■>fll 
 
 84.05 
 
 77 1 u ERSALISM AND OKTBODOXY; 
 
 (s) : 
 
 ItiUDUlY : 
 
 A COURSE -jdF' eight' 
 
 SERMONS 
 
 BY 
 
 REV. G. FORSEY. 
 
 "7]/ the laiv and to the hstimofiy/'—lnAiAW. 
 
 '' By manifestation of the truth commending vurselves to eikry. 
 man's conscience in the sight of 6V^.*'— P.\ul. ' ■ 
 
 OTTAWA: 
 
 CITIZIO.V PR|NTIN<; ANf) PITM-ISHIXO COMPAHY,' SPARKU STtfRfi*. 
 
 18 71*. 
 
■■:''''•:.;. v-^ 
 
 .':- ■'-'<' 
 
 
UNIVERSALISM AND ORTHODOXY: 
 
 A COURSE OF EIGHT 
 
 SERMONS 
 
 BY 
 
 ...KEY. .a. FORSEY. 
 
 ■^ - • t » 1 5 - . , . 
 
 " To the law and to the testimony," — IsAiAii. 
 
 ^^ By manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every 
 man's conscience in the sight of God'' — Paul. 
 
 OTTAWA: 
 
 CITIZEN PRINTING AND PUBLISHING COMPANY, SPARKS STREET. 
 
 18 79. 
 
• • • 
 
 ' • • • • 
 
 • • • • • 
 
 .•„• 
 
 « * • ■ • 
 
 • • * • • • • ' 
 ■ " • •• • • • 
 
 • t • ■ « 
 
 • • • ' J ••• 
 
 • • « y • « 
 ••• •• • ••. 
 
 • • • • 
 
 • • « • « 
 
 .-s 
 
 
Preface, 
 
 The following Sarraons were delivered to the Author's 
 congregation in the village of Merrickville, Ontario, in the 
 ordinary course of duty. In the judgment of many who heard 
 them, they touch some of the living questions of the day, and 
 are thought M'orthy of being committed to the printed page. 
 The Author passes no opinion upon their merits ; he is con- 
 scious that the great truths discussed are but imperfectly 
 treated ; but he has done the best he could, with the limited 
 time at his disposal. It is the opinion of intelligent person!^, 
 that the defence of the truth here made has accomj)lished good 
 in the community principally concerned, and the surrounding 
 neighborhoods. Believing this, and hoping that more extended 
 good may result, the discourses are sent forth upon their 
 mission. 
 
 57533 
 

Sermon I. 
 
 MAN'S FUTURE EXISTENCE ONE OF COMFORT OR TORMENT. 
 
 '< But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedstthy 
 good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things ; but now he is comforted and 
 thou art tormented." — (Luke 1G:25.) 
 
 The doctrine of a future existence has in every age engaged more or less the 
 attention of men. Without a divine revelation men have thought such an 
 existence possible, and have hazarded conjectures as to its nature or mode. A 
 doctrine so important, so directly bearing upon the grounds, the matter, and the 
 sanctions of the Christian religion, could not properly be open to doubt ; to be 
 received and made an article of faith it required a distinct, authoritative, clear dis- 
 closure. Revelation is the only source from which we could derive any satisfac- 
 tory knowledge of a future duration ; all other helps are more or less delusive. 
 The want of the world in this department has been abundantly supplied by the 
 sacred records, which, if they teach anything, make known to us the fact that 
 man lives hereafter. Enoch and Elijah were translated that they should not see 
 death; if they were not to see death they certainly were to live forever. The 
 spirit of the Shunammite's son had left his body, but it had not become extinct : 
 it returned to the child's body at the prayer of Elisha, In the book ot Ecclesias- 
 tes allusion is made to the twofold nature of man : " Then shall the dust return 
 to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." Here 
 there is nothing about extinction, but rather continuation of being. When Jesus 
 was transfigured, Moses and Elias appeared talking with Him. The transfigura- 
 tion took place A. D. 32. Elijah, or Elias, was translated B. C. 896, and Moses 
 died B.C. 1451. Here then were the spirits of two men, one of whom had left 
 the world 900 and the other 1480 years before, found to be existing and engaged 
 in intelligent communication. Then Christ said to the Jews that God was the 
 God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, and that God was not the God of the 
 dead but of the living. The legitimate inference is that those eminent men are 
 living in another state of existence. Without tarrying to cite any more of the 
 many proofs at hand, we recur to the text. Here two persons are referred to 
 who lived once in this world, and who are set forth as existing beyond it, one 
 in comfort, the other in torment. The usual objection to this portion of Scrip- 
 ture is that it is a parable, and there tore not conclusive on the matter of a future 
 state. A Universalist writer, Dr. Thayer, says in his Theology of Universalism : 
 " The point to be illustrated in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, is the 
 rejection and punishment of the Jews, and the calling of the Gentiles into the 
 privileges and blessings of the Gospel. This is the main scope and design of 
 the parable, and the leading particulars have significance as follows : — 
 
 " (a) The rich man, clothed in purple and fine linen, and faring sumptuously 
 every day, represents the Jews, their wealth of spiritual privileges and bless- 
 ings." 
 
 " (6) Lazarus, the beggar, feeding on crumbs, and full of sores, represents 
 the Gentiles, their spiritual poverty and ignorance." 
 
 " (c) Their death represents, respectively, the change in their conditions, 
 which took place on the setting up of the Gospel kingdom in the earth. The 
 rich man dead, is the Jewish nation dead to, and deprived of, all its former pri- 
 vileges and gifts of divine knowledge. Lazarus dead, is the Gentiles dead to 
 their former condition of spiritual poverty and unbelief." 
 
'• (r/) T-azaruK in Alualiam'fi losom, represents the Gentiles tranalutod into 
 the new life of Oospel faith, and knowledge, and salvation." 
 
 «' (e) The rich man in torment, reju-esents the Jews suffering the punish- 
 ment of their sins in the destriietion of their city and temple, and the sore cal- 
 amities which have fallen on them ever since." 
 
 '< (/) The great gulf represents the antagonism of un])elief hetween Jews and 
 Christians (Gentiles), and the utter want of religious symputuy and fellowship 
 which separates the two people." 
 
 « {(]) The request of the rich man respecting his five brethren, and the reply 
 of Abraham, are only put in to show the obstinacy of the Jews in their ic'^UKal 
 to believe in Christ as the Messiah." — (p. 37G.) 
 
 We here notice that the Universalist notion of this narrative, as given by 
 Dr. Thayer, is pure assumption. For Dr. Thayer to assert the rich man means 
 the Jews, and Lazarus the Gentiles, is no proof that such is the case. For his 
 theory to be worthy of acceptation, he must show that it is founded upon reason, 
 and free from contradictions, neither of which things has he accomplished. It 
 is clear that this interpretation is given to get rid of all idea of a state of future 
 retribution. The exposition is found in the learned doctor's chapter on >' The 
 Doctrine of Hell,' which hell he considers to mean, and only mean, punishment 
 ill this life. 
 
 1. Dr. Thayer's idea of the death of those men, as'parabolic representatives, 
 is not in accordance with fact. It is not true that the Jewish nation " is dead to, 
 and deprived of, all its former privileges and gifts of divine knowledge.'' To all 
 tlieir former advantages was added the offer of the Gospel by Christ, and after- 
 wards by his apostles. iSince the dispersion they have had opportunities of sal- 
 vation in common with other nations, which hundreds of them have embraced, 
 and by which they have been saved. Neither is it true that the Gentiles are 
 " dead to their former condition of spiritual poverty and unbelief." The vast 
 majority of the Gentile world to-day are as much in spiritual poverty and un- 
 belief as they were before Christ, many because they have not heard of him, 
 others because they refuse to abandon Heathenism for Christianity. 
 
 2. Dr. Thayer states that " Lazarus in Abraham's bosom represents the 
 Gentiles translated into the life of the Gospel," and on the next page he admits 
 that <' Abraham's bosom is a Jewish idiom or phrase for the blessed life of 
 Paradise " ; thus we are asked to believe that our Lord used this form of expres- 
 sion in a sense entirely foreign to its usual import, and without a word of 
 explanation. 
 
 3. Then the rich man in torment represents the Jews suffering for their sins 
 in the destruction of their city and temple. Jesus says the rich man lifted up 
 liis eyes in hades, or the unseen world, being in torments. Was the whole 
 Jewish nation in hades 9 Were Jerusalem and the temple there ? Titus and the 
 lioman army ? Was this Avorld tinned into hades for the time being to prepare 
 the way for a Universalist exegesis of an important part of Scripture ? The fact 
 that this man was tormented in another ivorld, shows that the Universalist theory 
 of his suffering is baseless, opposed to express statement and common sense. 
 
 4. Dr. Thayer passes by the rich man's prayer for some alleviation of his 
 sufferings. How was this? Did our learned friend's memory fail him here ? 
 If the Universalist interpretation of this narrative be correct, the .Tews are every- 
 where praying Abraham to send the Gentiles to ease their torment. Then it is 
 one tormented people asking to be helped by another tormented people, for 
 Gentile nations have also suliered from destruction of their cities and dispersion, 
 whereas the " parabolic representative " of the Gentiles was " comforted " in 
 Abraham's bosom. 
 
 .^1. " The great gulf represents the antagonism of unbelief between Jews and 
 Christians, and the utter want of religious sympathy," &c. Abraham declared 
 the gulf was impassable ; we must therefore come to the monstrous conclusion 
 
3 
 
 that no Jew has becijiue a Christian since the destruction of Jerusalem ; no Jew 
 ever can — they are all on tlie othei- side of tlie gulf of unbelief, and can nevev 
 believe. The story (if the conversion of Dr. Freshman and others is mythical . 
 While Universalists i)rofess to believe in universal salvation, they consign all 
 Jews to the shades of eternal unbelief; in trying to explain away a hell, they 
 make one , 
 
 G. "The request of the rich man respecting his five brethren, and the reply 
 of Altraham, are only put in to show the obstinacy of the .lews in their refusal to 
 believe in Christ.' According to Christ, the rich man was in circumstances 
 totally dilferent to those of his live brethren ; he was tormented, they were not ; 
 he desiref' they might not come into that place of torment. Taking the 
 rieli man as a *• parabolic representative,' we must believe the Jewish people are 
 suffering, looking at the live brethren we must believe they are not ; Jerusalem 
 was not cftptured, there was no dispersion. How a man's request for a certain 
 benefit to others (a request not granted) can indicate the obstinacy of those for 
 whom the appeal was made, and with which they were not made acquainted at 
 the time, is not clear to ordinary minds. We leave the mystery with Dr. Thayer 
 and his co-religionists. 
 
 Such are the historic contradictions and absurdities involved in the Univer- 
 salist explanation of this narrative, and which place it in the list of those vain 
 imaginations unworthy of acceptance and belief. Such an interpretation must 
 at once be set aside by the intelligent as utterly untenable, as a creation falling 
 to pieces with the weight of its own inconsistencies. In reply to the objection 
 that this narrative is a parable, we reply, it is either a parable or a real history. 
 If it be a parable, it is an illustration of a fact (Christ never illustrated false- 
 hoods) ; if it be a history, it is the statement of a fact. Nothing is gained by th(! 
 objection. The design of Christ to teach the doctrine of reward and punishment 
 in a future state is clear from either parable or history. The hi.story of the Rich 
 Man and Lazarus beais internal evidence that it is a history and not a parable . 
 The name of one of the parties is given ; our Lord had his own reasons for sup- 
 pressing the name of the other. There is here all the circumstantiality, the 
 correctness of reference, and the power of actual fact. It is a pictxue painted by 
 the hand of Divine genius ; it is the drawing aside of the veil which shrouds tii(i 
 future, and the opening up of a scene of absorbing interest — a scene in which w<i 
 are all concerned, and which makes one of two conditions a matter of certainty 
 in the future. 
 
 Sometimes, in a mountainous country, you see two peaks or cones rising 
 from the same base. As you look, one is cloud-capped, the other is sun-lit. 
 You look again, and there is a change of atmosphere, the bright cone is now 
 covered with gloom, while the one previously shadowed is luminous with radiant 
 glory. As in nature, so in human life. One is ignorant, another is splendidly 
 intelligent; one is sorrowful, another is rejoicing; one is deep in the troubles of 
 poverty, another is immensely rich. Human life is full of contrasts, and so is 
 liuman existence in the future. 
 
 Contrast the two men spoken of in the text. Look at Lazarus ; he was u 
 beggar. His state of destitution appears from the fact of his being laid at the 
 rich man's gate, desiring to bo fed with the crumbs which fell from his table. A 
 l»oor beggar is often thesubject of contempt. The well clothed, proud, heartless 
 ones of these days often sweep majestically by, not deigning to bestow a glance 
 upon the poor creature who looks wistfully for some token of their charity. 
 They are afraid their trailing robes will suffer contamination by the beggar's 
 touch, and hasten to give him a wide berth. We are not told that Lazarus 
 received the succour for which he asked. The probability is ho did not. It is 
 likely he was rudely repulsed by the servants of the great man, who did not 
 like to be annoyed with his importunities ; who would look upon any relief as so 
 much encouragement for another visit ; and who would prefer seeing the splen- 
 
did entrance to their master's mansion free from the encumbrance caused by the 
 beggar's presence. The sen^ants of rich men often out-Herod Herod. Their 
 insolence to the poor is only exceeded by their ignorance of the proprieties of 
 life. There are praiseworthy exceptions, but the rule holds. Reasoning from 
 analogy, we doubt if Lazarus put in his mouth one crumb from the rich man's 
 table. That he should ask for crumbs merely is significant ; it looks as if he 
 knew he could get nothing better. We have seen more than one poor beggar 
 driven from the doors ot the rich, and human nature was about the same in the 
 days of Lazar"«. 
 
 But Lazarus was not only a beggar, he was also diseased. He was " full of 
 sores," the result, probably, of some long-continued, incurable distemper. Poor 
 Lazarus ! Poverty and afliiction joined hands over him, and produced a culmin- 
 ation of suffering better imagined than described. The dogs had some degree of 
 pity tor him, more, perhaps, than the rich man and his household entertained. 
 They came kindly, not savagely, and licked his sores. A dumb brute can 
 sympathise with suffering, and will try to alleviate it as well as it knows how. 
 Had the good nature of Lazarus' own species amounted to that of the dogs, he 
 would have been taken from the street, placed in an almshouse, and cared for 
 the remainder of his days. One may say, perhaps there was no almshouses in 
 those days. Jerusalem had its Bethesda, or house of mercy, for the curing of 
 disease ; the people who went up to the temple gave alms ; Zaccheus gave half 
 of his goods to the poor. This shows that there was a system of poor relief ; 
 but it does not appear to have been applied in the case of Lazarus. He had no 
 friends worthy of the name. True, certain persons might have laid him down 
 at the rich man's gate ; but this was a negative kind of friendship, there was 
 little in it that showed the spirit of the good Samaritan. In Lazarus you have 
 a poor, diseased, friendless man, not living, but existing, his life ebbing away 
 beneath the pressure of circumstances, and the cold, cruel neglect of his con- 
 temporaries. The Lazaruses of modern times are not a few. Christ said, "the 
 poor ye have always with you." Have you not seen the counterpart of Lazarus 
 upon the highways of the world? You know something of the treatment they 
 meet with notwithstanding our poor-houses, asylums, and places of refuge. The 
 sight of our poor, afflicted fellow creatures should remind us of this Scripture 
 narrative, and prompt us to duty. Many of the members of heaven's aristocracy 
 are among the poor. 
 
 Let us now look at the other character in this picture — he was a rich man. 
 Like another Baron Rothschild, or A. T. Stewart, he could count his gold by the 
 millions of dollars. He doubtless lived in a magnificent house, erected in the 
 first style of architecture, and rendered attractive by lavish ornamentation. The 
 grounds adjacent, the principal entrance, the rooms for sleeping and feasting, 
 were such as we would suppose in keeping with the wealth and requirements of 
 a millionaire. Everything that Eastern ingenuity could furnish, and gold could 
 buy, surrounded him, and ministered to a taste refined or vulgar according to 
 circumstances. 
 
 This rich man dressed well — " he was clothed in purple and fine linen." The 
 purple here referred to was a costly material ; that and the fine linen made up 
 the clothing of a person of high rank and ample means. The narrative simply 
 means to tell us that this man dressed superbly ; that he took pleasure in 
 arraying his person in the most valuable and attractive fabrics of the times. I 
 doubt not but he had many changes of raiment, almost as many as some modern 
 individuals, who have a costume for every day in the year. A« he sat in his 
 house or reclined upon his couch, all his wishes were anticipated ; as he went 
 abroad, the multitude made way, showing proper deference to one of his stand- 
 ing and splendor. 
 
 Then again this rich man lived ivell — " he fared sumptuously every day." 
 It was not only on anniversary occasions he ate a good dinner, but every day. 
 
The produce of the countries of the then known world wei -^ laid under tribute 
 to the repletion of his larder. There were first-class meats from the pasture 
 lands in the vicinity of Jerusalem; leeks, rice, and onions from Egypt, and fruits 
 from the plains of Jericho ; while wines of the choicest vintage and most delicate 
 flavor, home-made and foreign, added to the hilarity of the rich man's life. 
 Artists in the culinary department prepared the dishes for his table, while 
 numerous servants arranged them in the banqueting room so as to please his 
 vanity and excite his desire. The sumptuous character of his entertainments 
 led to a constant effort to procure something new, so as to afford variety and 
 meet the wants of a fastidious palate. Thus he scattered his gold for the 
 gratification of self; built, beautified, feasted, all for self, forgetful of the wants 
 of the world around him. 
 
