
emphatic as that in tho text under notice. " And ho said
unto Abraham : Know of a surety tliat thy seed nhall Uj u
Btrangor in a land that is not theirs, and shall servo them,
and they shall alUict them four hundred }ears ; but in tke.
fotO'th generation, they6/u//t eomo hitheragain ", Gen. 15:13-l(j,
Thi^j fourth generation was tho Israelites whom Moses led
out of Kgypt — the ver}' persons whom God referred to in
h\A promise, now past by four hundred years. It was thoy
of whom it was said to their great ancestor in speaking of
..Canaan, '' they shtiil comis hither agnin." But did they ? Lib-
ton to Jehovah himself addressing Moses in the wilderness;
" Aa truly us I live sailh the Lord, your carcasses shall fall
ii\ Uiis wilderness, and all that wore numbered of yon a<v
c^mrding to your whole numbei-, from twenty years old and
Hipward, which have murmured again^^t mo ; doubtless ye
«^l// not come into tho hind concerning which ] swaro t<»
jmiko you dwell therein ; save Caleb the son of Jephunneli
and Joshua llio son of Xuii. And your children shall wan-
dor in tho wildernoss forty y^ars, and bear your whoredom.-i
until your carcasses be wasted in tho wilderness. After the
number of the d;ivs in whiidi ve seai'ched the land, even
forty days, ea(di day for a year shall ye bear your ini(|iii{ies.
even forty years, and ye shall know mv imieach of I'R;>misb
ill this wildernoss, they shall b(^ consumed, and there shall
ye d'li' ", .Num. M:28-:i.'), Here we tind th:it sin ]»roveFiled
thu ful.ilmeiit ol' God's pi-oiuisi- (o Abraham, lie was wil-
ling to l)riiig Ihem into the promised land, but, as the ajMXs.
(le Paul tells us, "fhoy could not enter in boeauso ol'unlK>-
Jief", ileb. ;{1!). Thii forever seals the fateof [Jniversalisju,
for shouM !Ji>>y even summoJi a " thus saitb the Loid,"j.a-«-

ITNITETII^ALISM I'NFOUN'nEn.

2n:>

[•Olid : "And
ir evil way,
uuto Uiom,

in luriguuge
I lid he said
. nhall 1x5 u
serve them.
; hut in tU
bn. 15:13-16.
Moses led
iferred to in
It wan they
^lieaking of
they '<* Lit-
wiidernewh;
es shall fall

of }'Oll luy
ixvs old and
Diihtle.ss ye

I s'.varo t(>

.lephiinneli

I shall wan-

whoredoinri

After t he

laiul, e\en
i" iiii(Hiities.

Ol- I'R;>MISK

(hej'c shall
I ])rcveMl<(l
li^ WHS wil-
ls, the aj>os-
so ol*titd>i>-
liversalisfii,

could the anfietd Israelites, to verify theii* docn-im . it will
make fln' mutter no I»etler, for iffroil could not in liis oter
nal divinity f'nlttl liisynirjtoses tmd jiroitiiso in n.lii'itlini;" the
rclxdlious into tin! rarihly Canaan, lie I'-'i'tainlv v.-.v.iM not
admit Hueh eharaeter^? into the hoaverd}-.

5. ."At what insta/d I shall speak roncerninL" a nation and
eonoernin^ a kin<;'doii), to hiiild and tojijaiit it; if it do evil
in my sight that it oliey not my voice, then I will repent of
the *i;ood wherewith f said T would henctlt tJ»em ", Jcv.
IS:I)-10. Now if we admit the j)romif^e to Abraham to mean
the final hoJineivS nnd haiij)iness of t lie human race what will
he- gained on the ])art of Univerfialinm, since it is dec)are<l,
''If they do evil in my sii^ht tliat they rihey not my voice,
thi'n will F rcj)tnt op the good uhtmcith I said I vnuhl hen-
rjit than.'' As certain as God has promised salvation in heav-
en to man, just so certain he may forfeit it by transffrossion.
The doctrine that would so ij^ratifv tlie carnal mind as to
license the wicked to serve the devil a lifetime and vet secure
their fintd holiness and happiness has no place in the word
of God. Take care, reader, that God, in consequence of your
sin, does not repent of the good wherewith hesail he would
do unto 3'ou — that lie does not swear that 3'ou shall rot en-
ter into his rest.

6. " When 1 say to the ria;ht(MDUs that he shall mn-cli/ livf,
if ho trust to his own ri<:jliteonsuess and commit iniquity all
his righteousness slmll not be remembered, but for his ini
quity that he hath committed he shall die for it. Again,
whei^I say to the wicked thou shalt surely die, if he turn
from his sin and do that which is lawful and right, he shall
surely live, he shallnof die ", Ezek 33:13-15. If Universalists
could find a text which declared in ho many woixls, " the en-
tire poHterity of Adam shall sniKLY be saved", language
much strcnger than the promise to Abraham, still it wouUi'
not prove a universal salvation unless it can be demonstrated
that all mankind do that " which is lawful and right ", for

270

UNIVERSALISM UNPvOUNDED.

(lod himself fells us ihut should ho dochiro in huiguji^o the
most emphjitie that the ahuh: human family sludl siuklv /><■
■nivedy yet if'tliey commit iiu<[uity ami do that which is not
lawful .,"1(1 right Ihcy shall siruELY be damned. There can
theref(n'e exist no such thing between the lids of the big
Book as an al'so/ittc, unconditiondf, divine promise. Tl 's
fastens a mill-stone to the neck of Universali>.ni and swims
it into the sea.

1. The apostles settle the matter forever witli Mr. Ballou.
I'aul toHtiHes, " Tlnj/ n-hich he of faith are blessed with faith
ful Abraham", (ial. 3:9. '* If yo bo Christ's then are yo
Abraham's seed and his heirs according to the pi'omise ",
V. 2'J. Jhit who ure Christ's? "They that are Chri.st'H
have cruciiied the flesh with the atlections and lusts", CJal.
rj:2i. " We are all the children of (Jod by faith in Christ
Jesus" [;>.2(I]. Faith then is ii'X'ossary in order to inherit
tiie promise. In Horn. 0:13 the apostle pointedly declares,
'' The ]tr<>mise that he tliould be the heir of the world wa,^
not to Ahr,ih<im or to hin sm!, TIIKOUGII THE Ki.Ksri, but thrtmgh
the right' oir.^^ioii^i rf fiith.'' Again, '' They are not all Israel
that are of [^raei [/. r., ibey are not all children of Abraham,
in the sense of iho promise, that are his descendants] ; nei-
ther because ijiey are the seed of Abraham are they all
children. They which are the chiklren of the flesh, thr.n'.
are not the rliihlrcn of God' \ ch. If:S. Hence the ju'omiso is
to be enio3'ed by faith, and is tliereforo conditional.

Isa. 45:22-24, " L v)k unto me and boyosaved all the ends
of the earth, for I am God and bolide me thei-eisnono else.
I have sworn by myself; the word has gone out of my
mouth in righteousness and shall not return; that unto me
o,very knee shall bow and every tongue sliall swear; surely
shall oMt' say, in the Lord have I righteousneis and strength."

This is a strong text with Univer.salitJts — so strong that
they (juoto it to prove that Cod has given his oath as a
pledge that all mankind will ultimately be suvod. But Ikj

tNlTKttHALrSM UNFOrNDEl).

211

luigo the
>riiKi,v l>e
'\c\\ is not
riioro Qixn
)!' the i»ig
so. Tl's
Linl Hw'im.-i

fr. Hnllou.
A'ith fhith-
011 aro yo
pi'omiso ",

Clirist'rt
ists", (ial.

1 ill Christ

to inherit

• declares,

world wan

hut thnnigh

I all Inrael

'Abraham,

inl.s] ; nei-

■0 they all

flohh, th<.!H'
))roniiso is
lal.

\11 thcetidM
siiono else,
out of my
lat uiitome
!ar; sundy

strength."
strong thul

oath as u
d. Ikit Ik)

foio this can servo their j)ur[)(»e thev nw oMigod, as u.>u:il,
to make a new translation hy cx^' ging the woi'd ntf from
the text of king James. The Polyglott rendering has also
to he rejected, since it rea<ls "Tie slnill say of me in the
FiOrd is all righteousness and , strength." Here again it is
oidy oiH' that shall declare '' in the Lord ha\e 1 i-ighteous
hes.'^." Jkit let them mould .and fa^^hion it .as they choose,
it is still a failure, for the context proves this " i-ighteous
p.oss " to he obtainable oidy uj>(»n conditions — ^- Look unto
m-c muf hi Iff lidvt'd all the e«(/^' of the i<irlhy They must look
vrtlo him " to obtain salvation, while l^niversalism teacdies
all .sliall be saved, whether they look unto him or tsot. Jkit
the following verso readH thus, "Even to him shall men
come (in the resurrection state), and all that are uK-nisal
agaiust him shall ho ashamed." That is at the very time
\.}\\rihou'in<j i.s going on there will be some who will be in-
rcii)ie(f, vurttged OY at mmlty agaist (lod. Will su(di be saved?
How can they believoand at the same time be ((nJmmrdwhvw
Paul says " Whosoever believeth on him !<h(iU not U-
ashamed," Rom. I>:33.

But hero again Universal ism commits suicide ly refer
ring this text in Isaiah to the resurrection state, for Paul
exjdains thin very passage as teaching a (ji^ncral Judgment,
which Univorsalism denies. " But why dost thou judge thy
I'rother? or why dost thou set at naught thy brother? for
Nvo shall all stand at (he Judgment seat of Christ. For it is
written (in Tsaiah, the text under examination) "A.s I live
saith the Lord, ovory kneo shall bow to me and ovory tcmgue
shall confe.sH to G^ 1," Rom. 11-:I0,1L When and whore shall
every knee bow and ovory tongue confess ? Paul answers
"at the judgment (ioat of Christ," and m cilery knee and cver^
tifugue ineans, according to Universalism, the whole posteri-
ty of Adam. Isaiah teaches according to ]*aul, a future
OENEiiAT, JUDO.MENT — that is all. And if Ron.e are then to
be incensed and ashamed, it ' ^ po.sitivo proof thai all will not

-■! 'f,'

i IHiW

I '"

i ''■'-

■iV

1 Jl ; 15

\t' ii

'' 1

:N: .il

^MjsJ

UNIVBU3AL1SM UNF')LTSiyT/l).

be savetl, I'lil tluitcondemimtio)) will Ibllow t'lO judgment.

God, ill llii.1 text rccordis no oath thut ho will save all men
art Univor;?ali.st.s a(«scrt, and oven ndniittint; it to be there,
will not make iteoitain any more than his ojuh to Abra-
hiim secured the children of his fourth generation an en-
traut'c into Cmiaan. ii' ** they eould not enter in boeauso of
TNUKLiKr" notwitlistanding (lodVj oath to lead them into
that jau'l wliieli wa** ])rojaihed their gieataneestor, no more-
can men en.er the heavenly Caiuian mih -s thoy believe on
rJod and Jesus Christ wliom he hath seid.

Phil. 2:'.t- 11, " Wherefore (iod also hatli highly exAlted
Jiim and given liini a name whicli is abo e every name;
that at the name of Johus every knoe slml! Unv, of things
III heaven and things in eai'lh avid things under llie earth ,
and that ever}' t<,)nguo f^houid e<mfess that Jcsus"Ohri.sl is
Lord to 1 he glorx' of (rod the I'atlier. '

X '"(;r. 12:,"i, ,%V nian can say that Jesus' is the Lord but
by the Holy (inost," v '

Tliesu two t<^\ts are <tiioted together, and it is HOmothinjij
like this, *' Thou thtU iiA>t fm(':zh the o;c that tremhth out the
cwn,"—"/)*)' of itmh in thr kiiigiUnn of h4!itvcn." Mr. Abel C •
Thomas, the coinpilorof tho " Universnlistirymnn," quote*
thiti hwt text in Ids delmte with Dv. El}', (page -U), and tho
latter very sensibl}' replied, *' A parrot ndght say 'Jesus ii
the Lord ' witliout the least intelligence, an«l a man way
tiay it ten thousand times with j»s little meaning as a parrot
uikI then jiej-i-h forever." J*aul is not speaking of men in
g( iieral l»ui simply of spiritual gifts as anyone eunsco who
will take she tnuihle to read 1 1n,' tirst verse of 'l>e chapter.
In those days of ignorance uim! non-cnrre^-pomi'Micc, and
above all bigo.ry and ^sUpet-.-'Lilitm. then' cmd'! It lu) j)ossi-
bilil}' of a pvr^on ri- in;-' iin in he-itnt'ii ('oriiitli :iud pn acfi-
Mig thai je>M■^ V.!!-- ('jiri-l. e.vccjtt \'y thu ilo!y ^!h<'^( MMns
i<;--lin!oiiy (111 'hvir p;.''! i'l;!! ,Ir.u-. :.s \j't'-\, \v:\.. ii.duMt. '.!•!('.
■\ idcncr 1 1 ilieic i = ;- I'ii 1. !• .. (I- il'Ml. t.hv V WCi'v^ I tiilowoil

iidgmcnt.
ivc all men
) be there,
U) Abra-
ioii ail en-
bocaiwc of
them into
)r, no more
l)elibvc on

\y exAlted
'ry name ;
, of things
iho earth ,
..sOhrist Ih

> Loril but

Hrtniothinj^
Hh (mt the
Jr. Abel C.
nfi," quoto«
:l),and.tho
Y ' Jesus is?

man may
ns a parrot

of men in
■an see who
e chapter.
(i<'iuH', an'l
T IK) po.-'i-

;!iod This
ii.dul'it. '.:•!«'.

t/mVERSALISM UNFOlTNMin.

with a *' Hpiritiial gift " or "discerning of spirits" as ^pokon
of in versi! 10. On one oecanion John KuiJ to the 8avioi;r,
*' MaBt«r we saw one eawting out devils in tliy name, and ho
followelh not us, and wo I'orbade hiiu, because he followoth
not UH." Here was one tliat called J^sus the Lord. '' And
Jcsutj Wild, Forbid him not; for there is no man which shall
do aniinidc in my name that can lightly speak <'vil (tf me,"
Mark ll.'iH.^JS}. i',aul liad reference to the same thing, for it
waHonly \>y a miraculous vJ**itatioT3 that the peo[)le of those
Uaya could make pretensions U) the name an<l character of
Jotjua.

JbVom tiie first passage UnivorsallHts argue that every
jiiesoendAiit of Adam wUl confess Christ to the glory of (xod
the, Father, and will, tlicrofore, be saved. They generally
quote this by taking out the word sJwnhl and suhbt'tuting
gjMlly making it read " tliat at the name of Jesus evory l.wc-v,
SHALL bow and that every tongue shall confess." The
Magnus Ai)pollo of Uiiiversalism, Br. Cobb, dared w. take
t^iH liberty in his discussion with Professor Hudson, i;iit,';'
458, and it Is found thus written in th eo or four other r"ork^;
that have fallen under 7ny own oK^ervation. Men who will
bo guilty of such trifling with the word of CJikI, ^;an ])r'..e
jWiytliin^i^ thi'ir carnal apiKitites may desire, from tl)e sa-
crod texl. This passage, howev< r, as it stands, has nothing
for the syMem, lor there mv; numy tJiing.s that Km)ULi> bo
done that are not done and never will be to all etouity.
Mon «7io«W Invf. their wives, yet some do not till they tjo
inu) the other world, xmd then they are not their wivt ,«
Men sAoa/r/luvo their neighl,H)rs, wJcn h«n«lre((s vn-iHt;!! .md
despise liioni. Piiul sa\s: " V\'e .s7?Y>wWii\^t- so! oi'i\ . !i;.r)i-
toously JUMJ giiiily in ibis jjrcsenl world" Cl"\.\. ''^■\') i'nl
yet thoUNaii<l> live mid die un.f^oilly. We liuv u (v.\l ':';it
is i;.n e\iii'.t parallel \u the one midci' ('(jn-idcfKiioii, -•' '-^jr
the Fulht r jn.d:-i!lh ii.> man, biii Icilli ctuwmiUfd ;t!l .n i-^^-
rrivint to tli<' •^i n, litul all siioi:i,i> honor the :Sou tiven as

liiii

if 9 n

274

UNIVERSALISM TINFOtJNDBD.

y„

1 !

■'r

thoy honor tlio Father ", John 5:2;J. But do all honor tho
Son as thoy honor the Father? What of tho Jowh who crii-
ritiod tho T^ord of life and ,'jjiory and now reject him as being
the Messiah? In short, the reason Univei-Nalists wilhts.sign
why all men do not honor tlio son wo will assign wliy every
tongiie will not coiitess thai he is liord, to the glory of God
tJH' Father. Hrit it may ho said : <iod lorooi'dained that
this should he the case, and eve!itually it will he done. ]int
(i(»d has foreordained that ccu'tain things ,s/jo?^An)e done that
arc never done, hecaiise men do Jiot see tit todo them. Paul
s])eal<ing of go(Hl work's says: " (lod hdtli before orthiinnl
that wo shm/ilw .Ak in llu'in ", Kph. 2:10; yet we frejjuently
nigh'ct ov refuse* io |»erform what (Jod has foreordained that
we i^ltovfd. \\\\{ till' context settles the dilliculty by show-
ing that salvation is coiidiiional. liead the next verse :
" Wlicre/orc my lielo\ed (i.e. for the considei'ation that every
tongue shouM conless) work out your salvation with fear
and trcmhling." Here tlu'n their tonfession of Christ must
he done !>}■ vorhintj nut their salvation, and of course if they
do not lenrk they cannot am/e^'i that J(^us is Lord, to tho
glory oft Jod the Father.