 The contrast in the life of the beggar and the rich man was perfect. How 
 can we account for such inequalities in the circumstances of men ? On the 
 ground that there is a future state, where those inequalitits will be explained, 
 and the providence of God vindicated. We often wonder why good men have 
 so little and wicked men have so much of nature's blessings. When we feel 
 disposed to complain, we remember this is but temporary ; a future world will 
 reverse the order, clear up all misunderstandings, and "justify the ways of God 
 to men." The complexion of the present life is a strong argument for a future 
 state. Lazarus in his poverty, disease, and friendlessness, feared God, loved him, 
 trusted him ; the rich man in his palatial residence, costly apparel and sump- 
 tuous feasting, thought nothing of God or the future ; he existed solely for the 
 gratification of his baser nature, and he had his reward. 
 
 Death came to those two men. Death ever has been, and is impartial, he 
 comes to all — to prince and peasant, civilized and savage, the strong and the 
 weak ; kings cannot defy him, gold cannot bribe him, subtlety caniiot deceive 
 him. He plucks the lovely flower from the tree of family life, and trails it in 
 the dust ; he blanches the cheek of the brave, and stiffens the arm of the athlete. 
 Whatever our circumstances are, we must die. The beggar mast bid adieu to his 
 poverty, and the rich man to his broad acres, honors, and money bags. Death 
 to the imsaved is the king of terrors, to the saved he is a messenger of love. He 
 will come to us as one or the other. 
 
 Lazarus, no doubt, had the burial of a pauper. Without much ceremony he 
 was settled in his rude resting-place, none mourning his decease. Thomas 
 Noel's " Pauper's Drive" will apply to Lazarus : 
 
 "Oh! where are the moumeiB ? Alas I there are none — 
 
 He has left not a gap in the world now he's gone ; 
 
 'Not a tear in the eye of child, woman or man ; — 
 
 To the grare with hit carcase ai fast as you can. 
 
 Battle hit bones over the stones, 
 
 He's only a pauper that nobody owns." 
 
 The rich man also died and was buried. No doubt he had a grand funeral. 
 Hundreds flocked to do honor to the remains of such an illustrious citizen. The 
 pomp and pride of his life attended him to the grave ; ihe money withheld from 
 Lazarus and others of his class was squandered in foolish, vain display ; display 
 of which the poor body was unconscious, and upon which the spirit, in the light 
 of eternity, would look with sorrow. 
 
 Hitherto we have looked at the Rich Man and Lazarus in this world ; let us 
 now follow them into the future state. With reverent eyes, and hushed breath, 
 let us contemplate the awful realities of eternity. The narrative here is trumpet- 
 tongued, it flashes light upon hidden verities, it lifts its index-finger, and cries- 
 Look, learn, beware! It is remarkable that, so tar as they relate to this world, 
 our Lord makes use of no figurative language in regard to these men, every 
 statement is perfectly literal ; but when He begins to describe their situation in 
 the future state He at once employs figure, and for the simple reason that this is 
 the only way by which we can have any knowledge of that world. A description 
 
6 
 
 f)f the future as it is, ■would be far above our comprehension, it would be like 
 talking Greek or Sanscrit to an infant; we can only entertain an idea of the 
 future world when robed in figures drawn from the present. Heaven is pictured 
 by the rcvelator as a walled city, with gates of pearl, streets of gold, crystal river, 
 tree of life, etc., etc. We gather from such language the ideas of security, mag- 
 nificence, repose, immortality. Hell is said to be a lake or pit of fire, and the idea 
 we get is intense suffering. Descriptions of the future state must of necessity be 
 tigurative to be of service to ns, hence the use of metaphors by our Lord in the 
 present case. Says Rev. William Arnot on this part of the history: «We pass 
 from a foreground, where every object i.s distinctly seen, to a background where 
 the real objects cannot be seen at all, and where, accordingly, only signals are 
 thrown up to tell what is their bulk and their bearing, When the line of 
 instruction goes through the separating veil, and expatiates in the unseen eter- 
 nity, it must become dim and indistiuct to our vision. • • * Even when the 
 Lord of that unseen world is our instructor, our conceptions regarding it are 
 necessarily indirect, second-hand, and obscure. In this region the capacity of 
 the scholar is infantile, and, consequently, the ability of the teacher cannot find 
 scope." 
 
 Following the thread of the narrat'-'?, we are told Lazarus ^- was carri'"i by 
 angels into Abraham's bosom.'' Univcrsalists themselves being witnesses, this 
 lucans paradise or heaven, and such is the opinion of commentators in general. 
 It was customary at Jewish feasts for persons to recline on couches, leaning 
 on their elbow. The person whose head came near the breast of the other was 
 said to lie in his bosom. The allusion to Lazarus is borrowed from this custom. 
 The poverty and misery of life in the case of Lazarus were'followed by comfort. 
 '• But Abraham said son, etc." Who shall describe this comfort? The blessed- 
 ness of heaven is spoken of under various figures of speech. It is called rest, 
 sitting on a throne, wearing a crown ; but all these fail to represent its felicity. 
 Says Piichard Watson : "Heaven may be described as a state of eternal communi- 
 cation with God, and consecration to hallowed devotional and active exercises ; 
 from which will result uninterrupted increase of knowledge, holiness and joy to 
 the glorified and immortalized assembly of the redeemed." This is comfort 
 indeed. Lazarus enjoyed the comfort of God's smile, the Saviom's presence, and 
 the Spirit's blessing. In Abraham's bosom he was sheltered from the attacks 
 of poverty, pain and sin; before him was a future of endless peace, of unfading- 
 reward. • 
 
 It is said of the rich man ; " And in hell he lifted up his eyes bting in torments.' 
 What hell was this? The Greek word here translated ''hell" is hades, and sig- 
 nifies the unseen world. The Saviour tells us then that the rich man lifted up his 
 eyes in the imseen world, being in torments ; in other language, he was in the 
 l)lace of punishment. Some persons try to break the force of this utterance by 
 saying the orig'?ial word here means the grave ; but this is a feeble attempt 
 to get out of a difficulty. How could a man lift up his eyes in the grave being 
 in torments? There are no torments in the grave, the man, the person, the 
 identity is not there, there is nothing there but dust. Understanding t'le grave 
 to be meant, the statement is nonsense ; taking the ''unseen world'' as the true 
 rendering, we learn the state of the wicked after death is one of torment. Wo 
 art( told the lost man desired some alleviation of his suffering. We are not to 
 suppose he had a body and a tongue, and that water was leally asked for. There 
 are men who try to throw ridicule iipon our Lord's words by representing tho 
 absurdity of such materialistic conceptions in relation to a future state. Their 
 profane attempts in this direction are sufficient indication of their disposition 
 imd character. They mirror themselves to the public gaze in anything but an 
 enviable aspect, announce themselves of the school of Theodore Parker and 
 IngersoU. Tiie Saviour taught that lost souls crave deliverance from pain. Ho 
 ( duld only make this known by a form of language appealing to our understand- 
 
ing. The rich man's npfieal was a prayer ; he asked for a small favour, but this, 
 trifling as it was, couid not be granted. He that had every want supplied on 
 rarth, could not get the simplest boon in the unseen world. The doctrine of a 
 future state of retribution is revealed in other parts of Scripture, as well as this, 
 and commands our belief. Says Dr. John Hall : " It is easy for any man to i)ro- 
 duce a realistic picture of hell, and to purchase a cheap, but not enviable, 
 notoriety by refuting it ; but it is quite another thing to face the statements — 
 the awful statements of the word of God, and succeed in explaining them away. ' 
 Those who repudiate all idea of a penal state in the future world, would do well 
 to lay the words of Dr. Hall to heart ; it would save them from the hallucination 
 that in demolishing their realistic pictures, they are destroying the hell of the 
 Bible. Who are those that deny a hell? They are not the best of men who do 
 so. With some exceptions, they arc the godless classes of society, who fear a 
 hell as a punishment for the sins they love, and which they are unwilling to 
 abandon. It is just human nature to ignore what does not accord with 
 our wishes and plans. The unbelievers in a hell impale themselves upon the 
 horns of this dilemma ; — If there be no hell, Christ is a false teacher ; He deceived 
 the people when He taught the doctrine ; has led the world astray for (>ighteen 
 hundred years, and the Bible is an unreliable book. Who is prepared to adopt 
 this theory ? I hope rot one, it would be blasphemy ; yet it is inevitable 
 t)n the supposition before m«ntioned. 
 
 It would appear from the narrative that the lost in hell can see the saved 
 in heaven. Though there is a great gulf fixed between the two states of exist- 
 ence, there is nothing unreasonable in our Saviour's teaching regarding a disem- 
 bodied spirit. God is a spirit, and though without a physical eye or a tongue of 
 flesh, be sees all things, his voice ip eard throughout the Universe ; it is quite 
 conceivable that a human spirit should see afar oif, and have means of communi- 
 cation. The objections of skeptics concerning the singular reversal of the laws 
 which proportionate "the mutual power and extent of the senses of sight 
 and hearing," show the weakness of their position. Some centuries ago the 
 same objections would have held against the telescope, the electric telegraph and 
 the telephone. By these instruments men to-day see and converse across gulfs 
 of space ; it is, therefore, foolish to quibble about the possibility of seeing and 
 communicating in an immaterial world. Jesus says the rich man saw Lazarus 
 afar off in Abraham's besom, clothed with glory. He saw the heaven he might 
 have gained, and from which he was forever excluded. This must have formed 
 no mean element in his punishment. We cannot think that lost souls can ever 
 become reconciled to their situation. They must ever burn with a desire to 
 escape, and know that it is impossible. 
 
 We further learn that the lost have a remembrance of this life. Abraham 
 said, " Son, remember." In the future state there will be no loss of the power to 
 think ; on the contrary, it will be terribly intensified. Memory will be a 
 minister of suffering. The unsaved will remember that they had providential 
 mercies, religious opportunities more or less frequent and valuable, that the 
 grace that saves was offered and slighted. Memory in this life is often an 
 avenger ; Shakespeare's picture of Claudius, King of Denmark, in Hamlet, and 
 Lady Macbeth trying to remove the blood stains from her hand, are true to 
 life. Memory in both cases was a whip of scorpions. This thinking soul must 
 think forever. Memory took the rich man back over the scenes of 11 f(^ ; so will 
 it be with all who perish. 
 
 The difference in the eternal condition of Lazarus and the rich man was not 
 occasioned by social status, but by character. Their character is determined by 
 the fact that one was rewarded and the other punished. Individual characttn- 
 will shape our future. Two states of existence arc before us — one of comfort, 
 one of torment — for which are we preparing? Our lives tell the tale. We are 
 either going upward or downward — towards happiness or woe — every stei) we 
 
late strengthens the probability one way or the other. Brethren reflect upon 
 your course in life. If it be Scriptural adhere to it ; if not, abandon it at once. 
 Let not the chiming of the Universalist bell — " no hell, no hell, no hell " — 
 lead you to surrender yourselves to sin, in the vain belief that you will come out 
 all right in the end. There is a hell. The Great Teacher declares a man lifted 
 up his eyes in the unseen world being in torments. This statement can never be 
 explained away. It is useless for unbelievers in a hell to ignore it. In my next 
 discourse I shall adduce proofs placing the existence of a hell beyond reasoi able 
 doubt. This narrative offers proof enough for an unbiassed mind. Accept it ; 
 offer your hearts, your Ecrv'.oes to Christ. Living a godly life, you will have no 
 cause to fear future retribution. 
 
Sermon II. 
 
 ETERNAL PUNISHMENT. 
 'And these shall go away into everlasting punishment." — ^Mett. 25:46.) 
 
 From the history of the Rich Man and Lazarus, we proved, I trust to your 
 satisfaction, that there is a future state of existence, and that this existence is one 
 of comfort or torment. It now devolves upon me to show that the torment 
 or punishment of the wicked, that is, those who die in sin, will be strictly and 
 literally eternal. I do this to finish or complete the argument. To prove a 
 penal state in the future, and fail to define its duration, would be to leave 
 untouched half of the subject, and might be understood as an evidence of the 
 weakness of our case . The eternity ^f future punishment is as easily proved as 
 its existence ; to fasten conviction '.n the public mind, both aspects of the ques- 
 tion require clear and forcible pref entation. 
 
 And is there not a cause ? TI ese are days of unbelief. The fundamental 
 doctrines of the Christian faith arc attacked on almost every hand ; sometimes 
 insidiously, sometimes boldly, sometimes learnedly, sometimes ignorantly ; in 
 most cases untairly, and with a greater desire for the triumph of a party than for 
 the advancement of truth. The dissemination of unbelief must be met by 
 greater efforts to spread the true faith. We would be recreant to our duty if we 
 allowed the enemy to scatter tares to the exclusion of the good seed. We must 
 endeavourto*'sow beside all waters," making the cultivation of the moral soil and 
 the glory of God our end and aim. 
 
 There are times in the history of the Church when some particular doctrine 
 receives unusual notice, when its claims to popular credence are searchingly 
 examined, and the results proclaimed. Eternal punishment is such a doctrine. 
 It is criticised in all sorts of ways. The animus of most of the criticisms is 
 sufficiently evident. It shows intense hatred of the thing itself, and often of the 
 book that teaches it. Canon Farrar indulges in a storm of invective, and so do 
 many others. Hatred of a subject is not the best preparation for a calm, honest 
 examination ; the case is decided before it comes into court ; it is Judge 
 Jeffreys and the Nonconformists over again with variations. The question with 
 us is, Does the Bible teach eternal punishment ? If it does, we have nothing to 
 do but to preach it. We are not responsible for the doctrine ; but we are 
 responsible in the matter of hiding or proclaiming it. 
 
 The text occurs at the end of one of our Lord's discourses. Jesus sat upon 
 the Mount of Olives, and while there his disciples came unto him, saying, " Tell 
 us when shall these things be, and what shall be the sign of Thy coming, and of 
 the end ot the world " ? Unless we admit the disciples in this appeal were tau- 
 tological, they asked two questions, first, » When shall these things bo"? that 
 is, the destruction of Jerusalem, referred to in the closing verses of the preceding 
 chapter, and the demolition of the temple, foretold in Matt. 24:2 ; and, secondly, 
 " What shall be the sign of Thy coming," ? Ac, to judge the world, and close the 
 Christian dispensation, or age, aion as it is termed in the original . Our Lord 
 proceeded at once to answer these two inquiries. He disposes of the first in the 
 twenty-fourth chapter of the Gospel by Matthew, concluding at the forty-first 
 verse. It would be presumptuous to say that every statement in the torty-one 
 verses of Matt. 24 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple ; some of 
 them have a more extended reference, and can only be fulfilled at the end of the 
 world properly so called. In the forty-aecond verse (this and succeeding verses 
 
10 
 
 ought to lie added to the twenty-fifth chapter) the Saviour enters upon his reply 
 to the setond question. In the forty-fifth verse He refers to ministers (the Dis- 
 ciples and their successors) as being '' made rulers over His household, to give 
 them meat in due season," i.e., to })reach the Gospel. He promises reward to the 
 " faithful and wise servant," and punisliment to the " evil servant." As other 
 iScriptures inform us, this will fully take place at the end of the Christian age, 
 or when our Lord comes to judgment, Having the final judgment in view, in 
 this connection, He says, " Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likeaer' unto ten 
 virgins," &c. ; not when Jerusalem is destroyed, but when "I come '.; person to 
 reward my servants, and punish my adversaries." To the parable of the virgins, 
 Jesus added that of the talents, concluded with a picture of the last judgment, 
 Avinding up with the solemn utterance of the text, "Ail these shall go away into 
 everlasting punishment." 
 
 By the adjective pronoun these we are to understand the classes of sinners of 
 whom he had been speaking, such as the foolish virgins in the ])arable of '> The 
 Ten Virgins," the wicked and slothful servant in the parable of " The Talents,' 
 and the Imrd-hearted, indifferent, uncharitable ones portrayed in the judgment 
 scene. The text is not to be divorced from its context. It said of the virgins 
 that they were refused admission to the marriage, that the door was shut, and 
 that when they cried, '-Lord, Lord, open to us," he answered, •'! know you not. " 
 It is saitl of the wicked and slothful servant that he was cast into " outer dark- 
 ness,' where there was " weeping and gnashing of teeth." It is said of the un- 
 charitable and cruel that they were to depart as " cursed into everlasting fire, 
 Ac.'" Now, those three descriptions refer to the final judgment ; they are illus- 
 trations of the coming crisis in human history. Viewed in this light, they have 
 point, meaning ; they appeal to the conscience and heart, warn men to have 
 done with sin, and to })repare to meet God. There are those who try to give 
 them a difi'erent meaning, to explain them away. They come to the Scriptures 
 with a creed already formulated, and cut them into fragments to make them fit 
 their creed. We should not bring our creed to the Scriptures, we should come 
 to the Scriptures for our creed. Dr. Thayer, in his " Theology of Universalisra,' 
 p. 301, teaches that the everlasting punishment in the text means the punish- 
 ment '• into which the Jewish nation was sent on the destruction of their city 
 and temple." It is very unfortunate for this piece of exegesis that the whole 
 verse is antithetic, or presents ])oints of contrast. If the going away into ever- 
 lasting punishment mean the dispersion of the Jewish nation — a merely temporal 
 visitation — then the going of the righteous into life eternal must mean a temporal 
 blessing. The same language is used in both cases. If the verse teaches no- 
 tliing about future punishment, it teaches nothing about future joy. According 
 to Dr. Thayer, this Scripture offers no hope to the j)eople of God. I need 
 scarcely say that Dr. Thayer's is a strained, unnatural interpretation ; in livct 
 it is no interpretation at all. The passage was in the way of his system; he 
 thought he would slash it with his Universalist sword, and put it out of the way. 
 The plain, common-sense meaning of these Avords is just what they indicate. 
 ( !hrist had taught that the classes of persons mentioned in the three instances 
 were punished ; he shows in the text that the punishment is eternal. 
 
 A.t preliiniiit/]'!/ to the main argument tve may notice that the Jews believed in 
 eternal jnmishment. Josephus, the Jewish historian, says : " The Pharisees held 
 that those who lived viciously in this life would be detained in an everlasting 
 prison, subject to eternal punishment.'' Josejihus himself was a strong believer 
 in the same doctrine. The Alexandrian Jew I'hilo says ; " Men think that death 
 is the end of their troubles, whereas it is only the beginning of tliem. It is the 
 lot of the wicked tiiat they live in death, and sulfer as it were continual death. ' 
 — (F. E., p. 193.) Alger, a Universalist writer, quotes riiilo as saying that the 
 wicked are "banished into the place of the impious until the whole of eternity.'' 
 Again, he says " the Jews seem to agree that the reprobate world would either 
 
11 
 
 be left in the wretched regions of fSheol when the just arose, or else be thrust 
 back after the judgment, to remain there forever."" — (F. E., p. 323.) Dr. Adam 
 Clarke (juotes from Ilabbi Joahanan these words : "1 am going before tae King ot" 
 KingH, the holy and blessed God, who liveth and endureth for ever and ever ; 
 who, if he be angry with me, His anger will last forever , if he put me in prison, 
 his bondage will be everlasting ; if he condemn me to death, that death will be 
 eternal." — (See Matt. 25, 3. These quotations are only a sample of much more 
 to the same effect. 
 
 Canon Farrar endeavours to lessen the force of the Jewish belief in eternal 
 punishmo it by quoting from mode Jews. The oj)inions of modern Jews are ol" 
 no weight. What we re(juire is tne opinion of the Jewish nation in or about 
 our Lord's time. Philo was contemporary with Christ, and Josephus nearly ho. 
 and their testimonies are conclusive as to the belief of the t^mes. From what 
 source did the Jews derive their ideas of eternal punishment ? From David, 
 who said ; " And thou, Solomon, my son, know thou the God of thy father and 
 serve liim with a jierfect heart, and with a willing mind ; for the Lord searcheth 
 all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts ; if thou seek 
 liim, lie will be found of thee ; but if thou forsake Him, he will cast thee o\X 
 foreverP — O Chron., 28:'.),) From Isaiah, who said : " The sinners in Zion an- 
 afraid: fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites, who among us shall dwell 
 with the devouring fire ? Who among us shall dwell with everlading burnings '? ' 
 — (Isaiah, 33:14.) From Daniel, who said : "And many of them that sleep in 
 the dust of the earth shall awake, some t everlasting lite, and some to shame 
 nn^ everlasting conibVo.\\ir — (Daniel 12:" j The teachings of the old Scriptures 
 and the belief of the Jews concur, and loim no mean argument for eternal pun- 
 ishment as held to-day . 
 
 We observe further that the early Christian fathers believed in eternal punishment . 
 Justin Martyr, who nourished in the beginning of the second century, says God 
 shall send the wicked " endued with eternal sensibility into everlasting tirewHli 
 the wicked devils." Again he says, " every one is stej)ping forward into ever- 
 lasting misery or liapj)iness.'' Justin wrote much more to the same effect, ami 
 which we might (piote, if necessary. Barnabas, who lived in the dme of the 
 Apostles, says : «' The way of darkness is crooked and full of cursing ; it is the 
 way of eternal death." Ignatius, who was martyred A.D. 116, speaks in his 
 epistles of " everlasting punishment to tliose who corrupt the Church of God. ' 
 Polycarp speaks of " the eternal fire of God's judgment." Theophilus of Antioch 
 directs attention to the '• eternal jmnishment and eternal prizes of God." Ire- 
 nanis teaches the doom of evil men and wicked spirits in the strongest language, 
 such as "everlasting fire," "everlasting death." Clemens Romanus says: " It" 
 we disobey Christ's commands, nothing shall deliver us from eternal punish- 
 ment." Tertullian taught <• a future judgment and eternal punishment." Augu.— 
 tine, Bishop of Hippo, who lived in the latter i)art of the fourth century, is a 
 well-known believer in the same doctrine . Jukes, in his "Restitution of all 
 Things,"' admits that " the western church, led by his great authority, has gener- 
 ally accepted his view of eternal punishment." — (p. 96.) 
 
 The testimony of the fathers is important in all theological discussion. 
 They were near to apostolic times, and likely to have true conceptions of the 
 dot'trines held by the apostolic college, and proclaimed by them to their fellow- 
 men. That the fathers, as a rule, accepted and taught eternal punishment, is 
 strong presumptive evidence that it was a prominent doctrine of the Church in 
 its first and purest age. The opponents of eternal punishment may refer to 
 Siemens Alexandrinus and Origen as teaching restorationism, but they are the 
 exceptions and i)rove the rule. The historic fact regarding the belief* of the 
 early Church remains untouched. 
 
 We now come to the testimomg of Scripture on this momentous subject. As a final 
 court of appeal it will be found that the sacred word sustains the conclusions of 
 
12 
 
 the courts below, and, while doing bo, strengthens the case, giving it the force of 
 a mathematical demonstration. 
 
 We first notice the class of Scriptures containing the words " eternal " and 
 " everlasting," as applied to the subject in hand. " And these shall go away into 
 everlasting punishment,'' — (Matt. 25:46.) " Depart from me ye cursed into ever- 
 lasting fire." — (Matt. 25:41.^ "Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot otfend thee, cut 
 them off. and cast them from thee ; it is better for thee to enter into life halt or 
 maimed, rather than having two hands or two fe«."tto be cast into everlasting 
 fire." — (Matt. 18:8.) "The Lord Jesus shall bo revealed from heaven with his 
 mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking vengence on them that know not God, and 
 that obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ ; who shall be punished with 
 everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His 
 power." — (2 Thess. 1:7,9.) "He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost 
 hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation." — (Mark 3:29.) 
 " Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like miinner, giving 
 themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an 
 example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." — (Jude 7.) 
 
 I have examined these six passages in the original Greek, and find that the 
 qualifying term or adjective, expressing the duration of the punishment, is the 
 same in every instance . The word iB atonios. Greek lexicons define this word 
 as " eternal, everlasting, unlimited as to duration." Dr. Thayer is compelled to 
 admit (see Theology of Universalism, Chap. XI, p. 339) that Aristotle defines 
 aion as composed of aei and on, signifying " always being." He quotes Aristotle 
 as saying " The infinite time of all things, and the period comprehending that 
 infinity; is aton." — (p. 339.) Dr. Thayer also quotes from Diodorus Siculus, who 
 lived about 44 years before Christ, as saying that <' ton apeiron aiona meang 
 unlimited or indefinite time" — (p. 343.) Says Professor Stewart : "^lora in the New 
 Testament usually means an indefinite, unlimited period of time ; * * * 
 ever, forever, time without end, eternity." Donnegan defines aionios to mean 
 '• of long duration, eternal, lasting, permanent." Dr. A. Clarke says, " the real 
 grammatical meaning of olam and aion is eternal, all other meanings are accom- 
 modated." Liddell and Scott give as a meaning of aion " a long space of time, 
 eternity;" of aionios "lasting, eternal." Wright agrees with Liddell and Scott. 
 From classic Greek then, as well as from learned interpretations of New 
 Testament Greek, we conclude that aion and aionios mean primarily and properly 
 endless duration. The punishment in the texts quoted containing the word 
 aionios, is then eternal. 
 
 Nothing is gained by the objection of Universalists that kolasis, the word in 
 the text translated punishment, means pruning or correction. It may sometimes 
 mep,n this, but not always. The lexicons define it to be '< chastisement, punish- 
 ment, torment." Allowing, for argument's sake, kolasis means correction, the 
 situation is not improved. What is everlasting correction, but everlasting pun- 
 ishment? A poor sinner need fear no worse hell than eternal pruning or chas- 
 tisement. It is quite clear that the adjective governs the noun and determines 
 the duration of the infliction. 
 
 Strong efforts are made hy opponents of eternal punishment to weaken the 
 force of the argument from aionios by saying that it is sometimes applied to 
 things that cannot be eternal, and they jump to the extraordinary conclusion 
 that because it may not always mean eternal duration, it cannot mean so in any 
 case. Dr. Thayer, Mr. A. C. Thomas, Mr. Jukes, and others, spend much strength 
 for naught in this direction. Says Eev, Marshall Handles : " It were as cogent 
 to argue that because < god ' sometimes denotes a 1 nite being, therefore it does so 
 when applied to Jehovah ; or that the heaven which Peter says saints are to 
 inherit, means the firmament, because that is meant by the same word when the 
 apostle speaks of ' the fowls of heaven ;' or that ' life ' means brute life in all 
 cases because it has that meaning in some cases." — (For Ever, p. 28.) It is 
 
13 
 
 worthy of remark that both Mr. Jukes and Dr. Thayer seem to take pleasure in 
 referring principally to Old Testament adjectives expressive of duration, rather 
 than to t)ie New Testament. The reason is obvious. As eternal punishment is 
 more especially a New Testament revelation, they had a better opportunity to 
 kindle a tire, compass themselves about with sparks, and dazzle the eyes of the 
 unwary. This great question can only oe sei'led on New Testament authority. 
 
 I find, from a careful examination of "Gall's luterpretiug Concordance of 
 the New Testament," that aion is translated forever twenty-cight times, forever 
 and ever twenty times, never five times, evermore three tim>js, eternal twice ; and 
 that in every instance it means endless duration. Aion is tr:inslated world thirty- 
 seven times. In quite a number of instances it means the moral and intelligent 
 world, and suggests man's immortality or endless existence. Where the word 
 describes a period of time, it has an exceptional and accommodated meaning, 
 which supposes the true and original. Where it may mean the material world, 
 it presents no difficulty. It would puzzle our opponents to prove that the 
 matter of our earth may not be everlasting in some form, not inherently, but by 
 the will of the Creator. It is worthy of note that the word usually translated 
 world is kosmos, and not aion, the use of the latter word in this connection is the 
 exception, and not the rule. 
 
 Says Joseph Cook : " Aionios is used sixty-six times in the New Testament. 
 In fifty-one cases it is used to express the happiness of the righteous ; twice to 
 express the duration of God's attributes ; six where it certainly denotes eternal 
 duration. In the remaining seven instances it refers to the death of the wicked. 
 It should be interpreted in the seven instances as it is in the fifty-nine.' 
 
 We sum up as follows : Inasmuch as aion in many places is used to describe 
 the eternity of God and Christ ; aionios to describe the eternity of God and the 
 Holy Spirit, in fifty-one places the happiness of the righteous, and in seven 
 places the duration of future punishment ; the conclusion is inevitable — what 
 aionios teaches in regard to God and lieaven, it declares respecting hell, and, 
 therefore, eternal punishment is a doctrine of the bible. Deny eternal punish- 
 ment, and you deny an eternal heaven and an eternal God. 
 
 We shall now consider several passages containing the Greek word asbestos, 
 or unquenchable, as applied to hell fire. " Whose fan is in his hand, and he will 
 thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner ; but he will 
 burn up the chaff with u/iquenchable fire." — (Matt. 3:12.) This text is repeated by 
 St. Luke. (See Luke 3:17.) " And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off; it is better 
 for thee to enter into life maimed than having two hands to go into hell, into 
 the fire that never shall be quenched ; where the worm dieth not, and the fire is 
 not quenched. And if thy foot offend tliee, cut it off; it is better for thee to 
 enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that 
 never shall be quenched ; where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 
 And if thine eye oft'end thee, pluck it out ; it is better for thee to enter into the 
 Kingdom of God with one eye than, having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire 
 {geennan iou puros) ; where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.' — 
 (Mark 9:43-48.) 
 
 Says Mr. Randies : " That a fearful doom, and not a remedial purgation, was 
 under contemplation, appears from its comparison with a millstone hanged 
 about the neck, and cast into the sea." The word translated '' hell " is gehenna, 
 and is the Greek form of the Hebrew words Gee Ilinnom, or valley of Hinnom. 
 Into this valley ••"as thrown all the filth of Jerusalem, carcases of dead animals, 
 &c. To prevent the pollution of the air, fires were kept constantly burning. In 
 the Jewish mind this valley was associated with everything that was loathsome 
 and appalling, and our Lord used it to represent the place of future retribution. 
 A reference more expressive could not have been made. 
 
 Opponents of eternal retribution try to make it appear that our Lord meant 
 the literal valley of Hinnom as a place of punishment, and nothing more. This 
 
u 
 
 will be 8C0U to be entirely unfoxinded from three considerations. St. James, 
 .speaking of the tongue, says : " It setteth on fire the course of nature, and is set 
 on i'lTG of ffc henna." Now the biiman tongue coiild not be set on fire by the 
 valley of Hinnora fire in the >cn8e of the Apostle ; he can only mean the gehenna 
 of which the valley of Hinnom was the type. Then the Saviour tells his dis- 
 ciples not to fear " them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul ; 
 l>ut rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in gehenna^ — 
 (Mat. 10:28.) It is obvious the soul could not be destroyed in the valley of 
 Hinnom fire ; the Saviour must, tlierefore, have referred to the place of future 
 retribution. Then the valley of Hinnom fire has long since gone out, but the 
 fire of our Lord's discourse is unquenchable. The word asbestos literally means 
 inextinguishable, unquenchable. It may be said Greek writers use this word 
 respecting martyr fires, the fue of the temple, &c., which have long since gone 
 out. That proves nothing regarding its New Testament use. It cannot be made 
 dear that Christ employed asbestos in any qualified sense. Universalists admit 
 the word means unquenchable, and until they can prove that our Lord attached 
 to it a limited meaning, their objections amount to nothing. 
 
 From the foregoing Scriptures, then, we further gather the doctrine of eter- 
 nal punishment. As we inquire, the awful truth comes upon us with increased 
 power — power sufficient to carry conviction to every unprejudiced mind. The 
 word gehenna occurs twelve times in the New Testament, and in every case 
 means the prison of the lost. This word proves the existence of a hell, and the 
 word asbestos, unquenchable, proves its eternity. 
 
 We pass to notice other Scriptures teaching the same tremendous doctrine. 
 "And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever, and they have 
 no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever 
 receiveth the mark of his name." — (Rev. 14:11.) Here the Greek translated for 
 ever and ever is to ages of ages. What is this but true and proper eternity. 
 Again we read, " For true and righteous are His judgments ; for he hath judged 
 the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath 
 avenged the blood of His servants at her hand. And again they said Alleluia. 
 And her smoke rose up forever and ever." — (Rev. 19:2,3.) Here the Greek trans- 
 lated for ever and ever is to the ages of the ages, a strong expression for eternity . 
 Once more, « And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and 
 brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day 
 and night for ever." — (Rev. 20:10.) Here again the Greek translated forever 
 and ever is to the ages of the ages. 
 
 We might remark here that the use of the words day and night is to accom- 
 modate the utterances to our ideas ot ceaseless suffering. There is no day in 
 perdition, it is everlasting night. The devil's punishment referred to in the 
 text last quoted is to be shared by the wicked ; they are to go to the place " pre- 
 pared for the devil and his angels." Then I may say that the same form of ex- 
 pression, " to the ages of the ages," is used in several places to describe the reign 
 and glory of God, and the reign of the saints in heaven. (See Rev. 11:15, 7:12, 
 5:13; 1 Peter 4:11, 5:11; 1 Tim. 1:17; Heb. 13:21; Gal. 1:5; Rev. 22;6, and 
 many other passages.) This fixes the meaning of the phrase. As "to the ages 
 of the ages " means the eternity of God, His glory, and the blessedness of the 
 saved, we can only conclude it means, when applied to the torment of the lost, 
 precisely the same . Here again we prove eternal punishment to be a doctrine 
 of the Bible. The duration of God, of his glory, of heavenly joy, is the duration 
 of punishment in hell. 
 
 Thus then from the belief of the Jews previous to, and in the days of, our 
 Lord, the evidence of the early Christian fathers, and the direct testimony of 
 Scripture as found in over one hundred and twenty texts, we prove eternal pun- 
 ishment. We have not taken every passage that might be pressed into the 
 service ; we leave them to future discourses. Eternal punishment is as fully 
 
15 
 
 revealed in the New Testament as any other doctrine of Cliristianity ; it is not 
 our business to find fault, but to believe. If we are prejudiced a.q-ainst this truth 
 it is our duty to rise above it. Let us be honest with ourselves, with the future 
 and with God. To resist conviction is to f,a't on the high ro.ad to ruin ; there is 
 nothing for such a man but the blackness of darkness forever. Let us rather 
 accept the truth, however unpalatable it may be, and make it our guide throu"-h 
 life, and into the future world. 
 
 The doctrine of eternal punishment overthrows the theory of the Antiihila- 
 tionists. They believe God will punish the wicked, l)ut that the ptmishment 
 will be a single stroke, and result in extinction of being. Every argument ad- 
 vanced tells against this supposition. God will strike, but he wilf strike for 
 ever. 
 