But lastly, admitting all ihttt is contended for, tho pass-
age st ill does not ])rove a universal salvation, for mark tho
fact that every knee may how and every tongue may con-
fess that Jesus is tho Christ, and yet this confession may bo
made too late for the salvation of thousands who will say
FiOrd, Lord, when the door of mercy is shut. Crmfosaing
that Christ is Lor<l is no proof of their salvation.

Isa. 55:10-11, " For as the rain cotnethdown and the snow
fi-on\ lioaven, and ridurneth not thither, but watereth the
earth and nmketh it bring forth and l)ud, that it may give
seed to the sower and bread to the eater, ho shall my word
be that goeth out of my mouth ; it shall not return unto
me void, but it shall accomplish that which T please, and it
slmll ])r()sper in i]\v. thing whereto 1 sent it."

lionor tho

VH who eru-

111 as being

will assign

why every

ory r)f God

iiiiiod that

c (lone. But

(' done that

hem. Paul

>i'e orthtinexl

) fVc'(iiiently

:iine(l that

ly hy show-

lext verse :

II that every

M with fear

["hrist must

)urse il'they

iovd, in the

)r, tlic pass-
)r mark tho
le may con-
si on may bo
ho will say
Confessing
1.

md the snow
'atereth the
it may give
xW my word
return unto
lease, and it

UNIYEU8ALI8M UNFOUNDED

275

This is another strong text with Universalism. They
assume that it proves the salvation of all, because (loil hath
«ent lorth his word to elfeet tho salvation of all, and
ho declares • it shall prosper in the thing whereto i sent it."
But the text explains itself. Look at tho word so — "So
shall my woj'd hi-." How ? '' For as the rain cometh down
and the sn(»w iVcm heavni. and reliirneth not thither, but
watereth (he »':ii"th juid maketh it bring forth an«l bud, thdt It
may give seel to the sower aiid hredd tn the tater, So ahall inij irord
ic." That is, as tlie rain givetii seed to tho sower and
bread to the eater, so shall (lod's word give unto men the
broad of everlasting life. Well, the rain descends and j)re-
pares the soil that man may have bread to eat, providing
ho attend to the ordinances of Jiature — tlui duties of ])low-
ing, sowing, reaping, cVc. ]*ut the rain l>rings bread to no
man without his cooperation and exertion — "So shall my
word b(^" Like the i-ain that brings I'ood within the reach
of man, so thai he may ol)tain it by labor and industiy, so
shall my word be. Like the rain it shall extend its bless-
edness to the utmost boundaries of creation ; (iternal life
shall I'O ]>laccd willun the reach of every man. so tliat it lie
attend to the culture of the heart as he attends to the cul-
tivation of the soil, he shall inherit everlasting life ; but if he,
like the sluggard, will not ])louw by reason of the cold le
shall beg in the harvest, as a foolish virgin, and shall
have nothing.

But this text must have sole reference to this life, for it
compares the word to the rain. Indeed it could not, according
to XJniversalism, refer to the future state, for tliey are all
saved there. Then let me ask, I)o all mankind enjoy the
blosse<l salvation of the word in this life ? Univorsalists
themselves must answer No, ibr tjiousaiids live and die blas-
pheming tjio name and existence of (Jod. Yovy well then,
there is no alternative ; if men would " eat and live forever "
they must dp the will of God, or they never can be saved.

2*16

rNfTT.R«ALrsM t'Nrnrprnifn.

1 i

>*».

f-!!!:

||: i'l

ft i:|

If . Ml

^ i

■''i^

l'^-,...„lA.

1. Tim. 2:3,4, "For this is good and acccptuMo in the
ni{^h( oi'CuKi our Saviour, who will h.avc all men to bo SaVcJti
and to fomo unto (ho Icnowlodi^o of the truth." " "

IJoi'o is a pa^^Mji^o that is put in the mouth of ovory brtt^-
gadfK'io of the fniternity, froiii the )>ar-rooni to tho pulpit,
and vol it vit'ldn not (ho hliulilest as>isianGH to tlun'r okufie.
It is tnk^.-n for li-rantod Ihat (his ie\'t r^^fecs to eternity ;. btit
let this onco he nia<lo out and we haro proof that thoro I<?i
HonuMhini,^ in olornity to ho navod Worn, which I'nivorHal-
ists ilonv. To ovadi' this tlv.n' sf>niotimos tak<' tho /ground
that it nioatr-' .-ahation h'om tho :jravo ; hut this will prove
nolluM*^, for all may Ito dfdi\orod from tho ^ravo and tliotl-
8ands oondt^nmod (o ruin, r^ tho sorii>tirro:>ahimdantlj' nhow*
Hut when is tho timo to oonio unto (he knowh-dL^o of thO
truth? Not in otornity or wc may sin in otornity, inns*
nauh as wo may sin n/fi r wo o(uno to that knowlodgo, fot
Paul nays : " If mo sin wilfully fi/fn- (hat wo havo received
fh' kiumlv<hjv of (he truth". Hid.. 10:2b*. l^ut tho Saviour
tolls us ; " If yc contintu.; i)i my wonl then are yo my dte-
ciplos indeed, and yo shall know the frnfh, and (hv truth nhtU
mnk< j/ott free'', John 8:;^l,v)2. Then it is in this lil\) wo aro
to come uiiio llio knowledge of the truth, and as ChiMst
ti-aclios Diat no.u- can pos-^osy! (hat knowiodi;'c hiiL sn'ch a:^
continue in his wdj-iI, and as I'ni\'or>aIi.<ts admit tliat com-
in ' lUilo tiu- kti(A\ UmI^o of the (rulh is indispen^ahle to fu-
tur*- lKl]lll^nt^■^;. ii Jo!io\v.-. as a iia; iu;d eoroliary ih.at heaven'
i- ol.ii;Uiiahl • oiMv iij'i.'Ci oniiitions.

Ihit \\r aiv i-»''l that if (<'■. hI 'Mr/7 /j/m- " all iiien to bo
srmd uc an-. {>•> (UKl'.i-iniid (h.-'t li<- is de'.ormin.'d tf> h^avo
tl eiii iiii( '-t.dit'fiiaJly. iJiH iieitln'i' t ho coimno'i ver'^ion
THir tJH' (>ri!.';iiial wii! !i«.';'.r this virw , nnh">s it \>o pio\edthat
the A\il! ot'(i(;'l Is jlwa"; 'lone, ^riic <Treek w.Tii employed
in the Ne\v 'fe.->(uiiuMit 'o express she \vill or ',\^A\ of God
is from " tluhio ", si^'nifyinu; to will, to wish, to In; wont,&C.
Thcknui, tho noun, is defined will, wish, dosiro. Tho adjec-

(1 accoptuMo in tlie
p all men Vj l»o daViid
' truth."

noutli (tf ovory hvtiff-

■ room to t!io pulpit,

iue.ii to tlii'i'r ckuficr.

fei's to pternity ;. but

) ]n\)oi' that tPioro Is^i

», wliicli I'nivorrirtl-

"les take tlio /L^round

; but (his will j)rovo

the ^ruvc aivl thou-

ot? ;vhuTnlaiil Iv hFiow.

t> Jtnowh'ilgo of tho

ri in otornily, inns^

that knowledge, fnt

it \vi) haw I'ocoivcd

J*. I^ut tho Saviour

then are vo my diti-'

h, aiitl the. truth tihtU

is in this lit\) wo aro

ulh, and as ChiMst

r\Tie(1i;-c )»iil such as*

Lsts adniil that com-

iiidispeiisable to f\i-

<roilarv I hat heaven'

tvc " all men to bfl
ile!orTni!».'(l t<» tsavc
he ^'»inn(()»i ver^^ion
less i! h(> |iif»\e(l that
re^'k "W""*!!! cm ployed
will Of ',\4i,,Ii ot'tiod
wish, to he wont, &c.
I, derive. Tho ndjec-

UNIVER8ALIBM UNFOUNDED.

277

live form, *' thcletos ", is dofinod " wlHhed for, willed, ni;rce-
ablo, dcHirubJo." Tho form of tlio word in this text is *' the-
Z«t." Lousden translates it by tho Latin word " vult ", from
tho noutor '* volo ", which, says Ainsworth, means " to he
willing^ to vinh, to (li'sire, to mean, to irish one well." In this
form it stands in tho Vulgate, "vult " being in tho present
toUHO ; and this answers to tho (Jroek " thelci ", which is also
in tho present. Tho literal rendering is therefore that Uod
wills, wishe4t, desires, that all men should bo saved and come
to tho knowledge of tho truth. Tho following examples
will show how tho word is used : "AVhen Herod saw Jesus
ho was exceeding glad, for ho was desirous, (Jhelon) to
see him of a long season ", Luke 33:8. *' And ho said
unto her (tho mother of Zebedee's children) what wilt
(Jtheleis) tliou ?" Matt. 20-21. '' 1 desire {(thehm) to be pi-esent
with you now ", Gal. 4:20. " i came down from heaven, not
to do mine own will (thelttnui), but the will {thlema) of him
that sent me ", John 6:38. " Paul tho Ajjustlo of Jesus
Christ by the will (Jhelematos) of God ", Col. 1:1. " Who
gave himself for our sins that ho might deliver us from this
present evil world, according to tho will (Jhclem'i) of God
and our Father", Gal. 1:4- In noveral places throughout
tho Now Testament we tind tho word icill expressing an
improper idea of the original as we now use that word.
Tho Dean of Canterbury gives us tho following: Tn Luke
10:22 for " will revival him " read *' is pleased to reveal him."
In ch. 13:31 '' will kill " ought to he " is minded to kill."
John 1:4.3 has "would v^^o" instead oi '■' wan minded to go."
In ch. 7:17 " will do " should be " he willing to do." In eh.
8:44 ''ye will <lo" should he *' it is your desire to do."

Tho French translation by Ostervald is fully expressive
of and C(tntbrmable to the original, "Car cela est bon ot
agreable a Dieu notre Sauveur (jui vent quo tons les hommo
soiont sauves et qu'ilsparviennont do la connaissance do la
VOJ'itc " — Hero it is " wJio wishes that all men might he saved."

IPC

278

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

Hi'

;! '

Tho numorouH and leaniod tranwlatorH of the Now Tortta-
ment of the Ainorican liihio Union ^ivo the .same HonbO,
" WIki (It'Hiri's tlutt (ill should hemved." And wtrictly speaking
tiio preHont trunshition ofkin^ JamoH only oxprohses awuh
or a denire on tho j)art of (iod for tlio salvation ot' all raon.
Tho word have in tho phraso *♦ who will have all rnon to bo
naved ", is only tho intinilivo with tho word to HupprOHWod.
Formerly the preposition was used aflor those verhs whoro
they are not now used. A few centuries a^o tho verb was
conjugated after this manner : I do to lovo, thou dost to
love, he did to lovo, I shall to love, I will to lovo, I may to
love, ho might to h)V0, &e. &c. Tho following are oxamploa
from old authors :

" lie said he c/)}dd not to forsake my lovo "

— (^Iliggins) Queen Ehtrlde.
"Never to retourno more,
Except ho would his life to lose therefore."

— Kbig Alhanact.
" My woeful child what flight maist thou to take."

(Ifiggijis) Lady Sdhniie.
— " A wicked maladio
lieignod among men that many did to diey

— Spenser.
It is plain, therefore, that oven tho English text only ex-
presses a wish or desire that all might bo saved, and by
no means ex])ressos a positive determination. Univorsal-
ists are bound to admit this, that the word to is undei*8tood
before have, so that tho words are really " who wills to have
all men ", &c. Mr. Austin himself acknowledges that tho
wish or desire of (fod is all that is exi)ressed here, but re-
marks that "Jehovah's will, wdiatovor its nature, whether
a will of desire or of determination, must in all cases be ul-
timately fulfil led to the very letter. * * * With a being
like Jehovah, possessing illiniitublc resources, infinite know-
ledge and omnipotent power, to desire a thing is to do it",

rNIVERHALISM UNFOUNDED.

279

cw TuM ta-
ll 110 HODHO,
l»c:iking
isos a wish
f nil men.

rrn'ii to bo
ii|>|>roHHod.
!rl>.s whcro

verb was
)ll (lo.st to
!, r may to

examplos

•ide.

uH't.

• take."
Sd brine.

e."
nser.

^ct only ox-
od, and by
UnivorHal-
indoi*Ktood
II Ik fo have
H that the
ro, but ro-
i, whether
asos be ul-
;h a being
iiile know-
tn do it ",

DiBCUMsion, p. 2()7-8. What Hhall wo conidudo fi-oui thoso
woixb / Why il' Go<J'h will is alwayiH done, then all that
han Irannpired in the past five or hix thousand yearn hiM
boun iit hLricl (•(mtorniity to the will ol" (iod. Mr. Aii«tin't»
doctrine in, " whatt5Vor Ih, iu right." Then (Jmi U the au-
thor of all the Hin in the universe. Ope of two things munt
be done ; either Univernulist** miiHt lake this conclusion, or
give up this text, either of which will suit our purpose.
But the wonl of Gixl himself re[)^t^•*i!nth his will as not being
always done. PnM)f, " This i« tlie will {thf.luna) of God, oven
your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornica-
tion", 1 ThoHH. 4:.3. Hero the word (thtUmn) is in the Hub-
8tantive form, an<l the verb connected with it is in tho
present tense. And yet many to whom the apostlo wrote
did not the will of (rod — were not .sanctiticd, and did not
"abstain from fornication." "Pray without ceasing and in
everything give thanks, for this is the will of (Jo<l CDUcerning
you ", 1 Thos«. 5:17,18. What Universalist will read this
and yet dare to say that God's will is always dcyiio! "Not
every one that saith unto mo, Tjord, Lord, shall enter into
tlic kingdom of heaven; but he he dotth the will of my
Fathtr which is in heaven ", Matt. 7:21. Why will not every
one enter into the kingdom ? Because, if the Saviour is to
bo believed, there are some who do not the will of God, AVhon
Jesus wept over Jerusalem he said : " How oft would (d/i-
desd) I have gathereil thy children together, even as a hen
gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would
(cf/u/t'sa^) NOT ", Matt. 23:;i7. Mr. Austin, however, geta
over this last j)assage, which proves that Christ's will
was not done by saying that Christ's will is not (lod's,
and den3ing that they are the same (Discuss page 270).
But Jesus says : " I came to do the will of hini that
Bont me"; did he do that will? W he did, then his
desiring that Jerusalem might be savetl was according to
tho will of (roil, liut according to Univcrsalism Christ wi^

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT.3)

f/.

1.0

I.I

1.25

WUL.

■"IS

2.0

118

U IIII1I.6

,^vV

J*^

Photographic

Sciences

Corporation

23 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, NY. MS80

(716) 872-4503

^9>

^<^.

'<^

'w"

280

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

led the salvation of that city, when God willed its destruc-
tion 1 1 In fine, the fact that God wills the salvation of all
mankind is no guarantee that all will be saved. He willed
that all should,be saved eighteen hundred years ago, and yet
all were not saved. He wills the salvation of millions now
who are at this moment the subjects of sin. Eeader, salva-
tion is to be sought for, and none but he who seeks shall
ever obtain 1

Eph. 1:9-11, " Having made known unto us the mystery
of his will according to his good pleasure which he hath
purposed in himself; that in the dispensation of the fulness
of times he might gather together in one all things in
Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth ;
even in him, in whom also we have obtained an inheritance,
being predestinated according to the purposes of him who
worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.

Here is another text which, according to Universalist
interpretation, makes God the author of all the sin in the
universe, as he " worketh all things after the counsel of
his own will." But we shall see that this very text teaches
that God's will is not always done, since it declares that the
will of God was that all should be gathered together in Christ,
at his first coming, for this period was by way of eminence
called " the fulness of time ", as Paul says : " Wlmi the ful-
ness of time was come God setit forth his >S'on." Hence, if this
passage does teach a universal salv^ation the issue is a failure,
since it was to bo fulfilled eighteen centuries ago.

God made known the mystery of his will that many
things migJit be done that are not done. "We will now prove
tjiat wherever it is said that God has done anything that he
might accomplish a certain object, through man, if that ob-
ject embraced his holiness and ha])])ine.ss, it depends upon
tlie actions of man for itn accomplishment. Proof: "Look-
ing for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the
great God and our Saviour Je;jus Christ, who gave himself

UNIVERSAL ISM UNFOtTNDED.

281

ts destruc-
tion of all
He willed
^o, and yet
illions now
ider, salva-
eeks shall

e mystery
ch he hath
the fulness
things in
i on earth ;
iheritance,
f him who
will.