 Paternal punishment overthrows the theory of the Restorationists. I shall 
 not discuss this theory here, I shall leave it to the proper place and time. From 
 the reasonings presented you can judge of the baselessness of the assumption . 
 Universal salvation is not a doctrine of the Bible ; on the contrary it teaches 
 that some will perish in the •' eternal fire." 
 
 I have now to say we can all escape eternal punishment. There is an 
 awful death in the future, but to save us from this Christ suffered the awful 
 death of the cross. The Queen has many prisons in her empire ; but we are not 
 to conclude from that fact that she wishes her subjects to inhabit them. Thev 
 are only for those who will be criminal. Hell is prepared only for the persever- 
 Ingly neglectful and wicked. God does not wish you to enter his prison ; He 
 offers you heaven, happiness, glory eternal. If you go down to perdition,' you 
 "will do 80 in opposition to God's will and purpose. Ask the Lord to save you 
 and he will. Have done with sin, give Him your affection, jour willing, life-long 
 service ; say in this hour, " Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel and after"^ 
 ward receive me to glory." 
 
Sermon III. 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO ETERNAL PUNISHMENT. 
 " And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die." — (Gen. 3:4.) 
 
 These are not the words of God, nor of an angel of light, nor of a man, they 
 are the words of the devil, who appeared in Eden in the form of a serpent. His 
 business there was to effect the ruin of the innocent and exalted pair whom God 
 had created in his own image. It is reasonable to suppose that the moving im- 
 pulse of Satan's attempt upon the rectitude and happiness of Adam and Eve was 
 intense hatred of all moral excellence, and a desire to strike a blow at the pur- 
 poses and sovereignty of God — that God who had driven him from heaven, and 
 consigned him to his own place. The serpent proceeded about his work with 
 characteristic subtlety. He first asked a question, "Yea, hath God said, ye shall 
 not eat of every tree of the Garden ?" On receiving the woman's answer that 
 they were not to eat of the tree in the " midst of the garden " on pain of death, 
 he uttered the first falsehood on record, " And the serpent said unto the woman, 
 Ye shall not surely die." Here Satan shows himself to be the father of lies. He 
 flatly contradicts the declaration of the Almighty ; the woman believes him, and 
 falls into sin and condemnation. 
 
 The same leading principles that governed the divine administration in the 
 case of the first human pair, direct God's dealings with man to-day . God said to 
 original man, " Do this and live; fail to do this and die." So he speaks to us. 
 Salvation is procured for every man, but its practical application is suspended 
 upon the fulfilment of certain conditions, which are '< repentance toward God, 
 and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." — (Acts 20:21.) On compliance with these 
 conditions any man during his probationary life can be saved ; wilful indifference, 
 open neglect, and studied contempt in this life, are followed by everlasting 
 punishment in the world to come. Such is the clear and uniform teaching of 
 the word of God. 
 
 I have chosen the words of the serpent as presenting a case somewhat analo- 
 gous to that of the opponent of eternal punishment. Satan of old cried, " Ye 
 shall not surely die," and men to-day say the same thing when they decry eter- 
 nal retribution, and represent heaven as sure to the entire race at some future 
 period. The belief of the ancient falsehood led to a temporal death, multiplied 
 sorrows, and the exposure of the parties to death everlasting ; the belief of the 
 modern falsehood does, as a matter of fact, produce contempt for the claims of 
 real religion, a desire for the pleasures of sin, and an unscriptural, vicious hope 
 for the future. Paul speaks of certain persons who receive "not the love of the 
 truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong 
 delusion, that they should believe a lie." — (2 Thess. 2:10, 11.) The text contains 
 the spirit of most of the objections to eternal punishment. Our task is to show 
 the unfounded and misleading nature of the appeal. 
 
 We shall look first sit objections founded, as alleged, upon the Scriptures . 
 All interpretations of passages teaching universal salvation are so many objec- 
 tions to the doctrine we hold, and which we believe to be the truth of God. A 
 great deal is attempted to be made out of the promise to Abraham . God said, 
 " And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy 
 name great ; and thou shalt be a blessing. And I will bless them that bless 
 thee, and curse him that curseth thee ; and in thee shall all families of the earth 
 be blessed." — (Gen. 12:2, 3.) This is repeated in Gen. 22:17, with this variation, 
 
17 
 
 "And in thy seed shall nil the n.ations of the earth be blessed.' It is concluded 
 by Universalists that because God told Abraham all nations should be blessed 
 in his seed, therefore all mankind will be saved. Only men in search of props 
 for a system could draw such a conclusion from such premises. The promise 
 says nothing of universal salvation, it speaks only of universal redemption. The 
 promise in regard to the "great nation" was fulfilled in the Hebrew people. 
 By Abraham's seed Christ is meant. He was "of the seed of Abraham," and by 
 the blessing upon "all nations" through the seed, is meant the benefits accruing 
 to universal man through the atonement. When we think of our race as doomed 
 to perish Avithout Christ, we can form some idea of the greatnt is of the blessing 
 which places heaven within the reach of all. Men may all be saved, but all will 
 not come to Christ that they «' might have life." Another text generally 
 put, as Rev. N. D. George says, "in blazing capitals or significant italics," 
 is: "And so all Israel shall be saved.'' — (Rom. 11:26.) Yes, all Israel; 
 but who are Israel ? Are licentious, dishonest men, haters of God, " men 
 without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful," are they Israel '? Paul 
 says " All are not Isrnel that are of Israel." Ho says nothing about uni- 
 versal salvation ; he states that God's spiritual Israel shall be saved, and 
 this no man of reason will for a moment doubt. Another text used is, " For 
 he that is dead is freed from sin" (Rom. 6:7), and therefore all the dead are 
 saved. Taking the Universalist interpretation of these words, a man dying of 
 drunkenness or suicide is freed from sin, and therefore saved. Ahab, Jezebel, 
 Judas Iscariot, Nero, the apostate Julian, Tom Payne, are all saved. Says Russell 
 « Persons are said to be dead in several senses. A person is dead when the con- 
 nection between the body and soul is dissolved ; at other times a person is said 
 in scripture language to be dead when his soul has lost the favor of God ; and 
 at other times a person is said to be dead who is crucified to the world, and the 
 world to him." The text quoted refers to the latter death, as will be seen by 
 noting its connection. Paul's subject in this chapter (Rom. 6) is death to sin and 
 life in Christ. He says : «' Knowing this that our old man is crucified (put to 
 death) with him, that the body of sin might be destroj^^d, that henceforth we 
 should not serve sin. For he that is dead (thus dead) is freed from sin. ♦ ♦ • 
 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto 
 God," He also asks " How shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein ?" 
 Again, he said to living men, " Ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in 
 God.'' — (Col. 3, 3.) The text we are explaining, therefore, offers no support to 
 Universalism. It simply shows the state of a Christian in this world who has 
 given up all for Christ. Another passage put forward is " For I will not contend 
 forever, neither will I be always wroth ; for the spirit should fail before me, and 
 the souls which I have made." — (Isaiah 57:16.) These words are dishonestly 
 cut off from their context. Read the whole declaration from the 1,5 th verse: 
 "For thus saith the high and lofty one. &c." Here you learn that it is in refer- 
 ence to the "contrite and humble spirit," that God says "he will not contend 
 forever," he will not '• be always wroth." This is the Gospel. While God says 
 so to the contrite, He says : " There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked.'' 
 This text, then, taken as a proof that punishment is not eternal, is not at all to 
 the purpose. It is just a glaring perversion of the word of God. We take 
 another passage ; " And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached 
 unto you, whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all 
 things." The word all in a text of scripture is sufficient to convince Univer- 
 salists that it means the salvation of all men. This text is thought of such 
 importance that Mr. Jukes has taken from it the title of his book on Restora- 
 tionism. Says Rev. N. D. George, •< The very point in debate is assumed, viz. : 
 that the restitution of all things means the salvation of all our race in eternity, 
 fey the restitution of all things is to be understood the restoration of all things 
 which will ever be restored in this world." Christ said to His disciples that 
 
18 
 
 " Elias (John the Baptist) truly shall first come and restore all things.'" — (Matt. 
 17:11.) If to restore all things mean the salvation of all men, as Universalists 
 would have it, then all mankind were saved in the days of John the Baptist, 
 The text teaches that after the restitution of all things Christ will come, that 
 is after the gospel is preached to every creature. So far is Peter from teaching 
 universal salvation that he declares that '« every soul which will not hear that 
 prophet (Christ) shall he destroyed from among the people." 1'he Universalist 
 interpretation of this passage therefore hopelessly hreaks down ; it simply means 
 the universal spread of the Christian dispensation, and has no reference to the 
 salvation of all. Such scriptures as " And I if I be lifted up from the earth will 
 draw all unto me, (John 12:32) and " For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ 
 shall all be made alive, (1 Cor. 15:22) are bulwarks of the Universalist faith. 
 Now such texts are fulfilled in universal childhood, made members of the church 
 of God through the unconditional benefits of the atonement. It is a fact that 
 universal childhood is drawn to and made alive in Christ, and if all men died in 
 infancy all would be saved. The texts only agree with other scriptures in this 
 sense. We now take two passages together : " 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." — (Ephes. 1:10.) "And 
 having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all 
 things unto himself" — (Col. 1:20.) There is nothing here about the salvation 
 of all men ; these passages simply express God's purpose. The apostle 
 speaks in the context of that, " which he hath purposed in himself" It is God's 
 purpose to gather, to reconcile all ; but man resists the designs of God, hence 
 the loss of many souls. One more text : " That at the name of Jesus every knee 
 should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the 
 earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the 
 .doryof God the Father,"— (Phil. 2:10, 11 ; Isaiah 45:23; Rom. 14:11.) This pas- 
 sage is one of several, as indicated by the references, upon which the theory of 
 universal salvation is built ; but it is no more here than elsewhere. These 
 scriptiu'es simply teach the final victory of Christ, over his people by his love, 
 over his enemies by his irresistible power. All knees will bow to him, all 
 tongues confess, but in the case of the wicked, unwillingly ; they will be com- 
 pelled to do that which they would not do. The devils confessed Christ in the 
 days of his flesh, — (Luke 4:33-41.) If all that confess Christ are to be saved, 
 then the confessing devils are saved. 
 
 The foregoing are samples of the Universalist method of dealing with the 
 Scriptures. I could give many more, but the limits of a single sermon will not 
 permit. By attempted critical examinations of the original tongues ; by leaving 
 out words in italics when it suits, and leaving others in ; by a wholesale system 
 of wresting and perversion, they give their scheme the semblance of plausibility. 
 In the last chapter of Revelation an awful curse is pronounced against those 
 who add to, or take from, the word of God, but these men fear nothing in their 
 zeal against orthodox Christianity. I am free to say, without fear of contradic- 
 tion, that there is not a text in all the Bible that teaches Universalism ; on the 
 contrary, they all set forth the commonly received doctrine. You can judge of 
 the weight of Universalist objections to eternal punishment as drawn from 
 scripture. Touched by the Ithuriel spear of an honest examination, they lose 
 their fine covering, and, as Milton says of Satan in Paradise, " Up they start, 
 discovered and surprised." 
 
 Let us now look at objections drawn from the character of God. Our 
 opponents never tire of shouting " God is love !'' But while they take special 
 pains to hold up this glorious truth, they ignore the great fact that God is just. 
 Universalism declares that because God is love, therefore mankind will be finally 
 saved. There is no more reasonableness in this than in supposing that because 
 a man is a loving father, all his children will escape crime, the prison and the 
 
19 
 
 gallows, and attain to virtue and honor. Your love may wi^h this, but it cannot 
 compel it ; neither can the love of God compel men to be saved. The moment 
 love steps beyond its sphere it ceases to be love, it is tyranny. The whole struc- 
 ture of Universalism is built upon a monstrous, one-sided representation of 
 the divine nature. To hear the advocates of this theory you would suppoie 
 that love was not an attribute of God, but that it constituted God Himself, that 
 love is God. As Rev. N. D. George puts it, you could construct any number of 
 Gods on this basis. It is said " God is light," " God is a spirit," and that he is a 
 '•just God,' and "the mighty one of Israel." Taking every perfection of God, 
 iis God, we could manufacture deities enough to rival the heathens of distant 
 lands. We can take no one attribute of Deity and say it is God ; it is simply 
 untrue. The divine nature consists of a harmonious combination of moral 
 qualities, neither of which is God, but all of which constitute God. 
 
 Our opponents object to eternal punishment on the ground " that it is con- 
 trary to the goodness of God." They say, " No truly benevolent being could see 
 his creatures suffer forever." The same objection will apply to all suffering. If 
 this statement has anything in it then God is too benevolent to permit pain or 
 sorrow of any kind or degree. Taking the Universalist view of the divine 
 goodness, then there can be no such thing as evil ; there were no such judgments 
 us the deluge, the overthrow of the cities of the plain, the deitruction of the 
 Egyptians in the Red Sea, the captivities of the Israelites, the destruction of 
 Jerusalem! God was too good to permit such things. Then there are no 
 famines, plagues, shipwTCcks, wars, wasting diseases, accidents, and death to-day ! 
 God is too good to allow his creatures to be afflicted. 8uch are the absurdities 
 into which our opponents would lead us. Is it a fact that all these evils, extend- 
 ing over a period of nearly G,000 years, have fallen upon God's creature, man, in 
 the face of the divine goodness? It is. If, then, God's benevolence can permit 
 suffering, much of which was inflicted by himself, to last so long, he may allow 
 it to continue for ever. No argument can be drawn from divine goodness to 
 prove the contrary. 
 
 We may here observe that eternal punishment may be an effect of divine 
 goodness. Suppose a punishment penal to the sufferers, and exemplary to others ; 
 as an example it is an outcome of goodness. This idea was in the apostle's 
 mind when he wrote of Sodom and Gomorrah, who " are set forth for an example, 
 suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." So says Rev. Marshall Randies. Thf 
 appointment of such a penalty as a deterrent force, the ftiithful announcement 
 of its existence to the world, and the making of a tuU provision to escape it, are 
 developments of essential goodness. It may be said that fear is a false motive 
 to which to appeal. This is taking for granted what ought to be proved. The 
 scriptures clearly appeal to human fear. In God's dealings with the Israelites, 
 he constantly worked upon their fear of retribution for sin ; and St. Paul says, 
 "knowing therefore the terror of the Lord we persuade men." — (2 Cor. 5:11). 
 Shall man be wiser than God ? As a being of absolute goodness, " God must of 
 necessity punish sin, not only to uphold the majesty of his law, but to preserve 
 the universe from its ravages.'' He has told us that punishment is everlasting, 
 and we may rest assured there are reasons why it should be so, some of which 
 appear to our finite minds, others are hid in the counsels of eternity. 
 
 Opponents of eternal punishment take as much trouble to ignore the justice 
 of God as they do to exalt his goodness. Now God works in harmony with him- 
 self. We believe in the story of the angels' fall, their expulsion from heaven, 
 and the glorification of God's justice as displayed in their punishment. We 
 believe in Christ as a vicarious sacrifice for human sin, having borne the Father's 
 wrath, and thus satisfied the claims of justice, and asserted its integrity. These 
 articles of our faith are based upon the Scriptures. With such displays of divine 
 justice in the past, we are i)repared for further unfoldings in the future. Tbe 
 Miath of God is a factor in the development of his plans, and the government of 
 
20 
 
 the universe. Its manifestation in the endless punishment of the wicked will 
 show God's abhorrence of sin . The glory of God's power, wisdom and love 
 shall shine for ever, and we have just as much reason to conclude that the glory 
 of his justice will be everlasting. 
 
 We now consider some objections drawn from human sympathy. It is truly 
 said that " the sympathies of human nature can never be a just rule by which to 
 determine what is right in the divine government. The son of a governor of 
 Kentucky was clearly convicted of murder, but was saved from the gallows by a 
 pardon from his father, which it is evident he would have withheld from another 
 man under the same circumstances. Here paternal sympathy was not only 
 arrayed against justice, but also against mercy ; for this murderer was suffered 
 to go at large, and took the life of another man.' — (Universalism not of th'; 
 Bible, p. 44.) Human sympathy is capricious, interested, often more a matter 
 of passion than reason: yet by such a standard Universalists would judge the 
 procedure of the Almighty. 
 
 It is said " there is no proportion between sin for a lifetime, and an eternal 
 penalty." This objection excites human sympathy in regard to the injustice 
 complained of. But objectors lose sight of the fact that sin is an infinite evil . 
 Tf we look at sin objectively, it is committed against an infinite being. In this 
 world crime is measured by its object. The murder of a fellow man is a crime ; 
 but the murder of a father or mother is of a deeper dye, and while in the former 
 case there may be extenuating circumstances, in the latter there can be none. A 
 murder brings the penalty of imprisonment for a lifetime, though the act was 
 done in a moment. Here the argument from disproportion will apply. If this 
 fipecial plea means anything, it sets up a standard for judicial procedure on the 
 basis of penalties being equal in duration to the time taken in perpetrating the 
 offence — a principle nowhere recognized, and which would be in every sense 
 opposed to the administration of justice. Taking the objection as it stands, we 
 contend there is proportion between sin and its everlasting penalty, because 
 committed against an infinite being. Then for aught Universalists can prove 
 to the contrary, sin may have an infinite range or effect. A thought may arise 
 in a boy's mind, producing consequences to nimself and others never ending. 
 A sinner in time accepts the gospel, and the effect stretches into the future for- 
 ever. It is just as conceivable that sin, though committed by a finite being, may 
 have an interminable consequence, and demand everlasting punishment. — (See 
 For Ever, p. 81.) 
 
 It is further objected to eternal pimishmcnt that it " involves the uncon- 
 ditional and eternal destruction of millions of infants, idiots, maniacs arid 
 heathens." We simply reply it involves nothing of the kind, and our Univer- 
 salist objectors know it. This is a shining specimen of many attempts to foist 
 upon Christianity and her doctrines tlie foul imaginations of men of corrupt 
 minds, reprobate concerning the faith. Christianity has survived such inflictions, 
 and will survive. What can be thought of a system that lives by bearing such 
 false witness ? If it were of God, it would live without resorting to such 
 methods ; they would not be necessary to its existence. Christianity teaches 
 the salvation of all infants through the atonement of Christ ; of all idiots on the 
 ground of their irresponsibility ; of all maniacs, as such ; of all the heathen who 
 will be obedient to " the law written in their hearts,'' and manifested by the 
 light of nature. That many of the heathen will perish there can be no doubt, 
 but not of necessity ; their situation does not preclude salvation. " In every 
 nation he that feareth God, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." — 
 (Acts 10:3.5.) Thus we dispose of this ghastly caricature in the shape of an ob- 
 jection. We are not chargeable with the narrow views of men on these points. 
 Arminianism gives no uncertain sound as to the possibilities in the cases 
 mentioned. 
 
21 
 
 It is also objected that eternal punishment " supposes the loss of all but a 
 remnant of our race." This is a further indication that truth with our opponents 
 is stranger than fiction . It is computed that one-half of our race die before 
 reaching the age of responsibility, of whose salvation we are assured. Then God 
 has al ways had a people among the adult classes. There were seven thousand 
 men in Israel who had not bowed the knee to Baal ; and there are more disciples 
 of Christ abroad to-day than many think. Then if we refer to all who obtain 
 mercy in a dying hour, the situation is anything but what Universalists picture 
 it. We believe in the salvation of the majority of mankind. In the great con- 
 test between evil and good the victory will be with Christ, whose is " the king- 
 dom, and the power, and the glory."' 
 
 It is further objected to eternal punishment that •' if the doctrine be true all 
 heaven must be filled with sympathetic woe." We are asked, " Could the saved 
 be happy knowing that relatives and friends were sufiering endless piiin ?' The 
 question proceeds upon the assumption that earthly relationship will form a 
 feature of the heavenly world, than which nothing can be more unfounded. Tin; 
 idea is as old as the days of Christ. The Sadducees came to Him on one occa- 
 sion putting a question about a woman who had seven husbands, asking Avhosu 
 wife she should be in the resurrection . " Jesus answered and said unto them, 
 Ye do eiT, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resur- 
 rection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of 
 God in heaven." — (Mat. 22:29, 30.) Christ teaches plainly that earthly ties ary 
 unknown in heaven. There will be neither father nor mother, husband nor wife, 
 brother nor sister, known in the resurrection, the immortal state ; we shall know 
 no more about these things than the angels. The assumption being contrary to 
 fact, the objection falls, as sp many other creations of a disordered brain have 
 fallen. Such impassioned appeals may influence silly people ; but have no 
 weight with well balanced minds. On the principle of this objection Abraham 
 and Luzarus ought to have been filled with sorrow as they saw Dives, one of 
 their nation, and a son of Abraham, in hell. They ought to have shrieked and 
 become frantic, until the lost man was brought across the gulf, but there is no 
 evidence of this. Lazarus was comforted in Abraham's bosom, the loss of the 
 rich man did not affect his happiness. Lazarus illustrates the situation of all 
 the saved. So far from sympathizing with rebels, they will sing, as St. John 
 tells us, "Alleluia!" (Rev. 19:1-6) when the authority of God is vindicated, and 
 his enemies punished. 
 
 It is also objected to eternal punishment that " it tends to make men infidels." 
 This comes with a sorry grace from men who deny the God-head of Jesus Christ, 
 the depravity of the human heart, a vicarious atonement, the freedom of the will, 
 and other leading doctrines of Christianity. The infidelity is in the objection, 
 and with the objectors. The whole opposition to eternal punishment is based 
 upon pure and simple infidelity. It is not a fact that this doctrine makes men 
 infidels. The preaching of the Church has been largely leavened with references 
 to eternal punishment; it has helped to make the world what it is to-day, as 
 regards its civilization and Christian culture. A doctrine that was so mighty iu 
 the hands of Jonathan Edwards and John Wesley in leading sinners to Christ, 
 is no factor in the growth of unbelief. 
 
 I conclude by saying that no really valid objection is brought against eternal 
 punishment. As a truth of God, it stands amid the shot and shell of hostile 
 criticism, faithful in its warnings, awful in its majesty. Listen not, my hearers, 
 to the Syren song, «' Ye shall not surely die ;" there is ruin in those words ; rather 
 believe in the possibility of eternal death, and seek earnestly to shun it. The 
 belief of this truth darkens not the sunny aspect of the Christian life ; it is 
 simply a sombre background throwing into bold«jr outline the matchless love ot 
 Christ. Stand up for the faith once delivered unto (he saints. Strong convictions 
 and faithful testimony are the best cure, humanly speaking, for the skepticism of 
 the day. 
 
Sermon lY. 
 
 UNIVEUSALISM. 
 
 •' But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments 
 of men.'— (Matt. 15:9.) 
 
 The controversy between human tradition and the commandments of God 
 is not new, it dates back to the days of Christ. In the context we are told the 
 Scrilies and Pharisees came to our Lord asking why his disciples transgressed the 
 tradition of the elders? Jesus met them by asking why i) ransgressed the 
 commandment of God by their tradition? After adduci' .astances in which 
 they did so, he applied to them a prediction of the prophet Isaiah, " This people 
 draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips ; but 
 tlieir heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doc- 
 trines the commandments of men.' 
 
 It is said by the wise man that "there is no new thing under the sun," and 
 if the aspects of life to-day prove anything, they verify the statement. The 
 exaltation of tradition above divine law was an offence of which the Scribes and 
 Pharisees were known to be guilty, and before 1 get through 1 shall be able to 
 show that this class of men live in their successors and followers of the pre- 
 sent time. It is doubtful if many in this congregation know to what an 
 extent Universalism makes void the commandment of God by its tradition. As 
 a faithful puljlic servant it is my duty to lay before you the facts, that you may 
 Judge wisely. Here I wish distinctly to state that I am not contending with 
 individual men, but with a system, in my judgment, built upon an infidel basis, 
 and in its influence only injurious to the lives and souls of men. Nothing but 
 a strong conviction of the imperative necessities of the hour could prompt me 
 to enter upon this lino of discussion. I have a duty to perform ; I leave results 
 with God. 
 
 I have Jirst to ahw that Universalism teaches for doctrines the commandments of 
 men. I shall not trille with you by presenting hearsay evidence, which in reality 
 is no evidence at all. I take the standard works of the Universalist body, writ- 
 ten by their leading men, and given to the world by their publishing houses. In 
 two volumes which lie before me, there are the deliverances of no less than four- 
 teen Universalist ministers. One of these books was published in 1862, and the 
 other in 1878, and in their teaching substantially agree. 
 
 Universalism rejects the doctrine of a Trinity of persons in the Godhead. In 
 this respect, as in others, it is one with Unitarianism. In "The Latest Word of 
 iJniversalism," Dr. Gaines opens an essay on " The Divine Nature and Pro- 
 cedure,'' by observing, " To us there is but one God, the Father." Throughout 
 the article all reference to a Trinity is ignored. Dr. Thayer, in his ''Theology of 
 Universalism ' (see introduction p. 12), quotes from Channing, a noted Unita- 
 rian, a description of God, and says, <« This is essentially the theology of Univer- 
 salism."' In his first chapter on " God, His Attributes," the same dectriue is 
 taught. The God of Universalism consists of one person — the Father. 
 
 Universalism repudiates the Godhead of our Lord Jesus Christ. It holds 
 up the Saviour as the highest style of man ; but nothing more. Rev. J. Smith 
 Dodge speaks of him as "the unique man," of God's jmrpose being revealed in 
 " a human life," of Christ's as "derived " fro " the underived." — (See L. W. U., 
 p. 71-72.) Dr. Thayer declares " While we believe in, and rejoicingly acknow- 
 ledge, the pre-eminence of Christ in all things, we reject the doctrine of His 
 
Jo 
 
 deity, or His equality with God." The learned doctor then enters upon a ciiticism 
 of texts cited to prove th'^ Trinity, and after disposing of thena in characteristic 
 8tyle, tries to gather '• Scriptural proofs against the Deity of Christ ;" and wind** 
 up by saying <' The whole tenoi and drift of the New Testament is to the point 
 that Christ is inferior to God, who alone is eternal, infinite and supreme ; and 
 that such are the grounds on which we reject the doctrine of the Trinity and 
 affirm that God is one only. '— (T. U., p. 108.) 
 
 It will be seen that by the rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity, and the 
 assertion that God is one, the Holy Spirit is reduced to the level of a creature or 
 an influence. Universalists may call Him the •' Holy Spirit of Grace," but th« 
 w ords can only mean holy influence of grace ; Scripture language may be em- 
 ployed, but in an accommodated sense. 
 
 It is difficult to see how Universalists can regard Christ as pre-eminent in 
 all things, and the highest style of man, on their theory that He is a created 
 being. Ho certainly claimed to be God. He said, " I and My Father are one." — 
 (John 10:30.) "And now, Father, glorify thou Me with thine own self, with the 
 glory which I had with Thee before the world was.'" — (John 17:5.) Fancy a mere 
 creature asking God to glorify him with Himself! When our Lord appeared to 
 John in Patmos, He said, ''1 am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end- 
 ing, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the 
 Almighty." — (Ilev. 1:8.) On the supposition I am noticing, these and oth'^r 
 Scriptures teach what is imtrue, and Christ was an impostor. Then on the Uni- 
 versalist theory the inspired writers teach false doctrine. St. John says '-the 
 word ■^">s God, * * * and the word was made flesh." — (John T:l-14.) Paul 
 says, "God was manifest in the flesh.' — (I Tim. 3:10.) "Christ came, who is God 
 overall blessed forever.'' — (Rom. 9:5 ) "Who beingin theformof God thought it 
 not robbery to be equal with God." — (Phil. 2:6.) " But unto the Son He saith, 
 Thy throne O God is forever and ever." — (Heb. 1:8.) The attributes of the Deity 
 are ascribed to Christ — eternity, immutability, omnipresence, omniscience, 
 omnipotence, &c. The Holy Ghost is also called God ; the attributes of Deity 
 are ascribed to him in common with the Saviour ; and all necessary intimations 
 given that He is truly and properly Divine. — (See Acts 5:3-4 ; Heb. 9.14 ; Isaiah 
 11:2 ; Psalm 1397; 1 Cor. 2:10). 
 
 In rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity ; in reducing Christ and the Holy 
 Spirit to the level of creatures, or a creature and an influence, Universalism stul- 
 tifies itself, and teaches " for doctrines the commandments of men." We can 
 hope but little from a system that rears itself upon such a basis ; we may expect 
 as we examine to discover much more equally startling and inimical to the 
 interests of true religion, opposed to the belief of the general Church, and 
 which, if true, would reduce Christianity to a scries of conflicting and mutually 
 destructive elements. 
 
 We observe further, Universalism rejects the doctrine of human depravity. 
 Hear Dr. Thayer : '• The plain doctrine of Scripture, direct and inferential, is that 
 of the entire rectitude of numan nature. Every mortal brought into existence is 
 placed on the same moral level with Adam and Eve, equally innocent and pure, 
 hindered in nothing more than they were, having the same moral qualities and 
 unimpaired faculties, the same ability to reject evil and choose good."— -(T. U., p. 
 152.) Rev. J. H. Tuttlo, D.D., says : "Sin dwells in human nature, but it is no 
 part of its organism." He also asks, " Does not human nature love moral clean- 
 ness ?"— (L. W. U., p. 42-43.) Dr. Thayer speaks of " the monstrous doctrines of 
 inherited corruption, original sin, total depravity, and the whole horrid brood to 
 which they have given birth." — iT. U., p. 148.) We might extend these quota- 
 tions at great length if necessary. What is the teaching of these authorized 
 utterances of the Universalist denomination ? Simply this, that transmitted 
 moral corruption is a myth, and ull are born naturally good. All the little 
 children of our homes are under-sized Adams and Eves ; we have only to plant a 
 
24 
 
 garden and put them them there naked to complete the picture. If this theory 
 be true, it is passing strange the world has not heard of many cases of growth up 
 to manhood retaining this natural goodness, expanding in it, and standing like 
 Saul above their fellows ! The best of men have mourned their inherited evil. 
 A cursory glance at the Scriptures will show that this doctrine is a command- 
 ment of men ; that original sin and total depravity are truths of the Bible. 
 " And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every 
 imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." — (Gen. 6:5 . ) 
 " The wicked arc estranged from the womb ; they go astray as soon as they be 
 born speaking lies." — CPsalm 58:3.) " Behold I was shapen in iniquity ; and in 
 sin (lid my mother conceive me." — (Psalm 51:5.) "And were by nature the 
 children of wrath, even as others." — (Ephes. 2:4.) " The natural man receiveth 
 not the things of the Spirit of God." — (,1 Cor. 2:14.) If these passages are true, 
 then the Universalist doctrine, human innocence, is a fable, 
 
 Universalism also rejects the doctrine of man's free agency. Say^ Dr- 
 Thayer : " There is no form which opposition to the great truth of universal 
 reconciliation takes, indicative of such entire ignorance of the nature of man, of 
 the philosophy of the human affections, as that which so persistently sets np 
 against it the doctrine of free agency, and argues from it that God will not com- 
 pel men to be saved, will not force them into heaven." — (T. U., p. 54.) It will be 
 gathered from these words that our learned friend has a cordial hatred of free 
 agency. It is one of those awkward things that come so inconveniently in the 
 way of one's pet schemes, and which, failing to find argument to overthrow, must 
 be visited by the tlumdcrs of our denunciation. Like a true Universalist 
 Nemesis, oiir admirable doctor swoops upon the vile thing, resolving to obliter- 
 ate it from the minds of men, thus preparing the way lor universal righteousness. 
 But free agency lives. It lives in the plan of salvation, it lives in the Bible, it 
 lives in human history. E^-^ery promise, precept, exhortation and threat tliat 
 God has given to man, supposes his free agency It would be folly to promise, 
 command and threaten a being that was not free ; more than this, it would be 
 unjust. Jesus Christ recognized this freedom when he wept over Jerusalem . 
 On the Universalist notion tliat man cannot resist the purposes ot God, his tears 
 were hypocritical. Had he decided to save Jerusalem, the thing was done. God 
 can accomplish his purposes, if he pleases, by Almighty power ; but not as a 
 constitutional sovereign dealing with a being he has made free. Man has the 
 power to resist God and perish. We readily admit God designs the salvation of 
 all men ; but universal salvation will not be a fact in human history because of 
 a wicked exercise, on the part of a sinner, of a constitutional power. 
 
 Universalism strongly repudiates the doctrine that Christ was a vicarious 
 sacrifice for human sin. Tlie commonly received idea is that God's wrath was 
 treasured up against man for the violation of his law ; that infinite justice 
 demanded reparation ; that none but an infinite being could meet the require- 
 ment ; and that therefore God was manifested in the flesh to make an infinitely 
 meritorious propitiation, by which God could be just and a justifier of all who 
 believe in Jesus. Dr. Thayer and his friends teach just the opposite. Says the 
 Dr. : " Christ died, not because God was angry with us, not to save the world 
 from the divine wrath and vengeance ; but because God loved the world." — (T. 
 U., p. 132.) Again " There is no suffering of punishment in place of the guilty 
 world ; no infliction of the penalties of the violated law on one who never 
 offended : no satisfaction rendered to inexorable justice, • * » Nothing 
 vicarious or substitutional whatever." — (Ibid, p. 126,) Again he observes "how 
 Titterly unfounded is the common doctrine of God's wrath against man." — (/AiV/, 
 p. 125.) On page 130 he speaks of ''the death of Christ as an example." On 
 page 144, speaking of Christ, ho says ; " He may be said to have borne our griefs 
 and sorrows as John Howard bore the griets and sorrows of the prisoners and the 
 
25 
 
 wretched whom he visited.'' On page 131 he says "The death of Christ is a 
 recommendation of God's love to the world." These quotations teach : 
 
 1. God was never angry with man. 
 
 2. Christ suffered nothing for mankind. 
 
 3. Christ's death as a man (He is robbed of His Godhead) recommends God's 
 love. 
 
 4. Christ's death was exemplary and philanthropic. 
 
 And yet, Dr. Thayer speaks of Christ as revealing '< the true character of 
 God ;" of his death as " related in a peculiar and efficacious manner to our sal- 
 vation ;" as reedeming " mankind from the servitude and slavery of sin." How 
 the death of a mere man, a martyr, such as John the Baptist or Stephen, could 
 reveal God's character and accomplish the other wonderful things, we are not 
 informed. Dr. Thayer is too charitable to puzzle his readers with metaphysical 
 distinctions . 
 
 The foregoing attempt to give the rationale of the atonement is intensely 
 unscriptural and heretical. There is such a thing as unity in disorder ; and this 
 item of Universalist theology is at one with the general "confusion worse con- 
 founded " which forms the staple of Universalist belief. The view taken of the 
 grounds of the atonement was necessary to give colour to the protest against the; 
 doctrine of endless punishment. If it could be shown that God never was, and 
 is not, angry with the wicked, the presumption would be strong against any 
 display of that principle in the future. The central idef. of Universalism is 
 that everlasting punishment is untrue ; and every other ^)art of the system is 
 made to harmonize with this assumption. 
 