Fniversalist
sin in the
counsel of
ext teaches
:es that the
3r in Christ,
f eminence
ken the ful-
nee, if this
is a failure,

that many
1 now prove
lina; that he
I, if that ob-
pondfj upon
of: "Look-
iriiig of the
vo himself

for us, that he might redeem us from AiiL iniquity and pu*
RiFY unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good
WORKS ", Tit. 2:14. Boos it not depend upon the conduct of
men to be redeemed "from all iniquity", and to be " a pe-
culiar people, zealous of good works"? Most certainly.
Then why are not all thus redeemed and inirified and be-
cotno a peculiar people, zealous of good works, since Christ
gave himself that he MroTiT thus redeem and purify them?
Let Un ivorsalists answer this and they will be fully able to
Gxj^lain how it is that God could make known the mystery
of his will, that he migJit gather all men in Christ, and yet
that gathering never be accomplished. The word of inspi-
ration teaches us that in order to come into Christ, and thus
to be gathered together in one, wo must put him on the way
of obedience, Gal. 3:27; and Paul declares that he laboured
that he might ^^ present every man perfect in Christ Jesus ", Col.
1:28 ; and yet men resisted the Spirit and refused to be
gathered. And as this universal gathering, according to the
will of God, was to be accomplished at the tirst coming of
Christ, and as men were not all then gathered, and since Uni-
versalists admit that this gathering into Christ is absolutely
necessary to their eternal salvation, itfolloM's tliut this very
text promulgates the doctrine of the conditionality of future
happiness.

Acts 3:20:21, "And he shall send Jesus Chris! wlio before
was preached unto you ; wliom the bcjiven must receive
until the times of restitution cf all thino's which God hath
spolcen by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world
began."

'J.^liis is one of the grand bulwarks of Ilnivorsalism. It is
quoted with apparently the fullest assurance of tangible evi-
dence u\ favor of the doctrine, and vet it condemns tho
great feature in th^ir system that Christ came the second
time at the destruction of Jerui-alom. One of two grounds
must be abandoned ; cither the position that Christ made

282

UNIVERSALISii UNt'OUNDED.

his second advent at the overthrow of the Jewish capital ;
or that this text is proof of rhe restitution of all mankind to
heaven, for mark the fact, the text says : " whom (Jesus)
the heavens must receive until the times of the restitution."
That is, if the "restitution" is future Christ has not yet
come, for he will remain in the heavens "«n«i7" the times
of the restitution; and if it be urged that he came at the
destruction of Jerusalem, then the " restitution " was ful-
filled cigliteeu hundred years ago, for the restitution was to
take place on Christ's departure from heaven, since the hea-
vens woro to roct'.ve him until the times of the restitution.
One or ilie other must bo deserted, and either will suit our
purpose. If they admit that Christ's coming is yet future,
their cause is forever undone, for there are dozens of passages
that speak of the destruction of the wicked in connection
with the second advent of the Hvlessiah that will then admit
of no other exposition than their eternal loss of heaven. If
on the other hand tliey will still hang to that dogma, then
they must drop this text just hero, and tell us no more about
the rcsutulion of all thingc.

But admitting this passage contained no reference to tho
coming of Christ, it provesnothingforUniversalism, unless
it can be shown that restitution is sahation. " And Jesus
answered and said unto them : Elias truly shall first come
and restore all tilings", Matt. 17:11 ; that is, according to
Universalism, malce all things holy and happy in heaven I
And yet there are jjcopla still upon the earth, and people
still unsaved ; and if John the Baptist made all things holy
and happy, what was left for Clirist to do ? '' "When they
therefore were come together tlu^y asked of him, saying:
Lord wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom of Is-
rael ", (Acts 1:G), i. e. wilt thou make the kingdom holy
and happy. <' Then said he to the man : Stretch forth thine
Land. And he stretched it forth ; and it was restored whole
as the oth&r" (Matt. 12:13), i. c, his hand was made ':!oly

ira

TJNIVERSALISir UNFOUNDED.

283

capital ;

1 an kind to

n (Jesus)

stitution."

IS not 5'et

the times

tme at the

" was ful-

ion was to

cc the hca-

•estitiition.

ill suit our

yet future,

of passages

connection

then admit

leaven. If

la, then

more about

ence to the
[ism, unless
And Jesus
first come
icording to
in heaven 1
and people
things holy
^Vhen they
m, saying :
^dom of Is-
igdom holy
forth thine
ored whole
made '7oly

and happy 1 " After that ho put his hands again upon hjs
eyes and made him look up ; and he was restored and saw
every man clearly ", Mark 8:25. In all these examples
the word restore is the same as in the passage under criti-
cism, being the same word in the original Greek. If this
text literally means to restore all men, it by no means
teaches a universal salvation in heaven, for all men have
never yot been there ; and to reMore means to take a thing
back to where it once was. The passage, even in tlio re-
modeling liands of Universal ism, cannot poijsibly teach any-
tldng more than this, that all men will hereatoredov brought
back again into the flesh to bo judged. To restore the
wicked is to bring them back again to a stnte of sin, to re-
ceive their final sentence. This is the nearest this text ap-
proaches the doctrine of universal salvation.

But the context, which should in every case be consulted,
plainly teaches that the apostle had no idea of preaching
Universalism, for if he did, most certainly his reason cor-
responds to it. This he gives in the following verse : " For
(mind that word /or) Moses truly said unto the fathers : a
prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you, of your
brethren, like unto mo; him shall ye hear in all things
whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to
pass that every soul which will not hear that prophet (shall
be saved ? No, but) shall be destroyed from aniong the peo-
ple ", verses 22,23. Thus the reason Peter gives for this uni-
versal salvation is that some souls will be destroyed ! The
verses preceding this proof text are also fatal to the system
— " Eepent ye, therefore, and be converted, that your sins
may he Hotted out." Truly Peter was no Universalist or he
would not have talked about repentance and conversion as
indispensable to the blotting out of sins ; but would rather,
if he was an honest man, have tauglit 'hat whether they re-
pented or not the result would be the same, for at the" res-
titution of all things " the murderer and the saint will be

III

■if

>>'m

l<i

284

UNIVEUSALISM UNFOUNDED.

equally lu.ly and happy.

Matt. 22:30, " For in the resurrection they neither marry
uor are give)i in marriage, but are as the angold of God in
heaven."

Luke 20:34-30, "The children ol' this world marry and
are givoji in marriage ; but they which hhall be accounted
worthy to obtain that world and the resurrection from tlie
dead neithoj* marry nor are given in marriage ; neither can
they die nny more, for they are equal unto the angels, and
are children of God, being children of the reMurrection."

" lie iis not a God of the dead, but of the living ; for ail
live unto him", v. 38.

The principal point in these texts that is relied on as
proof poi-'itive of universal salvation is in the phrase " Thei/
are equal unto the angels, and are the children of God, being the
children of the resurrection^ This is one of the passages ad-
duced by Di'. Whittemore in reply to the assertion of Bev*
T. S. King that Le could not find a text in any of the dis-
courses of Christ which contains the doctrine of tlie final
liappiness of all men.

In the " Child's Catechism" by Rev.O. A. Skinner, occurs
the following, (page 24) :

Q. Will Bin exist in the resurrection?

A. Now this 1 say brethren, that flesh and blood cannot
inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption in-
herit incorruption, 1 Cor, 15:50.

Q. What does the Saviour say respecting our condition
when raised ?

A. ISTeither can thoy die any more, for they are equal
unto the angels, and are the children of God, Veing children
of the reHurrvction, Mark 12:25.

But who are they that are equal unto the angels, hjuI are
children of (voc! ? Tlio answer to this will capsize the whole
BUporstructure that Universalists have luilt on tliis text.
They take the position that the word ^^i'ley "in this phrase

TTNIVEIISALISM UNFOUNDED.

285

;her niaiTy
of God in

narry and
at't'ountcd
I from tho
leithercan
ngels, and
ection."
ng ; for ail

)lied on as
•ase " They
I, heing the
iHsagos ad-
ion of Bev.
of the dis-
•f the final

ner, occurs

ood cannot
'uption in-

L' condition

aro equal
ig children

.)]:>, ajidaro
! tlic whole
I tliis text.
hi« phrase

omhraces the entire posterity of Adam ; but the Saviour
takes the ground that JB^" "77iey that shall be accounted WOR-
THY to obtain that world" are those who aro "equal unto
the angels ", which proves most positively that some will
not bo accounted worthy. To be accounted worthi/ of a
(thing is rej)re8ented as requiring action and preparation.
Jesus says : " Watch ye, therefore, and pray always, that
ye may be accounted worthy ", Luke 21:36. Paul says : " That
ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of (lod, for
which ye also suffer ", 2 Thcss. 1:5. Some of the brother-
hood have gone so far as to tell us that the phrase " counted
worthy " is omitted by Matthew and Mark, and must there-
fore be of little consequence; and yet the phrase " they ai*e
the children of God, being the children of the resurrection ",
which is the basis of their whole argument from this text,
is also omitted by Matthew and Mark, and must therefore
be a matter of little doctrinal importance, themselves being
judges. But this phrase, allowing it to have been recorded
by all three, which would have made it no more infallible,
by no means proves Universalism, for, according to that
system, all are now the children of God, and yet thousands
live and die miserable, guilty and condemned; and if God
can consistently punish his children with fire and brimstone
in this life, he may with the same consistency thus punish
them in eternity. Universalists camiot prove, however,
that all mankind are included in this resurrection, and even
if this could be done, it would not follow that all woidd bo
" the c/iiVcZrm of the resurrection." The Saviour, speaking
of tho very same persons, and referring to the very same
period, says : " The good seed are the CIIlLDEEi< of tho
kingdom ", and that the angels " shall gather out of his king-
dom cdl things that o//t7itZ, and thei which do iniquity",
Matt. 13:38:41. Thus some who are in the kingdom arc not
the " childrf^-n of tho kingdom." In like manner mpr>y will
be in the resurrection who are not children of the resurrection.

286

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

Thoro are two rosurrections Hpoken of in the Now Tosta-
mont, one of the just, anotlior of the unjust. The former is
known an " the first resurrection ", and is called, by way of
eminence, *' the resurrection of tlio dead." It is this that is
to bo oltained through obedience and faith in the divino
promises. " If by any means ", says Paul, " I might attain
unto the resurrection of the dead" (Phil. 3:14), i. e. the res-
urrection of the just. "Women received their children
raised to life again; and others were tortured not accepting
deliverance; that thc}^ might obtain a ?vtf/er resurrection ",
Ileb. 11:35. This very much resembles the passage in
Luke, " They tliat shall be accounted Avorthy to obtain
that world, and the resurrection from the Heady The very
phrase itself, " they that shall be accounted worthy to ob-
tain that world, and (they that shall be accounted worthy
to obtain) the resurrection from the dead ", is j^alpable evi-
dence that some are ?(?iworthy, and will have, therefore, no
part in tliis resurrection, and of course will not be among
those who are denominated the children of God and the
cliildren of the resurrection.

The huo and cry raised by Universal ists about the word
aion [translated world in this text] is known to all. Yory
stubbornly do they contend it means an age or dispensation,
for it is onlj^ in this way they can dodge the force of the
passage, which says the " sin against the Holy Ghost shall
not be forgiven, neither in this world [awti], neither in the
world [alori] to come " ; and yet allow it this signilication
in this proof-text, and it can yield not the slightest assist-
ance to their cause. But granting " this world" to mean
this state of existence, as Univorsalists hei*e understand it,
let us quote another text, keeping this definition in view :
" As therefore tlie tares are gathered and burned in the fire,
so shall it be in the Gnd of this icorhV [aioti], Matt. 13:40, t.
c, in the end of this state of existence, or the end of time ! I

Thoy contend that the word resurrection means coming

Now ToHta-

former is

, by way of

this that is

the divine

uglit attain

. <?. the res-

r cliildren

it accepting

aiToction ",

passage in

to OBTAIN

The very
rthy to ob-
ted worthy
alpablo ovi-
lercfore, rm
t be among
xod and the

it the word
all. Yery
tspensation,
brcc of the
Ghost shall
ithor in the
ignifi cation
itest asnist-
to mean
lerstand it,
T in view :
I in the fii*e,
itt. 13:40, t.
d of time ! t
ms coming

UNIVEllSALISM UNFOUNDED

287

forth to the immortal folate of existence, wliich we cheer-
fully admit. Then wo read " They that have done gooii,
to the rcsMiTfc^toM of life ; and tlicy that have done evil to
the resurrection of dainnation ", John 5:29.

The " angels " hero mean the immortal spirits of light,
at least so Lhoy contend. Then wo read : '* For the Son of
ilan shall come in the glory of bin Father, with his angels,
and then lie shall reward every man accoi'ding to his works '',
Matt. lo:27.

■ Heuven they must urge to mean, iji this passage, the im-
mortal state of happinc-js. Then the Saviour says : '-Iiiojoice
&nd be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in heaven ",
Matt. 5:12.

The phrarto in v. 38, ^^/or all live nnto him ", wliich they
have picked out as indicating a universal salvation, is not
to be separated from the former jjart of tha<; vorse, moan-
ing, " for <7"j^ all live unto him." This is the sense put
upon it by Dr. Ckirke and all learncl men. Indeed this is
,the wa}' it reads in the Syric, as given by Dr. Murdock.

Col. 1:20, '' And having made peace through the blood of
his oross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him
I say, whether they be things in r^arthor things in heaven."

The gi'eat wonder is that ever this text is quoted to sus-
tain Universali.sm, for most certainly the reconciliation here,
aa the passage itself shows, is conditional. Tlie apostle docs
not say that all things will bo reconciled, but only that
Christ has made peace to reconcile. Paul declares thftho
by the grace of <Tod preached the nnsearchable riches of
Christ, " To make all men see ", Eph. 3:9 ; yet all men did
not and will not see, because some men " love dai'kness
rather than light, because their deeds are evil^ Christ has
not only made peace to reconcile all things, but to reconcile
them when they needed it. All men needed reconciliation
•eighteen centuries ago, and yet all men were not then
reconciled, nor are they now ; and if there is a positive

1 •

tilHi

i^^HI'i

288

tTNIVERSALISJI trNFO0Ni)ED.

failure in one thing, m.iy tlicro not also bo in another, not-
withslanding Chriwt has made peace for a univerMal recon-
ciliation. But UniversalistH do not believe thlH very text, for
tlicy contend that Christ did not reconcile all thiii,i:;s. Tliibi
ihcy do by not only denying the blo(K.l ol'tho cross as mak-
ing atonement for sin, but by teachiiiii; that the part Christ
performed to reconcile men was also performed by Peter and
Paul and every other labourer in the cause of good. 5Ir.
(). A. Skinner say^ Christ " mijfcred as thaqmstUs and Chris-
tian Fathers suffered'', [Univer. JIlus. and Defended, p]>. 128,
129, i;]0]. Mr. Ballon says: "The suilerings of Christ,
v/cre not regarded as peculiar to himself, but as shared, in
all their detail, by his persecuted followers", [Expositor
II, pp. 106, 107].

But reconciliation is not salvation, hence Universalista
quote Eom. 5:10 to prove that all who are reconciled will
be saved : " Much more being reconciled we shall he saved by
his life." This text itself proves that reconciliation m not
salvation, and it is fatal to TJniversalism, seeing they by
quoting it admit salvation to dej)end upon reconciliation;
and as Christ only reconciles in this life, according to their
doctrine, therefore, as all are not reconciled in this life, all
will not be saved. But how, by what means does Christ
reconcile ? " All things are ot God, who hath reconciled
us unto himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given unto lis the
MINISTRY of reconciliation, and hath committed unto us
the word of rfconciYicr^iOTi ", 2 Cor. 5:18,19. Thus we see it
is Ibe gospel that is the means by which men are to be ro-
conciiod, which proves this reconciliation to be conditional.

The context, however, settles the matter with Universal-
ism. " Yet now hath ho reconciled in the body of his flesh
through death, to present you holy and unblamable and nnre-
provable in his sight, IF [mind that {f~\ ye continue in the
FAITH GROUNDED and SETTLFD and jg^" be not moved mcay
from the hope of the gospel ", vs. 21-23. Thus all the argu-

UNIVERSALI8M UNFOUNDED.

289

otlier, not-

rsal I'ccon-

•y loxt, for

\ij;H. Til id

ss as mak-

)jii't CliriHt

l*(!ler and

(ood. 51 r.

(inJ ChriH-

!d,])i). 128,

of Clu'ist,

si 1 a red, in

'b]xpositor

liversalists
K'iled will
^)e saved by
tion iw not
g they by
nciliation ;
ng to their
lis life, all
oes Christ
reconciled
into us the
td unto us
5 we see it
to be ro-
3nditional.
Universal-
►f his flesh
e and mire-
tme in the
wved mcay
the argu-

ments based upon the unconditional reconciliation of men
to God vanish into Ihin air before this one tscrlptiiro de-
claration, which proves in unmistakable lanfjjiia/Lje Uiat iv-
conciliation to God is in the hands of man — that men who
are reconciled in order to be presented hohf and nnhlnni'iblc
must CONTINUE in the faith. Here Universalism is perfectly
bowattled and stranded.

Eom. 5:12, 18, 19, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered
into the world, and death by sin • and so death passed upon
all men, for that all have sinned. Tlierefore, as by the
offence ofone judgment came upon all men to condemnation ;
even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon
all men unto justification of life. For as by no man's dis-
obedience many wore made dinners, so by tlu oh dience of
one shall many be made righteous."

I have left out the parenthesis and quoted itic hole con-
nection upon which Universalists build their doctrine. So
much has been said upon this text throughout these pages
that little may be said here. The context forever silences
Universalism upon these texts. Verse 17 reads: "For if
by one man's oifence death reigned by one ; much more
they lohich receive abnndance of grace and of the gift of righ-
teousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ." This shows
that those who are made righteous by the obedience of
Christ are those who " receive the gift of righfcoiisncss ", and
not the unrighteous as well ; and that those who will " rcigu
in life ", or be saved are those who have received " ahiin-
dance of grace.' ^ It may be said, as Universalists all say,
that God gives grace to everybody; but the apostle says :
" God resistcth the proud and giveth grace to the humble ",
1 Pet. 1;5. Salvation, therefore, according to their own
proof-texts, is conditional.