 A few passages of Scripture will show that Universalism, in the matter of 
 tlic atonement, teaches for doctrine the commandments of men. "For the wrath 
 of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness." — (Rom. 1:18.) "The 
 law worketh wrath.'" — (Rom, 4:15.) " The vessels of wrath fitted to destruction.' 
 — (Rom. 9:22.) Paul, again, speaking of certain sins, says "because of these 
 things cometh the wrath of God on the children of disobedience.'' — (Eph, 5:6.) 
 John the Baptist speaks of "the wrath to come," — (Matt, 3:7.) God says " So I 
 sware in My wrath, they shall not enter into My rest." — (Heb. 3:11.) Paul speaks 
 of mankind as " by nature the children of wrath " (Eph, 2:3) ; of "Jesus which 
 delivered us from the wrath to come " (1 Thess. 1:10) ; of being " saved from wrath 
 through Him." — (Rom. 5:9.) The Greek word in the passages translated wrath is 
 or^e, which is defined by the lexicons to mean "anger, indignation, wrath." 
 Then it is said " Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law ; being 
 made a curse for us." — (Gal. 3:13.) Again "For He hath made Him to be sin for 
 us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.'' 
 — (2 Cor. 5:21.) '« He hath borne our griefs ; He was wounded for our transgres- 
 sions," see Isaiah 53. " Who His own self bear our gins in His own body on the 
 tree."— (1 Peter 2:24.) These texts teach : 
 
 1. That there is such a thing as God's wrath against sin and sinners. 
 
 2. That Christ bore this wrath for us, and was therefore a vicarious sacriliac. 
 
 3. Through Christ, and on Gospel conditions, God is reconciled to man, and 
 man to God. 
 
 Dr. Thayer ignores all the passages just quoted, proving the points stated 
 except two, Gal. 3:13 ; Isaiah 53:4-G ; the lirst of which he says " was a kind of 
 proverb or po^mlar saying," and the other impossible of a " literal interpretation." 
 An old Latin proverb declares, suppressio veri, siiffffcstio falsi. The learned doctor 
 must have known those proof texts were in the New Testament ; why pass them 
 by and teach a doctrine they expressly repudiate ? The situation does not look 
 favorable to the doctor's ingenuousness ; neither does it say much for the honesty 
 of the system he wishes to establish, 
 
 Universalism further teacht^s that salvation is from sin, and not from the 
 punishment due to sin. Says Dr. 1'haycr, " Salvation is moral and Bjjiritual ; it 
 
£6 
 
 is not exemption r/ora ihe just retrilmtion of wrong, but redemption from tlie 
 wrong itself." — (T. U., p. 204.) Again he says, '• It is not security from punish- 
 ment, not a way or a means of escape from tlie p<;nalty of actual transgression.' 
 — (p. 314). llev. E. C. Hweetser observes, " When a sin is committed, its legiti- 
 mate consequences must inevitably follow ; there is no possible salvation from 
 them." — (L. W. U., p. i).'5.) Again, " To save a sinner from the punishment which 
 he really deserves, would be to save him from that which he is sorely in need of. 
 Such salvation would be an injury rather than a benefit to him " — (p. 94). These 
 (luotations are at least unambiguous, and cannot be charged with painting sal- 
 Vition in rose-colored tints ; on the contrary, they surround it with the tempest- 
 nous atmosphere of punishment. Universalism is represented by its advocates 
 as a sunny religion, clothing the countenance with smiles, and filling the heart 
 with joy. Such representations can only be stretches of the imagination on the 
 part of the less informed : such scholars as Thayer and Sweetser, chosen denomi- 
 national writers, we must believe present the case correctly. According to Uni- 
 versalism, no poor sinner can hope to be saved from the punishment due to sin. 
 He may be painfully conscious that he has sinned, may repent sincerely, offer his 
 wliole heart and life to God, become God's adopted child, but he cannot escape 
 retribution, the uttermost farthing must be exacted. Ordinarily when a criminal 
 is pardoned his punishment comes to an end, the lemission of further punish- 
 ment is the evidence of his forgiveness, he goes forth free from the penalty of 
 law. But we are asked to believe that God is less just than man ; that he j)ro- 
 fesses to forgive, and yet does not forgive, inasmuch as he follows the sinner witli 
 retribution. It will be in vain for Universalists to say we admit as much when 
 we say God chastises His children. Chastisement in the Scriptural sense is not 
 puishment for sin, or retribution ; as in the case of Job, who was " perfect and 
 upright,"' it is discipline to make those better who are already gool, a course of 
 training in the school of life for the day of graduation. There is just the ditfer- 
 ence between retribution and God's dealings with his children that there is 
 between a penal infliction by judicial authority and the training of a child at 
 home. The Universalist idea of salvation is a monstrous distortion of the 
 glorious plan. When God forgives a sinner, he saves him from the punishment 
 due to sin (excepting certain physical consequences of a life of excess which he 
 does not work a miracle to avert), as well as from its guilt and power. Paul 
 says, " Being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through 
 him'' — (Rom. 5:9). Of Christ he declares that He " delivered us from the wrath 
 to come." — (I Thess. 1:10). He again asserts, " God hath not appointed us to 
 wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ." — (1 Thess. 5:9). 
 Wrath and salvation were in Paul's mind things opposed ; to have salvation was 
 to be saved from wrath or retribution. Before leaving this subject, we must 
 quote an extraordinary utterance of Mr. Sweetser. Speaking of salvation, he 
 says, " It cannot be accomplished in a single hour, as, for example, on a dying 
 bed ; it is a lifelong process, calling for constant consecration, daily struggle, 
 hotuly prayer and sacrifice.'' — (L.W.U., p. 101). Then we must conclude the 
 penitent thief is not saved, and many others who asked mercy in a dying hour. 
 If salvation can only be secured by a "lifelong process," the case of sinners of 
 forty, fifty and sixty years standing, is hopeless. On Mr. Sweetser's showing 
 they cannot be saved, and yet Universalism provides no hell for them. Where 
 are they to go ? And then what becomes of Universal salvation ? If words mean 
 anything, this recognized champion of the new gospel knocks the foundation 
 from under his own feet, and surrounds himself with chaotic ruin. 
 
 It is also asserted by Universalism that the present life " is not a state of 
 probation, but of retribution; that the penalty due to sin is inflicted here." 
 r quote Dr. Thayer's language as found in his " Theology," chapter VIII, sec- 
 tion IV. To prove his point he refers to the story of Joseph and his brethren, 
 to the judgments that fell upon the Israelites, to the death of the sons of Eli, of 
 
27 
 
 Balaam, of Saul, Belshazzar and Haman. After citing these and a few other 
 illustrations, he considers his case made out, and closes the section. We do not 
 deny that there is a measure of retrilmtion in this life. That a part of the 
 I)enalty of unrepented sin should be inflicted is quite consistent with a state of 
 probation. This is all Dr. Thayer has proved ; he does not advance the first 
 argument to show that the whole penalty of sin follows in this world. In the 
 "Latest Word of Universalism," p. 157, the Rev. John C. Adams observes, «' In 
 one sense we may say the present life is a probation," and on the next page he 
 says, " we are not to consider this life as determining the final destiny of the 
 soul." To sustain the latter statement Mr. Adams can find no Scriptures ; he 
 does not even present respectable argument ; he speaks of what is " probable," 
 of what his system " affirms," of what " may be." Like Gratiano, in Shakespeare's 
 Merchant of Venice, Mr. Adams " speaks an infinite deal of nothing. His reasons 
 are two grains of wheat hid in two bushels of chaft : you shall seek all day ere 
 you find them, and, when you have them, they are not worth the search.' That 
 human life is probational is proved by an array of Scripture testimony. For an 
 elaboration of the .'trgument, and proof texts, I refer the reader to sermon VI. of 
 this series, titled, ''iiestorationism." 
 
 Here I must bring this discourse to a conclusion. In another and succeed- 
 ing sermon I shall examine other points of Universalist theology, show how far 
 the positions assumed are from the truth, thus preparing a strong indictment 
 against the system . We have gone far enough in this investigation to see that 
 as a religious order Universalism lives by putting divine truth through a process 
 of its own, and that in the manipulation truth loses its identity. There are other 
 startling revelations at hand. Your patience and perseverance are asked for 
 further inquiries. 
 
Sermon Y. 
 
 U N I V E R S A L I S M . 
 
 '« But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments 
 of men."— (Matt. 15:9.) 
 
 Universalism lays it down as a fundamental doctrine that all the dead in the 
 resurrection will be holy. Mr. Able C- Thomas, as quoted by Rev. John B. 
 I'ower, declares, " The fact that some men are not in Christ in the present life, is 
 not to the purpose ; for however they may live or die, they will all be made alive 
 in Christ, in incorruption, power, glory, in the image of the heavenly." Dr. 
 Thayer says, " in the resurrection, when the end comes, the wicked will cease to 
 be wicked, and all will be purified, redeemed and exalted in Christ." — (T. U., p. 
 •J2G.) These citations are only a few of many that might be made. It is not 
 pretended that all men die holy, but it is boldly asserted that all mankind will 
 be raised in holiness ; this of course supposes a work of grace wrought in the im- 
 penitent dead between death and the resurrection. It will be a sufficient refuta- 
 tion of this unscriptural assumption to quote those passages which show that all 
 the dead in th? resurrection will not be holy, that the subjects of the resurrec- 
 tion will compose two classes, the righteous and the wicked. Daniel predicts, 
 " And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to 
 everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." — (Dan. 12:2.) 
 Here we have the two classes. Universalism tries to evade the force of this 
 text by saying that Daniel means a figurative, and not a literal resurrection . 
 AVhen a passage presses a Universalist he generally makes the discovery that it 
 either applies to the Jews, or is figurative. If the resurrection referred to by 
 Daniel be figurative, then the attendant circumstances mutjt be figurative also. 
 The following will then be its true meaning : " And many of them that figura- 
 tively sleep in the figurative dust of the figurative earth, shall figuratively awake, 
 some to figurative everlasting life, and some to figurative shame, and figurative 
 everlasting contempt." And then why not take the next verse? "And they 
 tliat be figuratively wise shall figuratively shine as the figurative brightness of 
 the figurative firmament, and they that figuratively turn many to figurative 
 righteousness as the figurative stars for ever and ever." It is evident the figura- 
 tive interpretation breaks hopelessly down. The concluding verse of the 
 ihapter proves that a literal resurrection is intended. " But go thou thy way till 
 the end be ; for thou shalt rest, (sleep in death) and stand in thy 
 lot at the end of the days." Take another passage : " Marvel not at this : for the 
 ]iour 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 
 they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation." — (John 5:28,29.) 
 Of course this Scripture is figurative too, and for the simple reason that unless 
 this construction be put upon it the fate of Universalism is sealed. Dr. Thayer 
 remarks, " The Saviour is speaking here of a moral or spiritual, and not a literal 
 resurrection." This is in effect charging our Lord with unmeaning and useless 
 repetition. In the 25th verse he refers to a moral resurrection : " Verily, verily, 
 I say unto you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the 
 voice of the Son of God ; and they that hear shall live ;" that is, the spiritually 
 dead who hear his voice shall attain to spiritual life, It would appear as if some 
 marveled at this. Noticing the effect of his words, he said, "Marvel not at this," 
 (a greater work than this that I have told you of is yet to be accomplished) " for 
 
29 
 
 the hour is coming in which ull that are in the p^raves shall hear his voice," &c. 
 Says Rev. John B. Power, " If this is a moral resurrection of the soul, the whole 
 must prove to be a perfect failure. As without faith it is impossible to please 
 (Sod, those who ' have done f?ood ' must have had this faith, and believing, have 
 passed from spiritual death unto spiritual life, and cannot need this resurrection, 
 having experienced it already. And as those who ' have done evil," must be 
 destitute of this faith, and in a state of condemnation, and as they are 
 to be raised to a state of condemnation or damnation, their moral condition 
 must be the same after as before.' In neither case does this resurrection 
 accomplish anything. Such an interpretation reduces our Saviour's solemn 
 teaching to an absurdity. The conclusion is inevitable, Jesus taught a literal 
 resurrection of the righteous and the wicked. The testimony of St. Paul on this 
 (juestion is one with that of Christ. He says, " There shall be a resurrection of 
 the dead, both of the just and unjust." — (Acts 24:15.) In the vision of the 
 resurrection which John saw, we have plain indication of the presence of the 
 wicked: for it is said, " And whosoever was not found written in the book of 
 life was cast into the lake of fire.'' — (Rev. 20:15.) Thus we see that Universalism 
 has no foundation for its assumption that all the dead in the resurrection will be 
 holy. In this, as in other matters, it is found guilty of bearing false witness to 
 the world. 
 
 A marked feature of Universalism is its strong und determined opposition 
 to the doctrine of a future and general judgment ot all men at the last day. Its 
 contention is " that the judgment day of Christ began with the opening of his 
 kingdom; and one of the first and most momentous displays ot His authority is 
 exhibited in the punishment of the Jews. * • • This judgment has been 
 going on from that day to this, progressive, continual, and will go on till he sur- 
 render back again to God the kingdom and power which He received from Him.' — 
 (Thayer's Theology, p. 255.) Again we read, " The judgment is spiritual, and not 
 literal ; or, in other words, it is by the truth, by the Gospel, and not in person.' 
 — (Ibid, p. 269.) Again, '• The 'last day ' i.s applied to the gospel day because the 
 Christian dispensation is final. In this judgment day of the gospel, all are to 
 appear at the bar of truth, and be tried by tlie word of God." — (Ibid, 260.) In proof 
 of the soundness of their position, Universalists quote our Lord as saying, " Jiow 
 is the judgment of this world : 7iow shall the j)rince of this world be cast out," 
 i.e., says l)r. Thayer, "error and sin represented under the figure of a prince 
 ruling the world.'' Then we must conclude there is no error, no sin 
 in the world to-day ; all disajjpeared in the days of Christ. The 
 true meaning of the passage is, now is the judgment of this, the 
 Jewish world, because they reject me as the Messiah ; now shall the prince 
 of this world, Satan, be cast out by the redemptive plan which I am about 
 to perfect. " And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all unto me.'" 
 Our opponents delight to quote the word " men " in the text last given, a word 
 not found in the Greek, and in no way necessary to the sense. The reason is 
 obvious, it helps to give the passage a Universalist colouring. No truths are 
 more clearly revealed in Scripture than the second coming of Christ, and the 
 general judgment. When our Lord ascended the " two men in white apparel '' 
 gave unmistakable testimony to the iaqf, of the second coming. " Ye men of 
 Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven ? This same Jesus, which is taken 
 up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go 
 into heaven." — (Acts 1:11.) The Saviour's departure was personal, literal, and 
 visible ; he shall come in like manner. " P^)r the Lord lumself shall descend 
 from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump 
 of God; and the dead in Christ shall riae first." — (1 'Thess. 4:16.) Here the 
 same great truth is declared, with the addition that the dead in Christ shall rise 
 first ; this implies that the dead out of Christ shall rise after ; all will not there- 
 fore be holy in the judgment. Then as to the fact of the judgment, we are told 
 3 
 
30 
 
 '' we hhall iill staml Itofore the ju(l;^ancnt seat of Christ." — (Rom. 14:10; 2 Cur., 
 5:10.) " }Ic liiith iippointecl a day in the which IIo will judge the world in ri),'ht- 
 cousnesK by that man whom be hatli ordained." — (Acts 17:31.) The fallen angels 
 ure "reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of tht! 
 great day." — (Judc G.) These scriptures area few of many that might be (juoted 
 in proof of the ordination of a Ri)ecific period for the judgment of men and 
 angels. As to whether thi' day will be ot twenty-four hours duration, is not 
 material to the argument. It will be a day longer or shorter in the future, and 
 not the day of tlie Christian dispensation. 
 
 The liible doctrine of a hell, or plaie of future retribution, is in strong dis- 
 favour with Univcrsaiists. Very often they resort to ridicule in dealing wit!) 
 this subject; but when this is likely to be regarded as a thin covering for 
 ^veakness, they attempt something like argument. Dr. TJiay<;r tries hard to 
 K'xplode the whole theory of future punishnnait. in his chapters titled, "Doc- 
 trine of Damnation," and "Doctrine of Hell," he restricts all punishment to the 
 present life. Speaking of the Greek words krino, krima, krinis, he says, " Tliere is 
 Jiotlung in any of the passages where the Greek words occur, however translated, 
 to lead us to imagine that they ever thought of any suffering or punishment 
 beyond this life. They (the evangelists) employed tliem in reference to human 
 tribunals and punishments.'' — (T. U. ]), 327.) Tlie learned doctor (hen enters 
 upon a critical examination of the Hebrew word .^heol, and the Greek words 
 liades, gehrjina, and fartaroNHS, reaching the conclusion that they teach nothing 
 regarding a i)enal state in the future world. 
 