This is the last Scripture in the Book that Universalists
should summon to their support, for this all-important rea-
son, they do not believe it ! 1, They assume that this

21)0

UNIVER8ALIHM UNFOUNDED.

iiii

lit!'

1 1

death in spirit mil, a^ without that ussiiinptiun tho^e pasHftgos
W(/ul(l not Huit thoir purpose, and yet they deny that "judg-
ment came upon all men to condemnation by the otfonco
of one man ", Adam, since they deny tlie doctrine of origi-
nal (sin. 2. They repudiate the language of Paul when
ho says : " by one man'.s disobedience many were made
sinners ", t. c, the wiiole human race, for certainly, aay
they, infants, of which millions have died, were not made
sinners by Adam\ trangression. 3. They deny that through
" the obedience of one [Christ to the cross] many shall bo
made righteous ", i. e., the whole human race, because, Mr.
B'-illou says, Christ was "a created dependent being ", and
only sultered for man in the same way as the apostles suf-
fered, and of course did not and could not make all mankind
"rii;hteous," besirles we know that all men were not righteous
in any period of the world's history since th(5 Fall. Univor-
salists will not now surely say that all will yet become righ-
teous through Christ, for they say that he saves only in this
world, and that all become righteous in the other world as a
natural consequence without Christ. Pray then, Mr. Univer-
salism, how do the nuwyy the entire human race, become'righ-
tcous "by the obedience of one." Certainly, for low trick-
ery and sophistry Universalism has no antecedent beneath
the broad firmament. This very scripture they adduce as
proof lays open its treachery, and exposes its rottenness to
the core.

John 4:42, " We have hoanl hira ourselves} and know that
this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour r^f the world."

1 John 4:14, " We have seen and do testify that the Father
sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world."

No one ever talked with a Univorsalist minister twenty
minutes ujwn the subject of universal salvation, that did not
hear these two texts of scripture cited as proof of that great
idea — universal salvation. With what confidence they ask
how one can believe Christ to be the SAVIOXJE OF THE

UNIVEUSAMSM UNFOUNDED.

201

>>G pasHftgos
(lijit "judg-
Iho otlonco
no of origi-
rmil whon
vvoro mado
liiinly, Bay
o not mtido
!it through
riy .shall bo
locauso, Mr.
)oing ", and
ij)o,sllos 8Uf-
ull mankind
otrightoous
11. Univor-
ooomo righ-
3nly in this
r world as a
Mr. Univer-
3ocome'righ-
)!• low trick-
lout beneath
y adduce as
)ttonnedS to

id know that

■Id."

t the Father

ster twenty
that did not
)f that great
ce they ask
fE OF THE

,y WOlilA), and yot boliovo "thecniol dogma of ondlosn mis-

yj^J'y " — and yot bulievo the world will not be navod. Most

cr; certainly, way thoy, if only one houI bo connigned to intor-

r mintiblo woe Chrir^t in in no hoiiho tno Saviour of tlio world.

.:, ThiH Ih one of the texts nddu(3ed by Dr. Whittcmore to an-
swer the abHortion of T. S. King, that he could not Hnd a

.^. text in the discourHOH of the .Saviour that touches the future
. happiness of all men. " Josuh Christ, lot it be romomborod ",
8ay;3 l)r. VV., " is declared to bo the Saviour of the world ;
and how could ho bo justly called the Saviour of the world
if the world shall never be saved ", p. 300. But we are of
opinion by the time we got through our remarks upon these
passages Universalism will bo glad to skulk away and hide
its guilty head for shame.

The fact that Christ is called in scripture the Saviour of
the world is no proof that the world will be saved. lie was
tho Saviour of the world eightcon hundred years ago, and
yet the world was not thou saved. Mark those texts use

., . the present tense IS I lie has boon the Saviour of the world
ever since the commencement cf tho Christian era, and yet
there has boon no period in which the world was saved ;
and upon the same principle he may be the Saviour of the
world till the judgment day, arid the world never be taved.

, There is, therefore, no proof here of universal salvation.
According to Universalism, Christ only saves as respects
this world. If they should assort that he saves in eternity,

V, then there must be something in eternity to be saved from,
which would not be very agreeable to the system. When

^ asked from what Christ saves thoy reply that he saves from
sin, and that it is downright ignorance to talk of any other
salvation. Tory well, then the salvation of Christ, accor-
; ding to this, must bo confined to this life, for if ho onl}-
saves from sin, he cannot save in eternity, unless men sm
in eternity; and if that be admitted, then, according to
Universalism itself, thoy will lto punished there : and as

^.^

292

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

punishment for sin does not ahvays roforrcL the sinner here,
the probability is he will not bo reformed by it there, and
consev|ncntly wil) never be saved. But we will adduce
TJniversalist authors, who say the salvation which Christ
works is confined to this life. Mr. Thomas in his discussion
with Dr. Ely, says, page 25, tJie Bihle confines salvation to this
state of existence. So Pirgree, in his debate with Mr. Rice,
page 60. Mr. Whittcmore, in his " Plain Guide ", page 256,
says : " The evils from which Christ came to save men are
in this u'orld; therefore he came into the world to save them^
The Universalist Expositor, vol. 3, page 65, says: "All
those passages of Scripture which define the nature of sal-
vation agree that Jesus Christ saves man from evils which
attach to him in this world." So Mr. Ballou : " The reason
why Christ came into this world to save sinners was be-
cause the sinners he came to save u'ere in this world. The
common doctrine, which teaches that Christ came into this
world to save us in another world, is contrary to all the rep-
resentations found in the Scriptures ", (Lectures, page 17,
also page 72). Here then Christ only saves in this world.
Then if Christ is the Saviour of the world, i. e., of every son
•and daughter of Adam, he must, according to TJnivcrsalism,
save all from sin in this life, or ho is not, according to their
own theory, the Saviour of the world. But alas for their
dogma, Christ saves nobody, if Universalism be true, for if
'' gospel salvation ", to use the words of Mr. Austin (Discuss
p. 245), " is a salvation from sin " ; and if '' all men die in
their sins ", (as Baj's Flanders in his debate with Strick-
land, and Crosly in his fairago with T)r. Lake, and indeed
as sa}' all Univcrsalists) ; an<l if Christ saves only in this
world ; therefore he saves nobody. How could Christ save
the world ivom sin in tliis life when NO ONE while in the
fios}) cnn he free from sin f ; for they bitingly contend that it is
only ''he that is dead is freed froni sin ", Rom. 6:7. And
as all the worhl (that have yet died) have died m their

trNlV£IlSALl8Sf tlNF JNDED.

nnorhere,
there, and
ill adduce
icli Christ
discusision
ition to this
Mr. Rice,
, page 256,
c men are
avc thcmy
ays: "All
ui*e of sal-
vils which
The reason
rs was be-
orliL The
G into this
u\ the rep-
s, page n,
his world.
' every son
iversalism,
ng to their
3 for their
true, for if
n (Discuss
lien die in
th Strick-
nd indeed
ily in this
/hrist save
lilc in the
d that it is
6:7. And
id m their

293

sins, therefore all those that have heretofore had an existence
have not been saved ; and as no one can enter heaven but
by " gospel salvation" ; therefore they have all been damned
without fail. O consistency, thou art a jewel I

We will let John explain himself, as regards his idea of
Christ as a Saviour, and tliis he does in the following pas-
sage : " For God sent not his Son to condemn (rather to
judge the world, for so it is in the original — Clarke) the
workl, but that the world through him MKiHT be saved ",
ch. 3:17. Tlie word might solves the difficulty, for it shows
that men have an opportunity to bo saved, and may be,
if they will, or they may be lost, if they prefer it. Christ
then is the Saviour of the world, conditionally — all may
come unto him and live.

John 1:29, '' Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away
the sin of world."

This, though very frequently quoted, comes far short of
proving Universal ism, for if Christ takes away the sins of
but a single individual, he takes away the sins of the world.
That Christ takes away all the sins of the world is not as-
serted in the text. On the contrary the Saviour himself
says : "If ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will
your Father which is in heaven forgive you your trespass-
es ", Matt. 6:15. Some men live all their life-time with the
bitterest hatred in their heaiis against their fellow men,
and die without forgiving them. Now if Christ is to be be-
lieved, such persons will not be forgiven, and consequently
ho will not take away their sins.

But Universalists actually do not ijelieve this very text
they quote to prove their doctrine, because they teach, 1.
That it is utterly impossible for a single sin to go unpun-
ished. How then can Christ be a Saviour ? 2. That Christ
is a Saviour from sin in this world and that all mankind die
in their sins. Now if all men die in their sins and Christ
saves only before death, whom does he save ? Nobody. •

294

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

i ,■

IK I

Universalists admit enough when they quote this text to
sweep their doctrine forever out of existence. They must
necesiiarily admit tliat " ^/( is ?ro>-W means the whole hu-
man family without exception, for unless it means this there
is no bcnse in talking about it proving Universalism. Let
us now read Acts 17;o0, " The time of this ignorance God
v.'inkcd at, but now commandcth all men everywhere to re-
pent because he hath appointed a day in which IfE WILL
JUDvrE 'Uhe ii-orld," i. e., the whole human family, which
of course, cannot take place till after the resurrection, for
the entire posterity of Adam cannot possibly bo together
till the end of time. Thus the old ship I3ALL0U runa
aground jn^t hero.

John 12;32, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth will
draw all men unto me."

John (>;37, " All that the Father giveth me shall come to
me; and him that comoLli to me I will in nowise cast out."

Six things must be proven before the^e texts can prove
Universal ism.

1. That the first does not refer to the crucifixion.

2. That the dr.uving is comjuilsatory.

3. That it is to be accomplished in eternity.

4. That all men means the whole human family.

5. That the whole human family are given to Christ.

G. That " will draw " and ^^shall wme " are used in an ab-
solute senile.

All this must bo done before these texts can help the doc-
trine, and a failure in anyone of the six points destroys the
argument. But not one can be ju-oved. Let us examine
them:

1. Universali-ts are extremely cautious when quoting the
first not to finish it. The}' very well know the remaining
words '^ This he said signifying what death he should die," if
quoted would spoil their argument, as they explain Christ
to have referred to his being lifted up on the cross and not

UNJTERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

295

is text to
hoy must
tvhole hu-
tJiis there
i^m. Let
^aiice God
here to re-
TE WILL
ly, which
jction, for

together
LOU rima

earth will

,11 come to
! cast out."
can prov«

311.

ly-

Christ,
i in an ab~

sip the doc-
estroys the
s examine

I noting the
remaining
tld die," if
ain Christ
88 and not

to his ascension to heaven. But Christ is no longer " lifted
up ; " have " all men " been drawn tc him ? iKjubtless the
Saviour had I'eference to the miraculous phenomena that
would attend his death upon the tree — to the intense dark-
ness from the sixth until the ninth hour, and the rending
of the rocks and temple, which would so horrify and amaze
the Jewish and even the Gentile nations, that even his ex-
ecutioners would be constrained to say " Truly this was the
Son of God."

2. The word draw is used in the Scriptures in the sense of
allure, invite. " I [God] will draw unto thee to the river Kishon
Sisera, the captain of Jabin's army, with his chariots and his
multitude; and I will deliver him into thine hand." Judges
4:7, i. e., I will allure him, I will cause circumstances to
transpire so that he will be disposed to go the river Kishon^
We are not to suppose God meant he would force him there.
" Also, of your own selves shall men arise speaking perverse
things to draw away disciples after them," Acts 20;30, i. e.
to attract persons to follow them. So the Saviour explains
his use of the word draw ; '' No man can come unto me ex-
cept the Father which sent me draw him," John 6;44. The
next verse tell us how this drawing is to be effected. " It is
written in the prophets ; And they shall all be taught of
God. Every man that hath heard and hath learned of the
Father cometh [or is drawn] unto me." This is the way
Christ (fmi6"s men unto him by convictions that he is the
Son of God.

When Universalists quote the second text at the head of
this- section, they tell us that the Father hath given all
things into the Saviour's hands, and as all the Father giv-
eth him shall come unto him, that is, the whole human fam-
ily, and as him who cometh unto him he will in no wise
cast out, therefore all will be saved. We must, however,
now tell Universalists, if they never knew it before, that
Christ means by the word "giveth " those whom the Father

^ I

296

CNIVEttSALlSM UNFOUNDED.

m?.

1 1'

had in his day appointed to bo his followers. This is proved
by the verse just quoted, which is added as exj^lana-
tory in the connection. " It is written in the prophets, And
they shall be all [i. e., all the Father giveth him]
taught of God." Where is this written in the prophets ?
Turn to Isa. 54; 13, and read : " And all thy children shall
he taught of the Lord, and great shall be the peace of thy chil-
dren." lie nee Christ says, ^' I pray not for the icorldhui for
them which thou hast give/' me," John 11; 9, i. o., my disci,
pies.

3. It is plain therefore that the drawing m confined to this
life, for it is only here men are enticed or disposed to follow
Christ. Indeed any other view, even according to Univer-
salism, would be senseless, as they teach that men were
drawn to heaven before Christ's time as well as after it, and
in fact that his death in no way draws men to heaven. We
must therefore tell Universalists that as this drawing has
reference only to this life according to their own showing,
tliey verily do not believe the words of the Saviour, for if
the drawing means making holy and happy as they explain
it, and as they teach that no one can possibly be free from
sin in this life, i. e., bo holy and happy, therefore Christ
draws no one to him, or in other words, they do not believe
the words of this text, or if they do Universalism is false.

4. But no one can have an idea that the " all men," meana
tlie whole human family. It could not be so according to
their own theory whether the drawing be or bo not confined
to this life, for if the drawing be cft'ccted in this world most
evidently all cannot be drawn to Christ, for millions have
never heard the name of the Saviour,besidcs other millions of
the human family had died and gone into eternity before he
was " lifted up from the earth." And if the drawing referto
eternity and means salvation in heaven, a good part of the
human family had arrived in glory before Christ got there
himself. So in no case can the " all men " mean all man-

tTNIVERSALISM ITNPOUNDED.

207

is proved
explana-
lictH, And
th him]
)rophot8 ?
Idren shall
fthychil-
Idhui for
my disci.

led to this
to follow

Uiiiver-
nen were
'ter it, and
iven. We
awing has

1 showing,
Diir, for if
jy explain
free from
ire Christ
lot believe
Q is false.
2w," means
wording to
)t conlined
yorld most
ions have
millions of
before ho
iig refer to
[irt of the

got there
all man-

kind. Universalists could not prove this one point if their
salvation were at stake, and yet their whole argument
«wings upon this pivot. Let us take a few examples,"And
ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake," Matt. 10:
22. Did every descendant of Adam hate the apostles? Did
the millions of savages who lived during the thousands of
years befere the Christian era hate them for centuries be-
fore they were born ? ^^ All men counted John that he was
^ prophet," Mark 11;32. ''The same (i. e. Jesus) baptized
and all men come to him," John 3;26. "Many of them also
which used curious arts brought their books together and
burned them before all men," Acts 19;19. " Provide things
•honest in the sight of all men ", Horn. 12;17, surelj- not in the
jsightof the dead. " If it be possible Jive ])caccably with
all men," v. 18. No one could suj^posc the apostle was
charging the Eomans not to quarrel with the dead, " I
would that all men were even as I," 1 Cor. 7;7. " I am made
iill things to all men," 1 Cor. 9;22. " Ye are our epistle
toown and read of all men," 2 Cor. 3;2. " Let your moder-
ation be known unto all men," Phil. 4;5. "That giving of
thanks be made for all men," 1 Tim. 2;1. If Universalists
cannot show that they have a hand in GYGvy one of these
texts they need not include themselves anion ir the all men
that are to be drawn to Christ.

6. All the human race were not given to Christ in the
sense of the language of the apostle, as we have just shown,
for this same John shows that Christ meant his immediate
followers, for in chap. 17;9, he says that Christ exclaimed
" I pray not for the world but for them which thou haf?t
given me," showing very clearly that all were not given to
him. K the phrase "all that the Father giveth me shall
come unto me," is to be taken absolutely as Universalists
understand it, then the cattle and frogs upon the whole earth
will come to Christ and be saved with an everlasting salva-
tion, for they all belong to the Father, and Christ says : "All

20ft

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

things that the Father hath are mine," John 17; 18.

6. " Will " is very frequently used in a conditional sense,
as it must be in this case ; " I will draw all men unto me,"
i. c., if they will come unto me. " Let him that is athirst
come and whoaoever will lot him take the water of life free-
ly," Ilcv. 22; 17. '' Shall come," is also used conditionally.
But suppose we admit that all men will be drawn to Christ
as Univorsalists contend, what will they gain by the ad-
mission ? Nothing at all, for most certainly all will bo
drawn before the judgment seat, when the righteous shall
be rewarded and the wicked condemned. But says one,
those who come unto him he will in no wis*, cast out. Yery
true ; liut coming and being drawn or dragged are very diff-
erent things. Here the old ship is again ashore and must
ever remain there unless this text be given up.

John 17;2,3,"As thou hast given him power over all flesh
that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hasi
given him ; and this is life eternal that they might know
thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast
sent."

Before this can be made to favor Universalism five things
must be proved :

1. That all flesh means the whole human family and noth-

ing else.