 Without attempting to follow Dr. Thayer through the labyrinthian windings 
 of his peculiar criticism, wc may say that while s/ieol in the Old Testament, 
 generally means the i)]ace of separate spirits or the grave, there are passages 
 which undoubtedly show it has a more extejided meaning. In Job 11:8, we read, 
 " It is as high as lieaven; what canst thou do? Deeper than sheol, what canst 
 thou know ? " Again, " If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there ; if I make 
 my bed in sheol, behold thou art there." — (Psalm K}0:8.) Again, '' Though they 
 dig into skcol, thence shall mine hand take them ; though they climb up to 
 heaven, thence will I bring them down." — (Amos 9:2.) In these texts, says Kitto, 
 " sheol denotes the oppo.site of heaven, which cannot be the grave, nor the general 
 state or region of the dead, but hell." But there is something more decisive. 
 " The wicked shall be turned into sheol, and all the nations that forget God." — 
 (Psalm 9:17.) Sheol here cannot mean the state of all the dead, or the grave, for 
 all go there, righteous and wicked ; it must signify a place or state of penal 
 suffering from which the righteous are saved. Of a wicked woman it is said, 
 " Her feet go down to death ; her steps take hold on sheol.'' — (Prov. 5:5.) Here 
 again sheol must mean more than the common lot of men. The text describes 
 the end of a vicious life, as distinguished from a virtuous one, and is spoken as 
 a warning. A warning has no force unless there is 'something to be appre- 
 hended, from which there is a possibility of escape. Regarding a child it is said, 
 "Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from sheol." — (Prov. 
 23:14.) Sheol in this case can only mean a place of punishment, from which, by 
 proper training, it is possible to save the young. Thus says Rev. R. Watson, 
 " while the Old Testament employs sh^ in most cases to designate the grave, 
 the region of the dead, it employs it also, in some cases, to designate along with 
 this idea the adjunct one of a place of misery, region of woe." Yet Dr. Thayer 
 contends that sheol throughout the Old Testament signifies the grave only, <jr 
 the place of separate spirits. 
 
 We now look at the Greek word hades. This word literally means, says 
 Kitto, ''that which is in darkness" — in other language a hidden, concealed 
 state, or world. It is freedly admitted that hades of itself does not necessarily 
 imply a place of future sutfering. The connection of the word in a given place 
 will detoimine whether it simply signifies the unseen world, or a state of punisli- 
 
31 
 
 mcnt in tliat world. Wlicu the Lorl siiid, <'Tliou .-irt IVtcr : uri<l upnii this link 
 1 will huikl my church, and the yiiti.'.s ot /i(il<:'< shall not inovail u^'jiinst. it,' hf 
 certiiinly mennt more than the gates of the region of the dead : he referred to 
 certain malignant powers — living, active — whicli, while sutfering the diHpleas\no 
 of the Head of the Chureli, wouhl attempt its overthrow. Tlie utterance is only 
 intolligihle in this sense. These words suppose enmity, enmity supposes guilt, 
 guilt supposes punishment, and all this in //«(/e.v. ''And thou. Ca|)ernaum, whidi 
 art exalted unto heaven, shall be brought down to haJex.'' — (Matt. 11 : 2:5 ; Lukt- 
 10: 15.) The JSaviour liere could not mean that the material city named would 
 be turned into hades ; he could only refer to its inhabitants, and that not in an 
 ordinary sense. By death, the people would go to had's in any case, and, if this 
 only was indicated, the statement was a truism. That Christ's declaration lore- 
 told suffering in hales is evident from the reference to Sodom, which peoi)le are 
 said to be "sulTdring the vengeance of (,'ternal tire.' The statement that it shall 
 be more tolerable for Sodom than Capernaum, shows the terrible nature of the 
 punishment the inhabitants of Capernaum werci to endure. In the first discourse 
 of the series, I have referred, at length, to the rich man as being '-tormented ' 
 in hades. This, with other instances, show that the word /iff.As is used in con- 
 nections which teach a place of future retribution. 
 
 We now come to the (ireek word (jekennn. lii'V. J. Cass, in his pamphlet 
 titled '* Is there a Hell '.'' makes the following pertinent observations : — " It is 
 now agreed In' most men — theologians, critics, historians and poets, whether 
 Christian or infidel, and is beyond successful contradiction from any man, that 
 during our Lord's sojourn on earth, and for at least two hundred years prior to 
 His advent, the Jews employed tiie phrase ' Valley of Ilinnom ' as a symbol of 
 the fearfrl retribution of the future world. * • • This valley with all its 
 sickening and horrible associations, was seized upon by Jesus Christ, and by him 
 made to represent the place and condition of all wicked men in the world to 
 come." No one can examine the ])assages in the New Testament containing the 
 •word gehenna without coming to the conclusion that they teach a jdace of future 
 torment. Speaking of Matt. 5:21-22, Stewart says: "It follows, of course, tliat 
 though ^fAfrtttfl is here referred to in its literal sense, yet the meaning of the 
 whole passage does not permit us to understand the idea intended to bo conveyed 
 as a literal one. It is employed as a source of imagery to describe thfe punish- 
 ment of a future world." In Matt. 5:29-30, the word translated hell is gehenna. 
 As Cass truly remarks, this could not mean a literal casting into gehenna, for who 
 could have a knowledge of the offence of an eye or a hand to execute the sen- 
 tence ? It must mean a punishment which God would inflict. In Matt. 23:15 
 Christ told the Scribes and Pharisees that when they made a proselyte they made 
 him two-fold more the child of gehenna than themselves. This could not have 
 been a literal reference to the valley of Hinnom, for there was no Jewish law 
 authorizing the burning of a man for becoming a Pharisee ; our Saviour had the 
 ^eAenna of the future world in view. Our Lord says again, "Be not afraid of 
 them that kill the body. • » * Fear him, which after he hath killed hath 
 power to cast into gehennaP — (Luke 12:4, 5.) A dead man fears nothing from an 
 earthly fire. The caution has no point if api)lied to the literal gehenna, it supposes 
 punishment alter the physical life is extfcict which God alone can impose, what 
 is this but the gehenna of the future world ? Can any intelligent person suppose 
 that when Christ exclaimed, " How can ye escape the damnation oi gehenna t''" 
 he mcc'int the literal gehenna ? The whole of the circumstances connected with 
 the utterance are against any such conclusion ; both reason and religion point to 
 the future. Here we pause with the assurance that the other passages of the 
 welve containing the word gehenna are equally conclusive on this subject. 
 
 Thus have we shown that a hell is indicated in some instances by sheol and 
 hades, and clearly taught by the word gehenna. The hell of the Bible cannot l)e 
 reasoned out of existence. We reject the sophisms of Dr. Thayer and his friends, 
 and believe in a state or place of future retribution. 
 
32 
 
 UniversaliKin takes the position that Satan or the devil, spoken of in Scrip- 
 ture, is a figure of speech. On this ])oint we must bring the redoubtable 
 Thayer again to the front. He says : " His name, Devil, and its synonym Satan, 
 were employed as metaphors by the Saviour, to represent the hostility to the 
 gospel of the Jewish liierarchy. They were described as the devil or evil one 
 who sought to destroy the word of God, and their agents as his angels." — (T. U. 
 p. 42) .) Dr. Thayer also remarks, "The apostles employ the word as a figure 
 to represent the heathen secular power, in opposition to Christianity.'' — (p. 422.) 
 Our opj)onents appear to have a great desire to remove all unpleasant things; out 
 of our way, such as human depravity, the wrath of God, a general judgment, 
 future piniishment, the devil, etc. We may, however, reasonably doubt if the 
 last-named personage is dismissed from the world by a Universalist negative. 
 We call for proof of Dr. Thayer's assumption, and we find the quotations above 
 are the best he has to offer. Accepting our learned friend's idea, it was a figure 
 of speech that tempted Eve, and brought about the calamitous results of the fall. 
 Naughty figure of speech ! It was a ligurt; of speech that aftlicted poor Job. 
 Cruel figure of speech! I hope there are none such iu our mother-tongue. It was 
 a figure of speech that tempted David to number Israel. Mathematical figure of 
 speech ! It was a figure of speech that tempted the Saviour in the wilderness, 
 that knew the stones could be made into bread, that soared to the pinnacle of 
 the temple, and to an exceeding high mountain. Discerning, aspiring figure of 
 speech ! They were figures of speech wliich our Lord cast out of many, which 
 entered into the herd of swine, and drowned them in the sea. Strange figures 
 of speech, they had a changeable affinity, now for human flesh, then for swine's 
 fiesh I That is a ligure of speech which Peter tells us goes about as a roaring 
 lion, &c. Noisy, savage figure of speech I Seriously, the great enemy of God 
 and man is not a metai)hor; but a personality, possessing all the attributes of 
 being. He is one of those " angels that kept not their first estate, but left their 
 own habitation.' — (Jude 6.) Personal names are applied to him. He is termed 
 " Belial " which signifies wicked, " Abaddon " and " Appollyon " which mean 
 destroyer, " Satan " which is an adversary. Our Lord terms him " a murderer 
 from the beginning." . He is also said to be " the prince of this world,'' the *' God 
 of this world,'' ana " the wicked one." Personal acts are ascribed to him. He is 
 declared" to be " the prince of devils," which indicates tiiiJ. he exercises dominion 
 over other fallen angels; the si)irit that "worketh in the children of disobe- 
 dience;" to walk about " seeking whom he may devour." Personal punishment 
 is to be inflicted upon him. He is to be bound by an angel, then loosed, then 
 cast into the lake of fire. — (See Rev. 20.) Says Mr. VVatson, " In these various 
 pas'? iges of scripture, and many others which might be added, the existence of 
 the devil is clearly stated ; but if, as some modern Sadducees affirm, nothing 
 more is intended than a personification of the abstract quality of evil, the Bible, 
 and especially the New Testiiment, must be eminently calculated to mislead us." 
 Those who by a sort of mental legerdemain give prominence to the personifica- 
 tion idea, must accept the dilemma involved. 
 
 From the foregoing examination of the tenets of the Universalist body it 
 will be gathered that as a denomination it teaches " for doctrines the command- 
 ments of men." What doctrine of Chlistianity is there that Universalism does 
 not discard ? Is there one 'I There is scari^ely one. In some cases it positively 
 rejects, in others it gives such an explanation as reduces the teaching of the 
 Bible to an absurdity. Looking at this scheme of theology without prejudice, we 
 are compelled to say its foundation is purely inliilel, and that its power over men 
 is only for evil, and that continually. 
 
 Having shown that Universalism teaches for doctrines the commandments 
 of men, let ux now (/lance at the vaniti/ of l'niv('rsali.U ivorship. " In vain they do 
 worship me," &c. I do not assume that God would refuse all worship containing 
 any mixture or degree of error, for I can conceive of no human elVort entirely free 
 
33 
 
 from this. I can suppose the Divine Being graciously receiving worship baset! 
 upon a belief in the cardinal truths of revealed religion, but associated with cer- 
 tain erroneous views, and the prejudices of creed and education ; but I cannot 
 conclude, taking the text for my guide, that God can accept any worship based 
 upon a disbelief in the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. There is 
 unbelief in the case of a very grave nature, unbelief which takes away any desire 
 for true worship, and which closes the hand of the bountiful Giver of Good. 
 Universalists and Unitarians cannot sing the praises of Christ or the Holy Spirit, 
 for on their theory that one is a creature and the other an influence, these acts 
 of worship would be idolatry. Neither can they pray through Christ without 
 recognizing the doctrine of saintly intercession or mediation. 
 
 Thiiversalist worship is in vain as a means of securing the divine favor. 
 One function of worship, as we understand it, is to confess sin, obtain remis- 
 sion, and be restored to forfeited grace. On the Universalist theory, man never 
 lost the favor of his Maker, no matter how great his sins. (Jod never was, never 
 can be, angry with the wicked. He loves them — there is nothing in his nature 
 but love. The most abandoned transgressor may conclude there is no wrath 
 entertained ag.ainst him ; he may go on Jidding sin to sin, and cry out, " God is 
 love ! " An objector might say, •' Every sin will have its punishment in this life ; 
 the greater the sin the severer the discipline." But is it so? It is a fact that 
 little innocent children suffer ; for what are they punished ? It is just as much 
 a fact that very Avicked people escape punisliment. They thrive upon ini(}uity, 
 and die in the enjoyment of every temporal good. There being no retribution 
 beyond this world, how are they chastised? This whole idea of unmixed favor 
 is a premium upon sin. Men may sin because it is safe. 
 
 Universalist worship is in vain because of its irrationality. '' 1 am a lini- 
 ver.salist," said an individual, boastingly, " and you Orthodox are not fair in saying 
 our system is inconsistent with reason." "But I will prove the irrationality of 
 your system," said his friend. " You believe that Jesus Christ died to save all men?'' 
 " Yes, I do." " And you dont believe there is a hell ?" " No, I do not.' " You do 
 not believe there is any punishment hereafter ?" " No ; men are punished for their 
 sins in this life." *' Well, now, let us put your rational system together. It 
 amounts to just this, that Christ died to save all men from nothing at all . Not 
 from hell, because there is no hell ; not from punishment liereafter, there is no 
 such thing ; not from chastisement here, for you .say it must be inflicted for sin. 
 Yours is the absurd spectacle of ropes and life-preservers thrown at an immense 
 (;xpense to a person ou dry land, and in no danger of being drowned." This 
 illustration puts Universalism before the world in its broad unreasonableness. The 
 system and its worship are one, and are together an appeal to human weakness 
 and credulity. 
 
 Universalist worship is in vain as a means of promoting personal .salvation ; 
 for, on their theory, it is a.'wured, all are to be saved, none can be lost. Univer- 
 salists argue man cannot interfere with the purposes of God; they must be ac- 
 complished. Then why build churches, serid out Universalist preachers, pub- 
 lish books, circulate tracts, and do a thousand other things to promote an ob- 
 ject already secured ? It is useless to sav God commands and we must obey . 
 This is only a Universalist method of g^ing out of a difficulty, and laying it 
 upon the Almighty On the Universalist supposition, the command is an 
 absurdity, as if human agency could improve the circtimstances of a race God 
 had pronounced sure of heaven! On the possibility of men perishing, such a 
 command is coherent a.iu worthy of its author. 
 
 Universalist worship can never be true worship. It mu t as siiggcsted by 
 the system of doctrine, deal largely in the visionary. Christ said, "No man 
 coraeth \mto the Father L.;t by Me." Ignoring his deity — the part of his luUure 
 that gave the statement any significance — they cannot come to the Fatlusr. To W. 
 true worshippers we need fully to believe the doctrines of the Bible. I tiav« 
 
3i 
 
 Khown hew far our misguided opponentfi art' from tin's. Over tlie door of every 
 Uuiversalist place of worship might be written, "In vain they do worship Mc, 
 teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.'" 
 
 What is our duty in the light of these disclosures an to what Univcrsalisni 
 really is? Am I addressing any who think it a convenient religion? Ah! it 
 appeals to d'jpraved human nature. It removes all wholesome fear of the future 
 consequences of sin. It takes away every spur to holy devotion and sustained 
 self-denial. Allow me solemnly to warn you. Beware of becoming entangled 
 in the mashes of this ensnaring and ruinous system. I warn you against Uni- 
 versalir.t literature ; it will poison your very soul, cast you adrift upon the sea of 
 unbelief. Adhere to the old faith, that in which your fathers lived and died. It 
 will safely guide you through life and home to God. A Universalist preacher 
 once preached in a Quaker neighborhood in Ohio. He had the undivided 
 attention of his audience while he endeavored to show that there was no such a 
 being as the devil, no hell as a place of future i)unishment, that all sin was pun- 
 ished in this life, that there will be no day of judgment, and that all will go to 
 lieaven wlien they die. He tliought he had made a fine impression, and asked if 
 he might preach there again. An old Quaker arose and said : '<Friend, if thou hast 
 taught us the truth, we don't need thee any more ; and if thou hast taught us a lie, 
 we don't w^ant tliec any more." This is the case in a nutshell. If Univcrsalism 
 l>e true, we don't need it ; if it be a lie, we don t want it. 
 
 My 
 
 
Sermon YI. 
 
 iw'Ol 
 
 R E S T R A T I N I S lAI . 
 
 " But the eyes of the wicked shall fail, and they shall not escai)C, and their 
 hone Khfill be as the giving up of the ghost." — (Job 11 : 20.) 
 
 These are the words of Zophar, the Naamathite, and form part of his address 
 to Job. Zophar describes the state of the man who puts away iniquity from his 
 heart, who refuses to let wickedness dwell in his tabernacles. After declaring 
 the purity, steadfastness, courage, safety and honour of such an individual, lu; 
 looks at the case of men of opposite character in the language of the text. 
 This passage of Scripture has one feature which specially recommends it to us — 
 its freedom from ambiguity. It is not metaphorical ; it contains nothing to 
 lead to a difference of opinion as to its meaning ; it is solemnly, awfully literal. 
 Before going further, it might he well to give a brief exposition of these words. 
 The term " wicked" needs no explanation, it is its own interpreter. The wicked 
 are regarded as exposed to punishment for sin ; the aiiiiinatioi>.s of tiie t<;xt show 
 the utter hopelessness of their situation. ''But the eyes of the wicked shall 
 fail." Says Dr. A. Clark: «' They shall be continually looking for help and 
 deliverance ; but their expectation shall be cut oil".' Wc read further, " And they 
 tihall not escape ;'' or, as in the margin, " Flight shall perish from them.'' Again, 
 '•And their hope shall be as the giving up of the ghost;" literally, their hope 
 shall expire. As the giving up of the ghost is death to the body, so the extinc- 
 ti(»n of hope is death, spiritual and eternal, to the soul. These tremendous 
 words cannot bo predicted exclusively of this world. While the wicked arc 
 here, there is hope; it may be dimmed with the gloom of coming judgment, it 
 may be a feeble, flickering thing, but it lives for the vilest of the vile. Only in 
 regard to a future state, can it be said of the wicked, '> Their hoi)e shall be as 
 the giving up of the ghost." 
 