2. That all mankind, without exception, are given to
Christ.

3. That because Christ will give them eternal life they
will certainly possess it.

4. That eternal life means the immortal life of the right-
eous in the future state ; and

5. Tiiat all men universally tcill know God, inas-
much as they admit (by quoting this text) this knowledge
to bo itself eternal life. Mr. Thomas, in his discussion with
Dr. Ely, says : '' Everlasting life is simply the knowledge
of God, and of Jesus Christ ", (Discuss page 151). But not

UNTVERSALISM UNPOUNDEI)

290

nal sense ,
into me,"
is atliirst
life free-
itionallv.

ft/

to Christ
the ad-
will be
eoiis shall
says one,
out. Very
very diff-
and must

r all flesh

thou hasi

ght know

thou hast

five things

Y and noth-

given to

life they

rtheright-

God, inas-
knowledgo
ission with
knowledge
. But not

ono, verily, I repeat, not one of the whole five con bo proved
without Universalisni giving up its ground.

1. All flesh embracer boasts as well as the human crea-
tion. " Antl of every living thing of all flesh, two of ovory

sort, shalt thou bring into the ark — of/owls after their kind,
and of cattle after their kind, and of every creeping thing of
the earth after his kind ", Gen. ():19,20. Thus all flesh does
not mean exclusively the human species, and therefore can-
not be regarded the same as those given to Christ. There
is not a single instance (except it is here) where the phrase
" all flesh ", means the whole of Adam's descendants. No
Sir, not one. ^ And behold I, even 1, do bring a flood of
waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh ", Gen. 0:17. Here
it could not mean the millionth part of the human family.
And admitting the all flesh in this proof text to mean just
what Universalists would make it, they cannot understand
it as including the whole human family, because they do
not believe that Christ gives eternal life to those who lived
before his advent ; therefore, at best the all flesh can mean
only those who have lived and may yet live after his time.
Besides if " eternal life ", to use the words of Mr. Thomas,
" is simply the knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ ",thcn
the all flesh must be minus a great share of Adam's poster-
ity, for very many millions of them never heard the name
of Jesus Christ, or of the true God, and therefore did not
inherit eternal life.

2. No on-, beneath the sun can prove tliiit all flesh, i. e.,
according to Uiuversalism, all manldnd \sQV(i given to Christ.
He himself looked upon the world, except a few of his fol-
lowerSj as not given to him. Listen to his own words : "I
pra}'' not for the world, but for them which thou hast given
me ", V. 9 ; " And all mine are thine, and thine are mine, and
I am glorified in them ", v. 10, Are the wicked the Lord's ?
If so, is he glorified in them? No, for they ''have sinned
and COME short of his glory." The words as many show

i! 1 1
ill i'3;

300

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

voiy plainly that some were not included, Paul 8a}'8 : " As
many as are of the works of the law are under the curse ",
(Gal. 3:10), which certainly means that some were not of
the works of the law ; and this we know was the case, as
there were multitudes who professed t*" follow Christ. So
the words as mamj in this proof-text .ire palpable evidence
that some were not given to Christ in the sense of the text.

3. Because everything necessary has been done that
Christ " should give eternal life to as many as ttiou hast
given him ", it is no proof that all of thorn will possess it.
Christ docs not always keep all that is given him, for some
rebel against him. Proof: " Those that thou gavest me I
have kept, and none of them is lost but the sou o/jicrdition'*,
Jo. 17:12. So there was one lost, and of course did not in-
herit eternal life. Again, God has given men things which
they never possessed. Proof: "Yet also I lifted up my
hand unto them in the wilderness that / uwuhl lot bring
them into the land which I had given them ", Ezo!'. 20:15.
Our Heavenly Father has made arrangements that Christ

^' sJwuld give^' us many things Avhich wo never enjoy. He
has made ample provision that'ho should happify the world,
but they Avill not come unto him that they might have life.
But this self-same text proves that eternal life is obtained
only upon conditions. Mark the word give — " that he
should give eternal life." The word give pre-snpposes a re-
ceiver, and the word receiver pre-supposos a reception ; but if
men will not rective eternal life, what then ? Why of course
they will not enjoy it, that is all.

4. Mr. Cobb says : " In nearly if not all places the phrase
eternal life in the New Testament means the present enjoy-
ment of the Christian ", and yet the gentleman turns around
and quotes this text to provo universal salvation, ani of
course takes it for granted, notwithstanding his assertion,
that eternal life in this place nieans the future life of the
saints, for if this be not the meaning of that phrase,, the

UNIVEIISALI8M UNFOUNDED.

301

3's : '' As
! curse ",
o not of
case, as
ri.st. So
cvidonco
tliotext,
one that
iioii hast
OSS0S8 it.

for some
■est me I
erdltion ",
id not in-
g8 wliich
1 up my

lot bring
e.-.'. 20:15.
at Christ
ijoy. lU
he world, '
have life.

obtained

' that he

OKOs a r.e-

>n ; but if

of course

iophraso
mt onjoy-
iis around
n, ani of
assertion,
fe of the
rase^ the

text can yield no HUj,[)ort to his splendid systoni of gospel

salv.;

But

that eternal life

ife

'.ation.

mortal, and Universalism I'alls into an inexplicable dilli-
culty, for eternal life is spokon of in more than one dozen
instances us suspende'l upon the conditions of faith and obe-
dience. John hiiitself says this: "That whosoever ueliev-
ETii in him should not ])erish, but have eternal life ", John
3:15. " To them who by patient continuance in well-doing
(who) SEEK for glory, honor and immortality, (ho will re-
ward) eternal life ", Horn. 2:7. " Fight the good Jight of faith :
lay hold on eternal life ", 1 Tim. ():12. Tims wo see that
eternal life is obtainable only on the conditions of faith and
obedience.

5. Lastly, they must prove that all men, i. c, all Adam's
progeny, will know God, inasmuch as all those who receive
eternal life must, according to this proof-text, possess that
knowledge. This can in no wise be done, for Paul says :
" Awake to righteousness and sin not, for some have not the
knowledge of God'\ 1 Cor. 15:34. But who is he that know-
etli God ? John answers : " Ho that knoweth God heareth
^ us ", John 4:6. " Ilcreby we do know that we know him if
we keep his commandments. IIo that saith I know him and
Jceejjeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not
in him ", 1 John, 2:3,4. Now mark this all-important fact,
that this same John who wrote the passages under criticism,
positively says that none can know God only (mark it !)
those who keep his commandments ; and as Universalists
;admit that none can obtain eternal life but such as know
God; and as millions live and die without this knowledge,
i. e., without keeping his commandments ; then verily all
will not inherit eternal life. Will a Universalist now turn
around and say that it is possible to know God without
keej)ing his commandments ? If so, the apostle meets his
case by saying : " He is a liar, and the truth is not in him."
In conclusion, if the eternal life mentioned in this text

v^l

802

UNIVERSALISM TJTiPOUNDKl).

(loos not refer cxdusiwly to the future state, then Univor-
salistH httvo nothing to gain by quoting it ; and Mr. Skinner
hiniBclt' completes our worlv at a Biugio stroke, for ho Hays :
" In not one instance in all the New Testament does the phraae
eternal life nocewsarily, unequivocally and exclusively ap-
ply to the immortal and endless state of glory hereafter ",
Let 11, par. 14. iSo ends our criticism upon this text.

Ilcb. 2:9, *' But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower
than the angels, for the suit'ering of death, crowned with
glory and honor, that he by the grace of God should taste
death for every man."

Universalists bring up this text to prove that becauea
Christ tasted death for every man, therefore every man wili
be saved from the death wliich ChriHt tasted. But what
death is here meant ? It could not be moral death, or 5
death to sin, for ho " did no sin, neither was guile found Id
his mouth ", 1 Pet. 2:22 ; besides Universalists do not be-
lieve that Christ came to save from moral death, for they
contend that all sin is in perfect harmony with "the unal-
terable decree of Jehovah." ^h\ D. Skinner, in his debate
with Campbell, says : "I have the happiness to believe all
these temporary evils will bo overruled for final good ; and
that all that boars the name of evil, including the devil him-
self, whether personal or impersonal, shall at last be d^
stroyed and sii eeeded by good — infinite and endless good,
far superior (mark it) to what otherwise would he experienced
by the human family ", Letter 19, par. 22. Would God have
sent Christ to sav^e men from what ho had employed as an
instrument to make us more holy and happy. Hence it
cannot be concluded from this text that all will bo delivered
from sin ; and they will not contend that this death whioh
Christ tasted «vus eternal death, for they pf).-;itively deny
that any such thing exists. Tlioroforo it must mean literal
death — tb.c death of the bod}-. J>ut if Christ tasted death
for every man in this sense, it allbrds no proof that all men

DNIVER8AI.I8M UNPODNDED.

303

n Univor-
r. Skinner
>r ho ti&ys :
jho phrase
sivoly ap-
eroafter ",
i text,
ittle lower
ivned with
ould taste

it becaoso
y^man wiU
But what
oath, or a
found lo
do not h^
I, for they
" the unal-
his debate
believe all
good; and
dovil him-
ast be d^
less goo<i,
experienced
God have
)yed as an
Hence It
) delivered
nth which
vely deny
ean literal
stcd death
at all men

will be saved ; but only proves a universal salvation from
tlie death which ho tasted, that is, a universal resurrection
from the grave. That is all, and that is all the Univorsalism
there Is hero.

-|iTho word " man " is not in the original, for tlio Greek
terminates in hupcr pantos, and may bo rendered " for all."
Dr. Clai'ke tells us that some manuscripts, and the Syriac,
iiretoad of " by the grace of God ", have '* without God, or
God excepted, i.e., the manhood died, not the Deity ", and if
tills be the true reading, Universalism would do well to
quote some other text.

c: They argue that every man moans tlie whole human ftim-
lily. This is sufficient to upset the system, for the Saviour
declares that when he shall como in the glory of his Fatlier
witli his holy angels, that " then ho will reward every man
according to his works ", (Matt. 16:27), i. e., the whole
iiuman family, and therefore this coming of Christ cannot
refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, but to the end of time ;
land if the wicked are to be rewarded then according to
Jtboir works, this proof-toxt is a witness to future punish-
ment rather than universal salvation. " Out of thine own
jnouth will I condemn thee."

Hob. 11:12, "For all shall know mo, from the least to
4he greatest ; for I will bo merciful to their unrighteousness,
and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more."
''. . The phrase " All sha'l know me from the l^^ast to the great-
..est," is claimed as teaching Univorsalism ; but whatever
:Df universality it may contain, it can extend only to the
descendants of Israel, for Paul is only speaking of them, as
proved by verse 10 : "This is the covenant that I will make
with the house of Israel after these clays saith the Lord."
IIen<.c, allowing this promise lo be uiulerstood in an uncon-
ditional sense, still it would jirovo onl y tlie salvation of the
.Tows, and not oven them as a riicc, hut simply tlioso living
nt tlio time the covenant was mtide, that i;., in the days of

:iOi UNIVEU8AL18M IJNI'OITNUED.

tho apostles. ?)Ut thi.s itself cannot bo niiule out, for none
wore benotitted by the new covenant exeei)t those whocom-
j)lie(l with the eonditions of fait li anil repentance, and there-
fore tliere is a condition implied in this pronuse, as in the
promise to Abraham. 'Vho phrase " from tho least to tho
greatest " does not, as they ima<;'ine, strengthen the text in
their favor, for throughout the Scrijituies, as the following
examples, and the only places in which it occurs, will show,
it refers only to tho persons then living : " For from tho
least of them even unto the greatest ot them, every ono is
given to covoteousness ", Jer. CkV,\. " I willgivo their wives
unt<3 others, and "joir tields to them that shall inherit them,
for every one, from the least oven unto the greatest, is given
to covetousness", Jer. 8:10. Tho ju'ophet "called all the
people, from the least oven to the greatest", Jer. 42:8.
"Thoy shall even be consumed by tho sword and by the
famine ; they shall die, from the least even to the greatest ",
Jer. 44:12. "So the people of Nineveh believed God and
proclaimed a fast, and put on sack-cloth, from the greatest
of them even to the least of them", Jo. 3:5.. "To whom
(Simon the Sorcerer) they all gnvo heed, from the least to
tlie greatest", Acts 8:10. In not one of all these instances
does the phrase refer to tho dead ; neither does it compro-
liend the hundreth part of the living.

1 John 2:2, " Anil he is the ])ropitiation for our sins, and
aaot for ours only, but for tho sins of the wholo world,"

Universaliststellus that if Christ's blood was shed to make
a pix)pitiation for the sins of tko wliole world, and tho whole
world be not saved, then part of Christ's blood was shed in
y&hi. This, however, is not true, for if but n single indi-
\Mdual bo saved through tho atonement made by Christ, not
ono drop of his blood would bo shed in vain, for every suf-
fering, trial and pain that was laid upon him was indispen-
•siblo to a perfect atonement, which is as requisite to save
one man as it is to save a universe. As well might it be

UNIVKR8ALI8M L^FOUNDED.

30&

I, for none

) who coni-

jiiid thorc-

UH in the

Mint to the

I ho text in

i'oUowing

will Hhow,

r li'oni the

ery one Ih

heir wives

lorit them,

st, is i^iven

ed all the

Jer. 42:8.

md by the

greuteist ",

d God and

e greatest

■ To whom

ho least to

3 instances

it compro-

r sins, and
orld.'*
ed to make
I the whole
as shed io
ingle indi-
Christ, not
every suf-
8 indispen-
te to save
light it be

said that the light of (ho sun is partly in vain becauHO the
natives of the Fox Jslaiids live undor ground, if the Sun of
Kighloousnoss has risen upon our world, and men chooso
darkness rather than light, and will continue to live in the
dark caverns of error and sin, thoy need not begin to i)rate
about that " Jjight of the world " being in vain because they
will not come to it.

The word ^^ propitiation^' occurs only twice — here and in
ch. 4:10. It is translated from the original, liilatimos, and
moans, says (!larke, "the atoning cacritice for our sins.
This ", ho continues, '' is th© pro])er sense of the word as
used in the Septuagint, whore it often occurs; and iy the*
translation of asham, an oLlution/or sin, Amos 8:14, chatath,
a sacrifice for sin, Ezok. 44:27, and kippur an atonement,
Num. 5:8", (Com. in loco). Here then, every time a Uni-
versalist quotes this text he cites a scrii)tuve that he does
not believe, for all the advocates of that 'ism, with 3Ir.
Thomas, say: " I den}' the vicarious atonement." The}' do-
not believe that Christ's blood was necessarily shed to save
any man from sin, but that he only sutl'oroti the way tho
revolutionary fathers sulforod in the cause of their coujitry,
and as tho apostles su tiered for the good of mankind. How
those gentlemn can colloel the impudence to introduce tho
sacrilico of Christ as a proof of universal salvation when
they deny his divinity, place him upon a level with the
common sort of mankind, and literally count his blool as of
none elfoct, is certainly beyond our comprehension, if not
intended to deceive.

Isa. 25:8, "lie will swallow up death in victory; and tho
Lord God will wipe away tears fronuall faces."

Universalists quote this to prove that all mankind will
bo happy, because the prophet says : " and the Lord God
will wine away tears from all faces." But*from all whoso
faces ? Bead the remainder of the verse : " And the Lord
God will wipe away tears from off all faces, and the rebuke

806-

UNlVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

of ms PEOPLE shall he take away from off all the earth."
Thus the all faces mGun^, not all Adam's posterity, but "his
people " — the righteous. Observe that this proof-text is
cited to prove that all in the resurrection, state will be hap-
py. Now read the next verse : " And it shall be said in
that day (L c in the day of the resurrection), Lo, this is our
God ; we have ivaited for him and he will save us ; this is
the Lord ; we have waited for him; we will be glad and
rejoice in his salvation." Here Universalists must them-
selves admit that none will enjoy salvation in the resurrec-
tion state but those that have ivaited for the Lord. This
agrees with Paul : " To them that look for him shall he
appear the second time without sin unto salvation ", Heb.
7:28. The second verse following this proof-text tells us
what will become of those who are not " his people " : " And
Moab (/. f., the wicked in general) shall (at the same time
when the tears are wiped " from all faces ") be trodden
down under him, even as straw is trodden down for the
dunghill ; and he shall spread forth his hands in the midst
of them, as he that swimmeth spreadeth forth his hands to
swim ; and he shall bring down their pride together with
the spoils of their hands."

The phrase "all faces" in no one instance means the
entire descendants of Adam. Jeremiah says : " All faces
are turned into paleness " (eh. 30:6), which surely does not
mean all mankind. Theprophet Joel says : "^1/? /frees shall
gather blackness " (ch. 2:6) ; not the faces of those certainly
who have gone to heaven !

Isa. 57:16, " For I will not contend forever, neither will
I be always wi-oth ; for the spirit should fail before me, and
the souls which I have made."

Lam. 3:31, " For the Lord will not cast oif forever."

Every one tJiat is acquainted with the doctrine of Univer-
salism must be familiar with these two texts, for they have
been reiterated by the press and pulpit till our ears are

.ill

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

SOT

the earth."

ty, but " his
proof-text is

will be hap-

1 be said in
jo, this is our

us ; this is
be glad and

must them-
tho rcsurrec-
Lord, This
him shall he
ition ", Heb.
text tolls us
pie": ''And
le same time

be trodden
own for the
in the midst
his hands to
)gethcr with

! means the
: " ^1/? /aces
rely does not
l///^7c(?s shall
080 certainly

neither will
)fore me, and

)rever."
le of Univer-
br they have
our ears are

weary with their display ; and yet they contain not a parti-
cle of evidence, either direct or indirect, in favor of their
doctrine. No Sir, not a particle, but rather refute it.

The text from Isaiah when examined with its connection
is found to refer only to the jwople of God, or rather those
who had sinned and hac^ humbled themselves, as seen in the
preceding verse. The wicked also are particularly distin-
guished in the following verses : " But (giving the contrast)
the wicked are like the troubled sea when it cannot rest,
whose waters cast up mire and dirt. There is no peace to
the wicked saith my God ", vs. 20,21.

In the chapter from which the passage in Lamentations
is selected, Jeremiah is lamenting his own afflictions and
those of his countrymen, and says: " The Lord will notcast
off forever ", i. e. he will not cast oii' forever those who will
return unto him from their evil way and repent. This is
proved by verso 25 : " The Lord j^ good unto them that
wait for him, to the soul that seekethhim." But before he
closes the chapter he tells us of those who are the enemies
of God, and exclaims : '' Eender unto them a recompense,
O Lord, according to the work of their hands. Give them
sorrow of heart, thy curse unto them. Persecute and de-
stroy them in anger from under the heavens of the Lord ",
vs. 64,65,06. This is a doctrine quite different from that
which Univcrsalism preaches in behalf of the wicked — To
give them sorrow of heart and curse them : to persecute and de-
stroy them in anger from under the heavens of the Lord —
and yet it is the doctrine of the Bible !

Matt. 1:21, " And she shall bring forth a son, and thou
shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from
their sins."

Universalists make it a common practice to quote this
text in favor of their doctrine, and yet it can yield them not
the slightest support unless it be proved, 1. That "his peo-
ple " means the whole human family ; and 2. That "shall "

308

UNlVEllSALlSii UNFOiJNDllD.

is used in the absolute sense, neitlier of which can possibly
be done-
Christ possesses men in throe senses, 1. In the sense of
dominion which extends to all, as when we read " Ask of
me and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance,
and the uttermost parts of the eai;th for thy possessions,"
Ps. 2;S. " His dominion shall be from sea even to sea and
from the rivers oven to the ends of the earth," Zach. 9:10.
" All power in heaven and in eai'th is, given unto me,"Matt,
28:18.

2. In the sense of consanguinity, as it is written, " lie
came unto his own and his own received him not," John 1:11,
i. c, the Jews. The text under criticism is uncxuostionably
to be understood in this way : " he shall save the people
from their sins ", i. e. the children of Israel, on condition of
their reformation, as says the apostle Peter : *' Him hath
God exalted with his vight hand to be a Prince and a Sav-
iour, for to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins ",
Acts 5:31. Thus Christ is a Saviour to Israel by forgiving
their sins on the condition of their accepting repentance.

3. Men are Christ's in the sense of spiritual union — " mem-
bers of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones", Eph. 5:30.
Hence it is said : " If any man have not the spirit of Christ
"he is none of his", Rom. 8:9. Of course then the phrase
" shall save his people from their sins " coiild not refer bo
:this class, for thoy are, in that sense, already saved. Luke
says of John the Baptist : " And thou, child, shalt be called
the prophet of the Highest ; for thou shalt go before the
iace of the Lord to prepare Jiis ways, to give knowledge of

salvation to iiis people by ; the remission of sins ", ch
1:76,77. Thus " his people ", as all admit, means the Jews,
to whom the Saviour sjiecially came, as foretold by the
prophets, to give remission of sins.

It is plain then that " his people " does not mean all
•mankind, but the Jewish people, and that shall is used in a

ail possibly

le sense of
id " Ask of
nhei'itance,
ossessions,"
[ io Bca and
Zach. 9-M.

me,"Matt,

rittcn, "He
"John 1:11,
uestionably
the people
condition of
''Him hath

1 and a Sav-
ess of sins ",
by for giving
entance.

on — " mem-
, Eph. 5:30.
rit of Christ

the phrase
not refer to
,ved. Luke
alt be called

before the
lowledge of
f sins ", ch
ns the Jews,
told by the

)t mean all
is used in a

tTNIVERSALTSM UNFOUNDED.

309

tjonditional sense. K we should admit that " his people "
in this text meant the whole human family, it would not
belp Universalism as long as salvation from sin is condi-
tional. " He that helicveth shall be saved ; he that bcUcveth
not shall be damned." Remember there arc two damnations
spoken of in connection with the sinner, a present and a
future. " He that believeth not is condemned (rather
dannied, as in the Greek) already " ; and yet it is said, '' Ae
shall be damned."

Some Univcrsalists have taken the ground that the sal-
vation of Christ here means salvation from the sin of idola-
try, in order to dodge the force of the text in Eom. 3:25,
which teaches salvation from punishment, for Paul there
says that Christ saves from sins that *' are past.'^ But if
this position be taken this text must be given up at once,
'for even Universalists will not contend that Christ will ab-
solutely save the natjons from idolatry, unless they them-
selves reform by voluntary obedience. Again, if they take
the ground that "their sins " means any or all the sins of
this world theia* condition will be no better, but even worse,
since they not only deny that Christ saves from sin any of
those that lived before his advent, but they bitingly contend,
as Flanders did in his debate with Strickland, that all men
die in their sins. How then can Christ save his people
from th^ir sins when they never put them off till the mo-
ment of their dissolution ? "Who can tell ? There is no
alternative ; IJniversalipts must leave this text or drop their
unscriptural dogma of sin and punishment.

Rom. 14:7,8, "For none of us liveth to himself, and no
man dieth to himself. For whether we live we live unto
the Lord ; and whether we die we die unto the Lord :
whether wo live, therefore, or die, we are the Lord's."

This would never be quoted by Univcrsalists but for the
phrase " no man dieth to himself", for by this it is said Paul
must have included all mankind, who therefore " die unto

310

UNIVERSAL ISM irNFOUNDED.

:!*■

tho Lord." There is no people that ridicule the translator fl
more than Universalist», and yet none are so ready to take
advantage of their blundern. They arc, liowever, very caro-
ful, as a general thing, not to quote it to those who are sus-
picious of sophistrj', but use it rather to play a game at
swindling the ignorant. The passage is not properly trans-
lated. Mr. Cobb took the liberty to quote it in his debate
with Prof. Hudson, wlicn he was brought to the Greek text,
and made to acknowledge its mis-translation. It should
read, when properly rendered : " For none of us (oudeis)
liveth to himself, and none of us (oudeis) dieth to himself."
The French has the proper translation : '• En etfct aucun de
nous ne vit pour soi-momc, et aucun de nous no meurtpour
soi-meme." This turns topsy-turvy the beautiful little cob
house Universalists have built upon this text.

They quote also Mark 12:27, '' He is not the God of the
dead, but the God of the living "' ; bu^ this is rather against
than on their part. The Dean of Canterbury translates it i
" He is not the God of dead men, but of living ", which gives
the true idea in the Greek text. This same text in Luke
is followed by tho phrase ^'for all live unto him'\ which is
thought to favor universal salvation, but according to the
Syric, as given by Dr. Murdock, this is not tho true reading,
but "For they all live unto him."

Ezek. 33:11, " Say unto them : as I live saith the Lord
God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked."

Universalists will not hesitate to make the most rash and
peremptory concessions in order to quote a text of Scrip-
ture, and in no instance is their purblind gougery more ap-
parent than in this passage, which they quote to disprove
eternal death, when they deny that such a thing exists.
Their citing the passage is, however, a palpable admission
of tho fact, and the remainder of the verse proves conclu-
sively that the wicked will die that death, unless they re-
pent : " 2\iyii ye, turn ye, from your evil ways ; for why will

UNIVEIISALISM UNFOUNDED

311

'iinsIatorB
[y to take
very caro-
lO are bus-
i game at
rly tran»-
lis Jebat©
reek text,
It Hhould
1 (oudeis)
himself."
aucun de
leurt pour
little cob

od of the
er against
tislates it i
hich gives
t in Luke
which is
ng to the
3 reading,

the Lord
d."

t rash and
of Scrip-
more ap-
I disprove
ig exists,
idmission
is concla-
thoy rC'

NVLY WILL

YOU DIE " ? Let a Universalist once quote this text and ho
that minute admits all his opponent contends for. They
cannot possibly evade the difficulty by saying that his death
means either the death of the body or a death to sin. They
cannot say it means temporal death, because 1. They argue
that God's pleasure is always done, and therefore it must be
his pleasure men should die, since they all must die. 2.
The text says that the Lord has no pleasure in this death ;
hence it must mean something else, for Universalists tell
us that God was pleased to make man the subjectof t«mpo-
ral death, besides they contend from this very text that
God's pleasure cannot be frustrated. 3. The righteous have
to suffer temporal death as well as the wicked, but the pro-
phet representij the death in the text as one that can be
avoided by turning to the Lord. Again, they cannot say it
means a death in sin, because 1. Thev teach that God is the
author of sin, and that spiritual death is according to his
pleasure; but in this death of the text God says: "I have
no pleasui'o." 2. The persons addressed by the prophet
were already dead in sin, and yet he speaks of a death as
yet future — "/or why wilt ye die."

But allowing this death to refer to the future state, it is
no proof, because God has no pleasure in its infliction, that
the wicked will not suffer it, because God's pleasure is not
always done, as the following passages show : " Thou art
not a God that hast pleasure in wickedness ", Ps, 5.4. '' T
have NO pleasure in you saith the Lord of hosts ", Mai. 1:10.
" With many of them God was not well pleased ", 1 Cor,
10:5. " If any man draw back, my soul shall have no plea-
sure in him ", Ileb. 10:38, Here is proof that there are
many persons in whom God has no pleasure, Avhich pro^ es
that there are frequently, nay continually, things contrary
to his pleasure, fi-oni which it follows that the wicked may
and will die continually, unless they repent.

John G:30, " And this is the Father's will that sent me,

312

UNIVERSALISM VNFOVl^'DF.i).'

that of all which he hath given mo I should lose nothing,
but should raise it up at the last day."

Two things must bo proved before Universn lists need

quote this text, neither of which can possibly bo done:
That the will of God is always done ; and 2. Tliat the whole
human family arc given to Christ, in the sense here in-
tended.

1. That Clod's will is always done no one but a Univer-
salist, and the man who wishes to justify himself in his sins,
will for a moment contend. Those who wish to see the
point settled ma}' consult the examination of the last pass-
age ; also the examination of 1 Tim, 2:3,4,

2. The a^wstlo is not speaking of the whole human fam«
ily as being given to Christ, but only of those who have be-
come his followers, as proved from the next verso : " And
this is the will of him that sent me, that every one that
seeth the Son and helieveth on him may have everlasting
life, and I will raise him up at the last day." Thus we
learn that those Mdiom- Christ will raise up at the last day
in the sense here spoken of are heUevers, and not the whole
world. Again, in his prayer the kSaviour did not consider
all mankind given to iiim, for he says : " I pray not for the
WORLD, but for them which thou hast given me ", John 17:9.

But as usual in quoting Scripture Universalism commitw
suicide in bringing out this passage, since they admit that
the word '' lose " refers to eternity, and therefore means an
endless separation from God. It must most certainly in tho
hands of Universalists refer to eternity, for they quoto it
as proof that all vnll be saved in eternity, i. e. in the resunec-
tion state; and it could not refer to time, for if their doc-
trine be true none are lost here, for all are doing the per-
fect will of God. Then is it not passing strange that the
Saviour should talk about men being lost, i. e., lost with
respect to eternity, as Universalists that quote this text are
bound to admit, and yet such an idea never entered tbo

UNIVERSALIBM UNFOUNDED.

313

nothing',

ist.s need

lone: 1.

lie wliole

Iiero in-

i Uriiver-

1 his Bins,
Boe tho
last pas»-

lan tiim-
> have bo-
L^: "And
one that
orlasting
Thus we
last (lay
he wliole
consfdoT
>t for tho
ahn 17:9.
eomniTtrt
mit that
neansan
ly in tho
quoto it
xsunec-
oir doo-
the per-
that the
38t with
text are
3red tho

mind of the Saviour, and no sinner was ever in such danger
since the world began ! Christ has, however, told us him-
self that some of those who have been given him were ac-
tually lost, " Those that thou hast given me I have kept ;
and none of them are lost but the son of perdition ", John
17:12, Here was one that was lost, and we read he went
" to his own place ", Acts 1:25 ; and the Saviour says of him :
Good were it for that man if he had never been born ",
Mark 14:21. On this last passage Dr. Clarke remarks :

" Can this be said of any sinner if there be any redemp-
tion from hell's torments ? If a sinner should suifer mill-
ions ol millions of years in them, and then get out at last
to the enjoyment of heaven : then it was well for him that
he had been born, for still he has an eternity of blessedness
before him."

They also admit that the phrase " the last day " means
the end of time. This is also a fatal admission since it
w ill argue a future general judgment, for we read : " The
word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the
last day ", John 12:48.

Lastly, if all Universaiists contend for be granted, their
doctrine can never live after going by this text without ad-
mitting that the atonement of Christ was as necessary to
the salvation of those who lived in the four thousand years
before him as it is after him, since they contend that the
whole human family are given to Christ, and that he will
raise them up at the last day. This would likewise be a
fatal admission as it would be virtually acknowledging the
vicarious atonement, which Universaiists now ridicule in a
manner approaching to blasphemy.

Acts 11'. 10, " And this was done three times, and all were
drawn up again into heaven."

Peter's sheet contained " all manner of four footed
beasts of the earth, and w ild beasts, and creeping things,
and fowls of the air ", and Universaiists contend that these

314

tNIVERSALISM UNPOONDED.

Pill
III

living creatures rej:)ro8entod the human family; and that
their being taken to heaven proves that ail mankind will
be saved. But if wo will permit Peter to explain himself
with regard to his view of the vision, we will tind that Uni-
versalism had no existence in his mind, for ho explains
thus : " Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of
persons ; but in every nation he that fK(\.iieth God and work-
ETn RIGHTEOUSNESS is accepted of him ", Acts 10:34,35. The
vision had no reference to the wicked as a class, but to the
Jews and Gentiles, teaching Peter that the dispensation of
the gospel was extended to the latter as well as the former.
lie did not understand that Universalists, who teach that
no me should fear God, and that those who " have no fear
of God before their eyes", were to be saved in his gospel
sheet, but only him " that fearetii God and worketii righ-
teousness."

It is said that Peter was not converted to Universalism
till ho saw this vision, and that then werefultilled the words
of the Saviour : " When thou art converted strengthen thy
brethren ", Luke 22:32 ; and yet it is contended that he
preached the doctrine ten years before it, for they quote
Acts 3:21 as proof that all will be restored or saved. Then
one of two things must follw ; either there are two gospels
divinely authorized, or Universalism is not of the gospel.
Indeed it is not a little strange that Peter preached Univer-
Balism before his conversion, and yet he never afterwards
uttered a single word in its favor, and no Universalist has
ever yet laid claim to a syllable from Peter's fingers after
his conversion, from which one of three things must follow ;
either, 1. That he was converted to Universalism but saw
its dangerous tendency, and resolved not to preach it; or, 2,
That ho was converted /yo?/! the doctrine, and therefore did
not afterwards countenance it ; or 3. That he never was a
Universalist either before or after his vision. One of these
three must be admitted, and eitherwill answer our purpose.

UNIVEESALISM UNFOUNDED.

315

and that
lUind will
in himself
IthatUni-
^ oxpUiinfi
specter of
and woRK-
4,35. The
nit to the
n nation of
he former,
teach that
ve no fear
Ills gospel

CETII RIOII-

iversalism
the words
gthen thy
ed that he
hey quote
ed. Then
ro gospels
he gospel,
xl Univer-
xfterwards
I'salist has
gers after
ist follow :
n but saw
1 it; or, 2.
L-efore did
rer was a
10 of these
r purpose.

liom. 6:22,23, *' But now being made free from sin and^bo-
como servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and
the end everlasting life (Greek, zoe crionios). For the wages
of sin is deaUi; but the gift of God is eternal life through
Jesus Christ our Lord."

Universal ists never quote this whole connection, but only
what follows the word " For ". This is said to lie one of the
strongest texts in favour of their doctrine, atid we would
judge at least that such is their own opinion, as it is reit-
erated in every Universalist book and periodical extant.
But it will be found that like all their other scripture proofs
when subjected to the crucible of criticism it will dissolve
and become an open enemy to their cause. '

The very word ^' gift ", upon which they build the whole
of their argument, refutes all their^witticisms on this text,
as it proves eternal life to bo conditional. The word gi/t
pro-supposes a giver, and the word giver pi'c-supposes a re-
ceiver, and the word receiver pre-sui)poses a reception, and the
word reception pre-supposes a condition. Of course, then,
those who will not receiv^ eternal life when it is offered to
them, will most certainly not enjoy it. Hence the Saviour
says : " Ye will not come unto me that ye might have (eter-
nal) life ", John 5:40. Even if it could be shown that eter-
nal life is now given to all men, it docs not prove universal
salvatioTi, because God has given men things they never
(Mijoyed, l)ccause they refused to enjoy them. Yoy instance,
God gave the land of Canaan to the fourth generation of
Israel ; but the}' sinned and excluded themselves from its
jK)ssession. Hence the Lord declared by the mouth of
his proi)het : " Yet also I lifted up my hand unto them in
the wilderness, that I would not bring them into the land
which I had given them", Ezek. 20:15.

The phra:>e " through Jesus Christ our Lord ", is also in-
dicative of the conditionality of eternal life, and is therefore
opposed to Universalism, as it is equal to " in obedience tQ

316

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

it;

I i I

r' V

J',v;

!\'

Je8U8 Christ." Tho word through is voiy iVcqiiontly used
in tliis Benso. " Yo aro clean through tho word which I
have Hpoken to you " (John 15:3), is equal to saying : " Ye
are clean by oheying my word. " If ye through the spirit do
mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live" (Rom. 8:13),
i. e. *' if through or by obedience to the spirit ", &c. Paul Bays :
" Through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of
eins " (Acts 13:8), which means " B^ the forgiveness of tJiie
r)uin'% &c. Hen CO this is another proof of tho condition-
ality of eternal life.

The phrase " ye have your fruit unto holiness, and (you
have) the end thereof everlasting life ", is another proof
that eternal life is ccaditional. Let us ask, Why have ye
the end everlasting life ? Paul answers, because i/e are made
free from sin. Ilenco he again says : " He that soweth to the
flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption ; but he that soweth
to the Spirit, shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting (jie
<aionios), or life eternal, Gal. 6:8. This of course cannot po6-
sibly mean anything else other than the life immortal, for
the apostle says those w^ho 80\^ to the Spirit, i. e., enjoy
spiritual life here, shall yet reap life eternal/

But Universalism refutes itself in another way by bring-
ing up this passage, for in contending that the eternal life
spoken of refers to the other world, they must also admit
that tho ''wages of sin ", put in antithesis to it, is eternal
deaths This admission prostrates the system.

We now add that Uni\'ersalists have no business with
this passage, for the following tangible reasons : 1. They
deny that such a thing as death exists in the future state ;
then tho life put in apposition wMch it nuist, to apologize
for their u.^o of the passage, moan spiritual life in this world ;
and to say all mankind enjoy the gift of spiritual life and
happiness here is contradictory to existing facts,

2. They verily do not believe the text itself which
teaches that sonie men ar,e free from sin in this life — "but

CNrVEIlSALISM l/NForTNIHTD.

31T

itly uBod
which I

spirit do
m. 8:13),
aul says :
(renosB of
€88 of thu
ondition-

and (jon
ler proof
have ye
are made
eth to the
it soweth
BtiDg (rie
-nnot po»-
lortal, for
enjoy

€.,

by bring-

fernal life

so admit

is etemai

less with
1. They

re state ;

ipologizo

is world ;
life and

Of which
fe— *'but

now being DViUlo/rci from sin,'' while Univor-alists contend
that 710 man is Croo from sin in ll>is NvorM aiMl i[M(»{e Koni.
(5:7, to prove it. " lie tJiat is ilcnd is frood frotn sin." i. c,
only the ilcad man is without sin. ?>. Tl;(.y ]iriiU'h that
cf/Trt«/ /(/e is enjoyed here ill time, wliilc the text >Hys it
will not bo ex]>ericnce(l till the termination of the Christian
cfti'eer — " the t:/«? everlasting (eternal) life." I. They do
not believe t\\i\t eternal life whether it refer to this or the
next life, is a gift exclusively through Christ, for they not
only deny the vicarious atoneyncnt but .nllh-m that Christ
was a Saviour in tlie same way as was Paul and Peter. Mr.
O. A. Skinner says : Christy" s«/(''V'fZ(W the Apostles and Chris-
tian Fathers suffered,'' [Universalism Illustrated, p. 128.] So
Ballou, Kneedland, Austin, Lefever, and every other Uni-
vorsalist writer that has expressed himself ujion the subject.
How then is eternal life a gift through Chi'ist wh(mi Uni-
vorsalists declai'e to be, to use the words of the great IIos-
hea Ballou, •' a created dependent being," [Ballou on the
Atonement, p. 30.] 5. They deny that eternal life is given
through the atonement to {tny of those who lived in the
four thousand years previous to Jii s advent, ,«inco they deny
that Christ's death had any reference to past sin or salva-
tion. When Abncr Kneedland Avas in his glorv as a Uni-
versalist preacher, he published a volume of lectures ir>
which occurs the following language : — " For aught I cai*
BOO, God could just as ec>nsistently forgive sin before the
death of Christ as since ; neither does he now forgive sin
on account of or with the least reference to the suftcrings
of Christ ; any more than he does on account of the suft'er-
ings of the Apostles or any one else who has suffered in the
same cause." Pray thon how did the ancients obtain eter-
nal life through Christ, Avhom Uniyersalists preach as the
Saviour of tde World I

Eom. 11:25,26. '' For I would not brethren that you should
be ignorant of this mystery lest ye should be wise in your

I, I

818

UNIVERSAL rSM CNPOUNDED.

own coiu'oits; that hliiuluoHs ifi j)jirt in Ijuppoucd to Inriicl
until tlio I'liliiosH of the (lontilos l)o como in ; and ho all Is-
rael nhrtll l)e .saved; as it is written, there ishall eoniooutof
Zion the Deliverer, and hhall turn away ungodiineHU from
Jacob.'-'

Beioi*c thiH text can be niaile to teach UniverHaliHm thrco
things niUHt be proved. 1. Tliat " all Inracl " ineanH nil the
members of the Jewinh family that have ever lived, that
now live and that ever will live. 2. That the " fulness of
tlie Gentiles," means all the (lentiles that have ever lived,
that live now or may live.; and 3. That " shall bo saved "
is to be understood in an absolute or unconditional sense.
All this must be proved befon; it will render them any ser-
vice, and a failure in either one point surrenders this text.
Wo might attach our denial and stop just here for not one
of the positions can possibly be proved by any man now
living.

The phrase ^' all Israel " occurs in very msmy instances
in the Scriptures, but never in a single passage does it re-
fer to the dead, and in most, if not all, does not even in-
clude all the living, as the following examples will show,
"And Moses called aU Israel and said unto them", Deu. 5;1
" And all Israel stoned him with stones," Josh. 7;25. "And
all 76TrteZ went hither,"' Judges 8:27. "Now Eli was very
old and heard all that his sons did to all Israel,^' 1 Sam. 2:
22. " Now Samuel was dead and all Israel had lamented
him," 1 Sam. 28:3. " And all Israel fled every one to hia
tent," 2 Sam. 18:17. "And David and all hrael went to
Jerusalem," 1 Chron. 11:14. ^'^ All Israel brought up the
ark of the covenant," 1 Chron. 15:28. " God smote Jero-
boam and all Israel,'' 2 Chron. 13:15. These examples might
be multiplied but these aj*e sufficient to show how the phrase
is used — that it generally nieans a majority of the Jewish
people. The evident meaning of the apostle is that there
is a future period when the Jews generally will acknowledge

UNIVFIISAMSM rNF(H;NI)EI).

:ui)

to InrJiol

NO ull Ih-

)ino out of

tUiJirt from

i.sm tliroo
ins all the
vod, that

iilnoHS of

vol" lived,

bo saved "

nnl Hoiiyo.

ni any ser-

ih'iii text.
)!• not one

man now

instances
loes it re-
: even in-
vill show,
', Deu. 5;1
25. "And

was very
I Sam. 2:

lamented
:)ne to his
I went to
fit up the
loto Jero-
|)] 08 might
the phrane
ho Jewish
that there
:nowledgo

Christ as the true Messiah and will, through him, eook wal-
vution.

The phrase ^'- tin fahu-ss of the Gaittlni,'' UnivorsaliHts can-
not })rovo t(j mean the wholo of the (Jontilo descendants
throughout lime, tor Ihis is the oidy place the jdirase oc-
curs. We read " when iho/n/iuss of time was come God
sent forth his 8(m," (ial. 4:4. Does the wovd fuhieas indicate
all time when the event is ])ast by eighteen centuries ? No
more than does thefulncas of the Gcntilta mean all the (len-
tiloB that have ever lived.

With the words " shall be saved," they will find them-
selves equally at a loss, for the context very lucidly proves
its conditional meaning. "And they also (Israel) if thoy
abide not still in unbelief shall be grafted in, for God is able
to graft them in again — SO all Israel sluiU be saved," v. 23.
Ilence Paul says in another place, " My heart's desire and
prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved," Rom.
10:1. The same apostle says to the Jews themselves speak-
ing of Christ, " And being made perfect he became the au-
thor of eternal salvation to them (of Israel) that OBEY
HIM," Heb. 5:9. Universalists will do well if they wish
to keep from self-infliction, to pass by this text, for it can-
not only render them no service, but it requires to be ad-
mitted that there is something in eternity to be saved from
before it can be quoted, for they start out with the assump-
tion that saved refers to eternity. Their very first step
throne and unto the prostrates their doctrine.

Rev. 5:13, "And every creature which is in heaven and
on the earth and under the earth, and such as are in the
eea, and that are in them heard I saying, blessing and honor
and glory and power bo unto him that sitteth upon the
Lamb for ever and ever."

All Universalists quote this passage to prove a universal
salvation, and of course, impose it upon their hearers as to
be understood in the literal sense, and yet when au ortho-

!i.

32 i)

XTNITET<SALT!3M UNT'OirNDED.

dox turns to the llcvelation to adduce ])roof in favor of the
future punishnieiit of tlie wicked, the lino and cry is raised
that the book is ALL A FIGUEE and should not, according to
Dr. Cl'irlce and other learned commentators, be quoted in proof
of any leading- doctrine ! ! And yet UniversalistB are guil-
ty of that very olience which they accuiic in others, for thirt
is relied on as one of their strongest proof-texts. But sup-
posing Ave admit that John saw every creature, good, bad and
inditferent, sa'mt, least and sinner, all praising God, will that
be sufficient evidence that all are saved ? No, for the Psalm-
ist says, " surely the ivrath of man shall praise thee," Ps, 16:
10. John in this passage speaks of a " sea," for he heard
all those in the sea praising God, as well as upon the land.
But let us turn over to the place where he speaks of a later
event when there is 7io more sea : '' And 1 saw a new heaven
and a new earth, for the first heaven and the tirst earth had
passed away and there ic as no more sea ;^' 21:1. !Rememlx;r
this was after he heai'd every creature praising God. Well,
John, what else did j^ou see ? " The fearful and unbeliev-
ing and the abominable and murderers, &c., I saw have
their part in the lake of tire and brimstone, which is the
second death," v. 8. This is a check-mate for Universalism.

Again, Universalists refute their doctrine and thrust it
out of existence by admitting that the joys of the future
life are written in the book of Eevelation, for the conclu-
sion of it reads : " If any man shall take away from the
words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away
his part out of the book of life and out of the holy city,and
from the tilings which are written in this book/' Eev. 22:
10, which incontrovertibly proves that men may by their
evil conduct in this life forfeit their right to the kingdom of
heaven, for mark the fact, Universalists admit that the
(diss of heaven is one of the " things " written in this book !

" Eev. 21:3,4, " And I heard a v(^ice out of heaven saying
behold the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell

UNIVERSAL ISM UNFOUNDED.

321

fiivor of the
cry is raised
t, according to
oted ill proof
listy are guil-
;liers, for this
ts. But sup-
ood, bad and
xod, will that
Drthe Psalm-
theo," Ps, 7C:
or he heaivj
Don the land.
iks of a later
I now heaven
rst earth had
liememlxir
God. Well,
tid unbeliev-
I saw^ have
rhich is the
^niversalism.
nd thrust it
'f the future
the conclu-
ty from the
i take away
iolycity,and
;" Eov. 22:
lay by their
s kingdom of
dt that the
ri this book !
aven saj'ing
e will dwell

with them and they shall be his people and (lod himself
shall bo with them and bo their God. And God shall
wipe all tears from their eyes and there shall be no more
death, neither sorrow nor crying, neither shall tliere be any
more pain, for the former things are passed away."

This text by itself is, we confess, a plain proof of univer-
sal salvation, and is the only passage in the entire Bible
quoted by them tliat is not liable to objection from internal
evidence. Certainly this proves the doctrine, and if even
this though all the others from Genesis to this place have
been driven out of the field — can. stand the power of our
crucible, we will at once, upon this single evidence, admit the
doctrine to be true. But let us inquire who are the '* men"
with whom God is to dwell — who are to become his people,
and from whose eyes all tears arc to be wiped away. John
answers — those hi the city or Xew Jerusalem, which he saw
come down from heaven, it is they with whom God him-
self shall be and be their God, for Jesus says : " He that
ovERCOMETH shall inherit all things, and I will be ins God "
(v. 7). "lie that overcometii avIU I make a pillar in the tem-
ple of my God, L e. in the New Jerusalem, and he shall go
out no more ", Rev. 3:12, It is onh* he that '' overcoincth "
that " shall not he hurt of the sec/md death,'' Rev, 2:11. We
«re to understand therefore, that those whose tears are to
be W' iped away, are those who have overcjjme and have " en-
tered through the gates into the city." It is there where
" God shall wipe away all teaj's from their eyes ; and there
(in the city) shall be no more death, neithei* sorrow nor
crying, neither shall there be any more pain." In quoting
this text and applying it to the resurrection state, Univer-
salists are bound to admit that then is the time when this
city or New Jerusalem is to appear. Ilcnce, if it can be
proved that admittance into this city is conditional, and
that some will not be permitted to enter it, wo have proof
that Univcrealism is false. Let us now take John's own

090

UNIVER8ALISM UNFOUNDED.

Hi- - =1

! %. :.:

words for it, " Blessed are trey that do his command-
ments, thnt they Uiay have right to the tree of life and may
enter in through the gates into the CITY," (the l!^ew Jeru-
salem), Rev. 22:14. ''If any man shall take away from
the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take
away his PART out of the book of life, and out of the ho-
ly CITY ", ch, 22:19. "And the nations of them which are
saved shall walk in the light of it (i. c, of the city), and
there shall in no wise eiiter into it any thing that defileth,
neither whatsoever w^vkoth abomination, or maketh a lie ;
hut they which are written in the Lamb's book of life",
Ch. 21:24,27. Are the wicked written in the book of life ?
" Whosoever hath sinned against me him icill I Hot out of my
book", Exod. 32:33; but "lie that ovcrcomcth the same
shall bo clothed in white raiment, and I will not blot out his
name out of the book of life ; but I will confess his name
before my Father and before his angels ", Rev. 3:5. This
city is to be sought after. " Here we have no continuing
city, but we seek one to come". Hob. 13:14. But what
characters are outside the city, John ? " Without arc dogs,
and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idol-
aters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie", Eev. 22:15.
What will become of them ? " The fearful and unbelieving,
and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers,
and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liari^. shall have their
part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone,
Avhich is the second death", ch. 21:8. Strange IJniversalism !
This text is exactly parallel with Isa. 25:8, which they
ap]ily to the resurrection state, and quote as proof of univer-
sal salvation ; and as the resurrection, general judgment
}in<l second death are all to take place at the same period,
one of two things niust be done : cither Univcrsalists must
admit the lake of fire will be at the resurrection, and that
the wicked will bo ])unishod there; or they must give up
both these texts — the one in Isaiah, the other in Ecvela-

UNIVERSALI8M UNFOUNDED

323

COMMAND-

fe and may
N'ew Jeru-
^way from
shall take

of THE IIO-

tn which are

city), and
at defileth,
koth a lie ;
: OF life",
•ok of life ?
:)tout of my

the same
blot out his
■^ his name
3:5. This
continuing

But what
it arc dogs,
s, and idol-
Rov. 22:15.
ibelioving,
emongers,
have their
brimstone,
rersalism !
"hich they
'of univer-
judgment
ne period,
lists must

and that
t give up
ti Revela-

tion. Some have forseen this difficult}' and have therefore
tried to dodge the shock by referring the latter, not to the
resurrection, but to the comniencenientoftho church. This
is more in conformity with their doctrine that Jicvelation
was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, Avhich,
however, they deny the moment they refer to u single pass-
age in it as proof of universal salvation. J3ut such an inter-
pretation of the jxissage under criticism not oidy takes it
out of the hands of Universalism, because if it refer to the
ooramencement of the church, it can have nothing to do
with linal haj)piness ; lait such an interpretation is contra-
dictory to the text itself, for instead of all tears being wiped
away then, i( was the period of the greatest sult'ering in
the cause of Christianity. Do you now say it is all a tigure ?
Very likely, for TJniversalists will say or do anything to
avoid " corner ism'' ; but it neverthele:is seems passing strange
that they should never Itc willing to admit Isa. 25:8 as tig-
urative, and that the}' should always quote this text and
use it in the literal sense till obliged to expose its figurative
meaning, and with that exposure admit its non-assistance
to their cause. But, say they, it must refer to the com-
mencement of the church, for John says : "I snw the holy
city." Very well, then it does not teach universal salva-
tion, and it so happens that in the very proof-text (Kev. 5:
13) which says that he heard every creature praising God,
he also uses the past tense — htard — and of course, according
to their own showing, has no reterence to the future, but to
the past. Then there is no Universalism in the book ')f
Bevelation.

CONTRADICTIONS.

UNIYERSALLSM teaches :

1. That Adam's punishmont was morfil death
^md tliat he was saved from it, and yet that man
cannot be saved from deserved punishment.

2. That sin cannot affect the purity of the soul, and yet
that the souls of the wicked will be purified in the next
world.

3. That man is a part of God, and yet that man can never
be perfect.

4. That when the sinner has received all his punishment,
which they contend he receives here, he is justified or free
from sin, and a ut that none can be free from sin in this
life.

5. That God will hy no means clear the guilty, and yet
that he will clear them hy the means of punishment.

G. That Avhat we gain in Christ we lost in Adam, and yet
that Ilcven which we gain in Christ was not lost in Adam.

7. That it is the Spirit that cleanses from sin, and yet
that the spiritual part of man, which can only bo cleansed
b}' anything spiritual, is never tarnished by sin.

8. That sin is destined to elevate man in the next world,
and yet that its cilects by no means extend into eternity.

9. That every man is rewarded for his good and evil
deeds as he goes along, and yet that the Christian's reward
is great in heaven, (Matt. 5:12).

10. That sin causes punishment, and yet that punishment
destroys sin, that is, the effect destroys its cause.

11. That all are saved with respect to eternity, and yet

)ral death
that man

], and yet
tiie next

can never

nisbmcnt,
ed or free
iin in this

', and yet
it.

n, and yet

in Adam.

, and yet

cleansed

xt world,
ernity.
and evil
's reward

nisJiment

and yet

UNIVERSALIBM UNFOUNDED.

825

ihat none were ever lost with respect to eternity.

12. That God cannot be disappointed, when lie willed all
din, and 3'et sent Christ to t;avo men from it.

13. That God foreordained and willed that Adam should
sm, and yet lie pronounced upon liim and all hi.s po.sterity
the pain of death fordoing his will. '

14. That Christ was a perfect man. and yet that niaii cau
never be perfect.

15. That actions in time can produce no effect in eternity,
and yet that Heaven is enjoyed there through the merit
and death of Christ here.

16. That Christ is the Saviour of the world, that his .sal-
vation is salvation or freedom from sin, and that it is eon-
tined to this life, and yet that all men die in their sins.

17. That infants are holy, and yet that mankind can
never be in this life free from sin.

18. That Christ died to save us, and yet that it is impos-
sible to escape deserved punishment.

Id. That there " is no respect of persons with Crod", and
yet that he ordained some to prosperity, and others to ad-
versity.

20. That '• all in Adam die " (1 Cor. 15:22), and yet that
no one dies in Adam.

21. That the soul is now immortal, being a part of God,
and yet that it will be saved, because it is to be made im-
mortal in the resurrection state.

22. That sin is destined to elevate man in the spirit world,
and yet Judas was such a sinner that it would liave been
good for him had he never been born !

28. That Christ sutlbred for man, not as making a vica-
rious atonement, but in the same way as the Apostles and
Christian Fathers suti'ered, and yet that ho "tasted death
for every man."

24. That all God docs is his pleasure, and yet lie inflicts
the penalty of death, when He has no pleasure in the death

Ill'

i=i

326 UNIVERSAL ISM UNBOUNDED.

of the wicked.

25. That miiii is here subjected to a brief course of sin,
for his future good, and yet in some cases, according to Mr.
Wincliester, he must be kept 14:4,000 year.'5, to free iiim from
it.

26. Tiiat happiness rises out of contrast, and yet that in-
fants ami angels, that never experienced it, will bo eter-
nally hai)])y.

27. That Christ's doath had no efficacy in blotting out
the sins of th. so who lived br^ro him, and yet that he is
the Saviour of all Adam's rac^.

28. That the death which " reigned from Adam to Moses,
oven over them that had not sinned " (Rom 5:14), was moral
death, and yet deny the doctrine of original sin.

29. That as all die in Adam, even so they will bo made
alive in Christ (1 Cor. 15:22), and yet deny that any will
be morally dead in the resurrection, when they died '* even
po " in Adam.

30. That " by the deeds of the Law no flesh shall be jus-
tified " (Rom. 3:20), and yet that all will be justified when
they suffer its punishment.

31. That the love of God produces perfect love, and yet
that his wrath produces perfect love, that is, two opposite
causes produce the same effect.

32. That the Christian has a reward in Heaven, and yet
that his actions in time have no effect in the other world.

33. That Christ " bore our sins ", and yet that wo must
all bear our own sins.

34. That Christ saves only as the Christian minister eaves,
that is, by his ju-eaching and example, and yet that he saves
all men.

35. That all have sinned and come short of the glory of
God, and yet that all w^ill be saved, because man was made
for God's glory.

36. That there is no work in the grave (Ecc. 9:10), and

UNIVER8ALISM UNFOUNDED.

327

SG of sin,
nu; to Mr.
lim from

' that in-
1)0 otor-

ting out
lat he is

to Moses,
as moral

bo mado

any will

jcl "even

lII be jua-
ied when

and 5-6 1
opposite

and yet
>r world,
we must

or saves,
he saves

glory of
•as miuie

10), and

yet that in the grave all work off their sins. - '•'>

37. That God can do all things and yet that he cannot
destroy " both houI and body in hell," (Matt. 10:28) because
there is no such place.

38. That salvation is confined to this life, and yet that all
will be saved in the next world, because, say they, all will
be in Christ in the resurrection state (1 Cor. 15:22).

39. That the Jews had no idea of future endless punish-
ment till they obtained it from the heathen, after the times
of Malachi, B. C. 400, and yet that the Scripture writers
contradicted the doctrine from the earliest times.

40. That all imperfection is evil, and yet that the saints
who are not absolutely perfect are free from evil in the
next world.

41. That foreknowledge and foreordination are the same,
and yet that Christ foreknowing the destruction of Jerusa-
lem tried to prevent that calamity.

42. That Christ came to do the will of his Father, and yet,
with Mr. Austin, contend that God's will and his wore not
the same in reference to the overthrow of the Jewish cap-
ital.

43. That all will be saved because the righteous desire it,
and that " the prayer of the righteous shall be granted ",
and yet Christ and P A prayed that their persecutors might
eeciipe deserved punishment, which Universalists deny be-
ing possible, and they ridicule instead of praying to make
men Universalist^i.

44. That the eouI cannot bo contaminated with sin, and
yd that "fleshy lusts war against the soul ", 1 Pet. 2:11.

45. That man has power to do and power not to do, and
3'ct, in the words of Ballon, that "man is dependent in all
his volitions, and moves by necessity."

46. That "the wicked shall bo turned into hell" (Ps. 9:
17), and yet that this hell is great remorse of conscience.

47. That the ancients were continually judged at the Di-

328

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

ii' 1

vine tillumal, and yol eoiitoiid, with Mr. Au8tin, that " tlie
judgiueuL coiniuoucod at tlic inlrodiicliou of the Christian
era."

48. That iiothiiitj; in impossihlo with God, and yet that lie
'* could not ■', in the words oi'llev. Mr. Guild, '• exclude all
evil from the univcr.se."

4^. That (Jod burnt up ihe Sodomites, and yet thatall pun-
isuijient is disciplinary.

50. That •' thc<[Ucenof theSo'ithshallr/st'/'j)in judirnient"
(Matt. 13:42), and yet asf^ert with Mi-. Austin that "resur-
rection and Judgment are never in the Scriptures mentioned
together."

51. That ('hrist came jit the overthrow of Jerusalem, as
"the judge of cjuick and dead" (2 Tim. 4:1), and yet that
he came to execute judgment at his first advent. They
quote : "For judi'paent 1 am come into this world", (John
9:39).

52. That the jjunir^liment of Sodom was more tolerable
than that (;lCapcniaum " (Matt. 11:23), and yet the destruc-
tion of the latter i)y the K'omans was much milder.

53. That (rod is intinitely merciful towards men here, and
yoi he ])ermits them to undergo a life-time of sin, and does
not grant the all-i'eiinjng linilio till the next life.

54. That Paul's doctrine oi' '' a judgment to come ", which
made FeWx trcnilJc, was the certain punishment which
awaited him at liome, as observed by Jose]ihus, and yet that
same author informs ns that he cscap'^d the punishment
through the mediation of his brother.

55. That God's ])unishmentsaro ii\riicted in the conscience,
and yet tliat his })eiial enactments through the Mosaic Law
were " a just ", which they say means a sulHcient "recom-
pense of reward " (llel». 2:2).

56. That Clirist was " the Lamb slain from the founda-
tion of tlie world ", and yet that his atonement is only
erloclual since the Christian era,

57. That Paul threatened the persecutors of the Chris-
tians at Thessalonica with banishment from th.o temple at
Jerusalem, and yet they lived more than one thousand
miles from it, (2'Thess. 1:9).

58. That when Paul said, " IPi; shall all stand before the
judgment seat of Chri a" (Pom. 14:10), l\e meant the de-
struction of Jcrus;ilc"in, jmd yet that ai)0st!e h;id Ikhmi dead
i;ome year.5 AN'lien tiuit event tools' jjlace.

59. That the I'ook of Revelation was fultilled in tiie de-
struction o'\Jerusalem, ;iiid that it contains no reference to
eternity, and yet t'loy cite ])assages from it as tjieii* .strong-

lat " the
'liristiaii

1 that lit
liido nil

nil pun-

irnicnt"

" rcsur-

siitioncd

loin, as
yai that
Thoy

', (John

:^loral)lo
(Icstruc-

ero, and
md doeri

', which
t which
yet that
islnncnt

.science,
:uc Law
' recom-

founda-
is only

3 Chri.s-
n])lo at
loiiyand

ore the
the de-
m doa<l

the de-
vice to
ytron;^-

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

329

o«t proofs of the final salvation of all mankind.

60. That God will not inflict a ^!;reatcr punishment
than sin deserves, and yet they quote Isa. 40:2, where thoy
contend that the jn'ophot teaches that " Israel hath received
of the Lord's hands a doublo punishment for all her sins."

6L That Peter was not converted to Universalism till ho
saw the vision of the sheet [Acts 11:0], and yet cite his
words ten years before [Acts 3:211 to prove their doctrine,
and marvellous enough never claim a single scratch from
Peter's pen to prove universal salvation, after his conversion.

02. That resurrection means conversion, and yet will ap-
peal to Paul's doctrine of the "resurrection of the just"
Acts 24:15 Ilero is a conversion of those v.iio are already
converted.

03. That "the lake of fire" [Rev. 20:15] means annihila-
tion, and yet that none of those that " shall have their part"
in it can ever sutler blotting from existence.

64. That " eternal life " means the spiritual life of the
Christian here, and has no reference to eternity, and yet
they quote to prove that all %dll he saved: " The gift of God
is eternal life ", [Rom. 6:23].

05. That the woYdgchenna [Matt. 10:28], translated "hell '\
cannot denote a place of future punishment, because it is
the name of a valley in Judea, and yet all their writers say
that it is " generally used in ixjignratice sense."

06. That in the 2/;orW to come mankind "neither marry
nor are given in marriage " [Luke 20:35] and yet that" the
world to come" [Matt. 12:31] means the Christian dispen-
sation.

67. That Christ came the second time at the destruction
of Jerusalem, and yet thoy quote Acts 3:21, " Whom the
heaven must receive until the times of the restitution of
all things", which they declare to be at the end of time.

08. That Adam's sin was not entailed upon his posterity,
and yet they summon as a proof-text Rom. 5:19: " For as
by one man's disobedience many locre made sinners.^'

69. That no one will ever sulfer death eternal, because
there is no su(?h thing, and yet to prove their doctrine they
quote: " As I live saith the'^Lord 1 have no pleasure in the
death of the wicked" [Ezek. 33:11]. This they admit to
mean eternal death, in the way they quote it, and, accor-
ding to Universalism, God has pleasure in both moral and
tem])oral death.

70. That no one can be free from sin here, and yet they
boast of Rom. 0:22 : " But now being made //re from sin ",
<Jcc., as proof of final, universal hap])ines8.

330

UNIVERSALISM UNFOUNDED.

'il' i

\h\

ijii '■
lit t

71. Tliut none wcM'o over in dungor of Ijoin^ lost, with
respect to eternity, and yot they quote John G:3!» to prove
tiiat none will he losttlioro: "And tliis is the Father'^
will that sent nie, that of all which ho hath i^iven me /
s/iotild (i)iir m^t/tifty, huL should raise it u]> at the last day."

72. That "we inusl, thi-ou^di much trihuiation, enter into
th( kimjdoniitf God'' [Acts 14:22], and yet to evade the force
of this pjii-asc in other Scri|)tures, where we are told the
wicked sludl not enter it, they sliaiu-^de to conline it to thin
world, and (juoto : " Ikdiold the U-ingdoin of God is within
[or anioiii;] you"' [Luke 17:21].

7;*. Thai the "_reat ^:ulf"' hi'twoen the rich man and
Lazarus, over whi(di none could pass [Luke l(;:2()], is unbe'
lief, and yet .lews and (lentiles have pas>;cd over it.

74. Tliat Christ taught that alj that are in the tlesh are
sinful when ho >^aid : " ^riiere is noiu^ j^-ood l)ut one. that is
God " [Matt. r.»:17], and yet they deny that Christ wasCiod,
and of cour.e that he was good, and yet they preach that Im
is the ^^ fjood shepherd ", and the Saviour of the world.

75. That the rich man in " hell " was the .lewish ])riost-
hood in the sio_s:;o of .Jerusalem, and yet he wished that hhs
" iivc hrethren ", who, hy the same interpretation, wen?
" the masses o'' the ])0ople ", and who were involved in the
Hanio calamity, " might n<it come to that /ddcc of tornu n(.''

7(). That the woi'd /oirncr does not moan eternal I3', and
yet they quote: " Foi- the Lord will not catst oil' forever"
[I^am. .'5:.'n]. and "Neither will he keep his iw gov forever"
[Ps. 108:;*].

77. They contend, to pi-evoiit the judii'ment mentioned in
John 12:31 meanini:: the Jud<j;ment of Pilate, that the }'hra>e
" Prince of this world " means Hatan, and yet not only deny
his existence and the ]M)ssil)ility of his havin<>; l>een at that
time " cast out ", hut, to make out universal salvation, argue
that God is the Father of all and the Prince of the world.

78. To prove that the gos])ol will eventually encompass
the entire world and that all will therefore he saved, they
quote Isa. .55:10,11, and yet to prove that Christ appeared
the second time at the tlestriiction of Jerusalem, they cito
Col. 1:23, where Paul says h(fore the destruction of that city
that the gospel had been alroad}' preached " to every crea-
ture which is under heaven."

79. To represent Christ as appearing at the proper season
to perform his work of rodem])tion, they quote Gal, 4:4,
^' When the fuhicss of the time u-as come God sent forth his
Son," and yet to prove that all will be saved eventually
they quote, '• That in the dispensation of the fulness of times,

■^

U.NIVKIISAMSM UNFOUNDEn.

331

'r4

ho might guther to/j^eihor in oiic, all things in Christ, "Eph.
1:10, tiiut is, all were saved at tli(? first coming of Chi-ist.

80. Thoy saj' with our theory of hell, that wo canm) . l)o-
lievo the Psalmist when he says "The wicked shall bo
turned into liell," for this wouhl he damning all Adam'tJ
race, since all in some period of their lives have been wick-
ed, and yet they themselves contend that all are wicked
and that the wicked are continually in the Psalmist's hell,
and yet that they " shall bo turned " into it. Here is a
contradiction, liosides putting the wicK'ed not only in their
holl, but (ifterwardi into " tho Jiell of Orthodoxy,"

81. To contino tho judgment to this world thoy quote,
" For ju(!g!iient lam come into this world," John t>:r>i>, and
yet to prove ..hat Christ will not condemn any but will save
all, the}' quote, " I came not to judge the world," John 12:47.

82. Paul says to the Corinthians, [1. Cor. 15:17,18] "If
Christ be not raised your faith is vain ; ye are yet in your
ains,'^ a doctrine our opponents do not l)elievefbr //ir^ would
say, " ye are yet in your sins," whether Christ be raised or not.
" Then " adds Paul, i. o., as a consequence of this " they
which have fallen asleep in Christ mYi^^m-s-ZifY?," which word
thoy say means " annihilation." But all men die in their
sins. Then all mankind will bo amnhilnied ! " Who then
can bo saved ?"

83. When wo cite Rev. 20:10, to prove future judgment
and punishment, thoy tell us that this cannot refer to eter-
nity, for it contains the ])hra8e "day and night " which say
they certainly do not exist in tho other world, and yet their
assertion is no sooner cold than t ley will quote Eev. 7:15,
where this self-same phrase occurs to prove universal salvjir
tion, which is, of course, to be imderstood literally, when
Revelation is all a figure !

We might add more. O consistency thou art a jewel !
Such is Ijnivcrsalism ! !

FINIS,

ERRATA.

i^n ]K\^v 42, lino 12, reiul hrdr tor lojirn.

possi'ssioe for jiossi'ssioii.

ILiH-c'iA for IfarvciH.

a (ji:ncral for In general.

envi/ I'or cri'or.

and not tlio for and the.

of, or for or, in.

third for thin.

cnsumplcs for examples.

(IS for a.

Sodffmitcs for Sodom.'*.

distinction for destruction.

do. do.

Jiends for friends.
detection for dcloetion.
co)iti)ines for coiiiinuous.
Goodrich tor Doodrieh
place for jjeace.
not one of for not of.
Jude 6, page 68, is not correctl}' printed, and Kom. 5 : 7,
page 95, is left out, so also the word sense, p. 238, I. j.

Ja^ Read the Jirst two lines on page 242 on the bottt/m of d
240. -^ ^

>•

((

107

109

112

120

133

((

134

135

149

228

230

239

SHOs^ion.

I'vcin.

•^oiicral.

and tlic.

xloins.

cstruc'tion.

[lo.

(Is.

loc'tiori.

iitimious.

rjodrich

lot of.

1 Iloin. 5:7,

:i8, 1. 5.

2 bottom of p.