 The text will apply to the subject before us — llestorationism . It will form 
 a foundation for our discussion, and will, with other scriptures, show how 
 groundless is the theory. Restorationists believe in a hell, or place of future 
 ( hostisement. As Kev. William Arthur shows, in his reply to Canon Farrar, 
 their conception of hell is partly pagan and partly nondescript. Mr. Arthur 
 says; "Canon Farrar enthusiastically preaches a place, or state, after death, of 
 discipline, somewhat penal, perhaps, but essentially purifying, whence all who 
 are under the discipline repent and pass to heaven." He also says ; " This 
 Purgatory, as far as we can make out, is substantially Greek, much resembling 
 that taught by Plato in the Georgias and the Pluedo." In bis sermon on 
 'Eternal Punishment," Canon Farrar speaks of those who, if they "should 
 continue in sin, may have to bo purified in that gehenna of aionios tire beyond 
 tlie grave." Hays Uev. A. Jukes ; •' No divine change can be wrought, even in 
 (iod's elect, save by passing through waters and through tires, ♦ * • waters 
 and tires as real, though not of this world, as those which burned on the altars 
 of old, or moved in the laver of the tabernacle." — (Restitution of all Thingp, 
 p. HO.) Again, speaking of the baptism of the Holy Ghost and firo, he says ; 
 " Those not so baptized here, must know the last judgment and the lake of tire, 
 which is the second death." — (p. 8G.) Says Rev. J. Baldv^in Brown: "I see 
 before mo a great vision of pain ; the suffering of free spirits is not ended here. 
 * • * This universe is the theatre of boundless and endless ministries of 
 mercy working through pain to blessed issues. • ♦ • Christ will never 
 
36 
 
 cease from seeking the lost while one knee remains .stubborn before the name of 
 Jesus, and one heart is unmastered by his love." — (Annihilation and the Gospel 
 of Love, pp. 44-40. ) Farrar, Jukes and Brown may be regarded as leading men 
 of the Restorationist school. The (quotations given from their writings express 
 the opinions of a number of men of lesser note, who sustain to these the relation 
 of a pupil to the master. It is clear Restorationists believe in a place of suffer- 
 ing beyond this world for these who fail to accept salvation here; that, in the 
 course of " the ages," as th(!y put it, all mankind will be restored to God's favor 
 and heaven. It will be observed that Restorationism reaches the same goal as 
 Universalism, but by a different road and a longer journey. Restorationists 
 disclaim being Universalists, notably Canon Farrar and Mr. Brown, stating they 
 cannot acce})t the doctrines of that system. "Vye accept theii uiocluiiiioi ; !jut 
 must regard them as holding out a false hope to the world. 
 
 The theory of final restoration proceeds upon the assumption that man's 
 probation does not end with the present life, but e.Ktends into the future world. 
 Mr. Jukes asks : " Is God's will to save all men limited to fourscore years, or 
 <hanged by that event which we call death ?" He does not say positively it is 
 not, but assumes as much, and pursues his argument as if he had settled the 
 «luestion. Dr. Farrar, speaking of men who think with him, says, " they will declare 
 their trust that even after death, through the infinite mercy of the loving Father, 
 the dead shall be alive again, and multitudes, at any rate, of the lost be found." 
 Mr. Brown makes similar declarations. We certainly have a right to expect 
 that when men advance so momentous a doctrine as the extension of human pro- 
 bation to the world to come, some convincing portions of Scripture would be 
 given as a warrant in the case. But what are the facts? They may pretend to 
 base their theory upon Scripture : but it is more a matter of reasoning from the 
 great truth " God is love.'' Not a passage is brought forward that clearly teaches 
 anything of the kind ; and when we state this we are told the Scriptures 
 say nothing to the contrary. Instead of something affirmative, our opponents 
 deal in negatives, declaring what this and that text cannot moan. Dr. Farrar 
 is all passion and rhetoric, lull of scorn and anathema for those who dare believe 
 in the old theology. Dr. Littledale, speaking of the Canon's sermons, says : 
 " They seldom rise to the dignity of sustained argument, or even of accurate 
 thought, and never attain to the level of matured theological knowledge. • • 
 They are declamatory appeals to a jury, rather than reasoned pleadings before a 
 judge." This is the opinion of a brother clergyman, an able scholar and critic. 
 Mr. Jukes deals in the mystic. He makes the discovery that the flesh of Christ 
 illustrates the nature of Scripture ; that each jot of the law of Moses " covers 
 some blessed mystery." He fills up page after page with fanciful analogies, 
 whose chief merit appears to be that they are ingenious speculations ; and their 
 demerit that they fail as arguments to prove his theory. It is possible for a 
 man of inventive skill to draw mystic parallels between almost any two things. One 
 may admire the prettiness of such attempts, but as arguments they have nothing 
 to recommend them. Speculation is not proof, it is only play upon words. 
 When it is convenient, Mr. Jukes " coins a word to show what is the term used 
 in the original." — (p. 64) On page 65 he attempts to tone down God's eternity 
 to make the same Greek word used to explain that attribute fit his conception 
 of the " ages." For the same purpose he says " eternal life is not, as so many 
 think, the living on and on for ever and ever. It is rather, as our Lord defines 
 it, a life, the distinctive peculiarity of which is that it has to do with a Saviour, 
 and 80 is part of a remedial plan." — (p. 6G) Such are the fantastic shifts to 
 which men are driven, to fit the jjiectes of a system together — coining words, 
 shortening G(k1's duration, and the life of the saved. Mr. Jukes knew the Greek 
 adjective was in his way ; but he is equal to the emergency ; he speculates a 
 little, and the difficulty vanishes. 
 
 Is there any foundation for the idea that human probation extends beyond 
 this world? We say no; the Scriptures teach just the opposite. " Because 1 
 
37 
 
 have tailed and ye refused ; I have RtretcLed out my hand, and no man regarded : 
 but ye have Kot at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof; I also 
 will laugh at your calamity ; I will mock when your fear cumeth ; when your 
 fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind ; when 
 distress and anguish cometh upon you. Then shall they call upon me, but I 
 will not answer ; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me." — (Pror. 
 1:24-28.) In this passage we have three ideas — present opportunities, their re- 
 jection, and future judgment without remedy. The objection to this application 
 of these words is that they are words of " Wisdom," and not of God. Is it pre- 
 tended that Wisdom utters this language as an abstract principle? The context 
 shows that Wisdom here can only mean God. «' Turn you at my reproof; 
 behold I will pour out my spirit unto you, kc" Fancy an abstract principle 
 pouring out its spirit ! The quotation shows that the efforts of lost sinners to 
 seek God are in vain, and the reason assigned is. "For they hated knowledge, and 
 did not choose the fear of the Lord." Again we read, "Whatsoever thy hand 
 hndeth to do, do it with thy might ; for there is no work, nor device, nor know- 
 ledge, nor wisdom in the grave, whither thou goest.'' — (Eccles. 9:10) This text, 
 clearly teaches that human probation begins and ends with this life. We are to 
 do our work now, for when we come to the grave, when life ends, there is no 
 work by which we can profit, no device by which we can escape punishment, no 
 knowledge of any means of help, «fec. — {fiee Clarke's Commentary.) Again, 
 " Seek ye the Lord while He may be found, call ye upon Him while 
 He is near." — (Isaiah 55:6.) This exhortation is based upon the idea that 
 there is a period coming when God will not be found if sought, 
 when if called he will not hear. It takes its great force from thi!< 
 underlying thought. During this life He may be found, He is near ; the 
 coDA-erse follows. Again, " The harvest is pa.st, the summer is ended, and we are 
 not saved." — (Jer. 8 : 20.) It may be objected that this text applies to the Jews. 
 It does primarily ; but who will limit its application? With the Jews the day of 
 l)rivilege had passed, judgment had come, and there was no hope, hence the la- 
 mentation. Life is our summer, our harvest : death ends both at once and for- 
 ever. Again "And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came ; and they that 
 were ready went in with him to the marriage, and the door was shut. Afterwards 
 came also the other virgins, saving, Lord, Lord, open to us. But he answered and 
 said. Verily I say unto yon I know you not." — (Matt. 25:10-12.) This Scripture, 
 and that found in Luke 13:24-';7, seems specially designed to cut oft" all such 
 hope as that entertained by Restorationists. The judgment day is represented by 
 the coming of the bridegroom, and the rising up of the master of the house. In 
 both instances the door is shut, persons are without crying,. " Lord, Lord, open 
 to us," and they receive the same answer, " I know you not." Christ simply 
 teaches that probation in this life being ended, lost souls will seek mercy, but will 
 not find it. Again, " Behold, now (the time of human life) is the accepted time : bo- 
 hold, now is the day of salvation," — (2 Cor. 6:2.) These words imply that the future 
 world will offer no day of salvation. Again, " What is the hope of the hypocrite, 
 though he hath gained, when God taketh away his soul ? Will God hear his cry 
 when trouble cometh upon him ? '' — (Job 27:8.) These questions amount to a 
 strong affirmation that there is no hope for tile hypocrite in the case mentioned . 
 Again, •' And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fi.xed ; so that 
 they which would pass from hence to you cannot, neither cnn they pass to as 
 that would come from thence." — (Luke 16:26.) Here the Saviour teaches that 
 the gulf between heaven and hell is impassable ; if so, there can be no restora- 
 tion of lost souls. Again, " When a wicked mr.n dieth his expect^ition shall 
 perish; and the hope of unjust men perisheth."— (Prov. 11:7.) This text 
 speaks for itself. Lastly, we read, «' He that is unjust let him be unjust still ; and 
 he that is filthy, let him bo filthy still ; and he thf\t is righteous, let him be right- 
 eous still , and he that is holy, let him be holy still. And, behold I come quick- 
 
33 
 
 Iy ; and my reward is with me, to give evory m.f^n according as his work shall bt*.",; 
 — (llev. 22;11-12.) Here we iue taught thut when Christ comes to judgment the 
 moral state of the righteous and wicked will be imalterable. The language is 
 governed by tiie imperative mood, and is, in foct, a command that it shall be so. 
 The foregoing Scriptures make clear the fact that human probation is confined 
 to the present life ; that the future world offers no hope to those who die in sin ; 
 and that the theory of Restorationists is a cunningly devised fable. Not only 
 is this theory unscriptural, it is also unreasonable. As one writer truly remarks, 
 " a future probation would go far to ntnitralize the present one." We cannot 
 suppose the God of wisdom arranging anything so defective, which would lead 
 men to say, "This opportunity may i)ass, there is another beyond." Scripture 
 and reason say, " Now is the day of salvation." 
 
 The restoration theory is also based upon the assumption that pain or sufl'er- 
 ing in hell will lead the lost to repentance and reformation. Mr. Jukes with 
 characteristic ingenuity tries to gather support for tJiis idea from the case of the 
 fornicator mentioned in I Cor. 5:3-5. Tlie Corinthians were directed "to deliver 
 such an one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the sjjirit may be 
 saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." Mr. Jukes concludes that as an apostle 
 delivered persons to SaUm in this world for their moral improvement (see 1 Tim. 
 1:20), God might hand over souls to Satan in hell with the same object in view. 
 We can prove anything by this kind of logic — taking a fact and guessing at a 
 possibility. We might with as much reason say Paul had a thorn in the tle.sh, 
 the messenger of Satan, to buft'et him ; therefore God may ])lace in the gloritied 
 bodies of the saints some ache or pain to act as a means of disciplinary elevation 
 iu the orders of sainthood. There is a piece of logic ! Surely the shade of 
 Whately will appear in recognition of such an advance iu a science of which, iu 
 liis day, he was a master ! The case of the incestuous man was one of church 
 discipline, and pertained chiefly to this life as such. Then the fact that he was 
 delivered to Satan in this world (what this implies no one knows, not even Mr. 
 Jukes) supposes the possible «4ernal loss of his soul in the world to come, if not 
 so delivered. The act only has a benevolent aspect as viewed from this stand- 
 point. On Mr. Juk(!s' theory he might have been spared the infliction, and left 
 to the general restoration. This man's case pleads strongly for this life as our 
 only probation, and offers no support to Mr. Jukes' idea of fiost mortem purifica- 
 tion. Says Rev. Marshall Randies, " The influences surrounding a fallen spirit 
 are not such as to purify, much less to deliver from guilt. Chastisement on earth 
 often promotes religion, because accompanied by the effectual grace of God. 
 Rut mere pain has no intrinsic property or tendency to produce virtue or 
 religion." — (For Ever p. 311.) The notion that suft'ering leadsmen to repentance 
 and to God is unscriptural. Isaiah a> ks, " Why should ye be stricken any more ? 
 Ye will revolt more and more." — (Isaif h 1 :5 ) Jeremiah cries, " Thou hast stricken 
 them but they have not grieved ; thou hast consumed them but they have re- 
 fused to receive correction ; they have made their faces harder than a rock; they 
 have refused to return." — (Jer. 5:3.) God says, " I also have given you cleanness 
 of teeth in all your cities, yet have ye not returned unto Me, saith the Lord." — 
 (Amos 4:G.) Turn to the 16th chapter of Revelation. This chapter speaks of 
 the pouring out of God's wrath, and shows that actual judgment does not lead 
 men to repentance. " And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed 
 the name of God, which had power over these plagues, and they repented not to 
 give him glory." — (Verse !).) In the eleventh verse it is said " Men blasphemed 
 the God of Heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented not of 
 their deeds ;' and the twenty-first verse makes a similar statement. It is a mat- 
 ter of almost every day observation that sulftiring of itself does not lead men to 
 amend their lives. They are stricken down in their sins, and, as Mr, Jukes 
 would say, " pass through fires and through waters," they recover, and are as 
 great sinners as before. Yet, in the face of analogical reasoning, and th «• testi- 
 mony of Scripture, we are told ht^ fire will purify the iLioure. 
 
Some of the more orthodox Restoratlonists say the atoning w ik and luodi- 
 ation of Christ will bo available to suftering souls ; that thene, with corrective 
 pain, will aL'rom|)lish the work of restoration. The whole force of Scriptural 
 declaration, in this connection, is to the effect that the atonement of Jesus, as a 
 saving agency, is only available to men in this world ; and while this is thft fact 
 Scripture is entirely silent as to any such application of the redemptive plan as 
 that supposed by Restoratlonists. We have absolutely no data for any such sui)- 
 position. It is, therefore, great folly to draw conclusions from human fancy on a 
 matter of such great importance. 
 
 The punishment of hell is nowhere in Scripture represented as remedial, 
 but penal. It is "judgment without mercy, everlasting destruction, judgment and 
 fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries ; the wrath of God, everlast- 
 ing punishment, eternal lire.'' As one .says, "The lake of fire will no more have 
 a sanctifying virtue than James' metaphorical fire — that world of iniquity which 
 sets on fire the course of nature, find is set on fire of hell." — (.Tames 3:0.) If the 
 tongue, set on fire of gehenua, " defile the whole body," gehenua itself cannot be 
 purifying. 
 
 If it were possil)le for soul:> to be saved by the ministration of pain in hell, 
 their song in Hcfiven would not be the song of the redeemed as given in Scrip- 
 ture. We are told the saved or}' " Unto Him that loved us, and washed us from 
 our sins in His own blood," Ac. Souls saved by the restorationist process 
 could not sing that song. They would have to cry "Unto the pains of hell that 
 l)urified us, and made us meet for Heaven ; to them be ascribed corrective power, 
 and honor everlasting." And then why may not Satan come in for a share of the 
 praise ? If Restorationism be true, he has a part to perform in the work. The 
 truth is, hell is no half-way house to Heaven. Itself and its inhabitants do not 
 help, but oppose, the salvation of souls. The blood of Christ, not pain, is the 
 source of human purity and blessedness. 
 
 Restorationism gains nothing from an examination of certain Scriptures that 
 are pressed into its service. Much is attempted to be made out of the parable of 
 the king reckoning with his servants, found in the 18th chapter of Matthew. 
 One servant owed 10,000 talents, and, because of his merciless treatment of a fel- 
 low servant, was delivered to "the tormentors till he should pay all that was 
 due." It is argued that the lost are delivered to the torment of hell till they 
 shall pay all that justice demands, and, therefore, a restoration is irapliei. The 
 parable is totally against the theory. This servant owed 10,000 talents, a >ut 
 $9,000,000, and, inasmuch as " he had naught to pay," his mmishment could be 
 nothing short of life-long or perpetual imprisonment. Eternity would not help 
 a man to pay §9,000,000 with nothing. If this parable advance anything on 
 this subject, it teaches eternal punishment. Our Lord's direction to agree with 
 an adversary, and his statement that, in case of disagreement, the uttermost far- 
 thing should be exacted in prison (Matt. 5:25-26) is a piece of advice for the 
 guidance of persons engaged in law suits. The context shoAvs that Christ's 
 observations are entirely literal, and excludes all spiritual application. Another 
 text given a restorationist twist is that found in 1 Cor. 3:13-15. As the context 
 declares, the Apostle is speaking of ministers and their work. He says, " we are 
 laborers together with God," Speaking of the foundation, Jesus Christ, he says, 
 '• everything that ministers may build upon that foundation shall be tried as Ity 
 fire, or duly tested in the day of judgment, called 'the day.' Any minister 
 building rightly shall be rewarded ; any minister building wrongly .shall suffer 
 loss (his reward shall not be so great), but he shall be saved, yet narrowly and 
 barely, as if by fire." The passage has not the remotest reference to stifForing in 
 hell. There is another text about preaching to the spirits in prison. This, also, 
 is wide of the mark. I shall not examine it here ; I leave its consideration to a 
 discourse for that purpose. The theory we are noticing has no countenance in 
 the word of God. Such statements as " His mercy is everlasting; his mercy en- 
 
40 
 
 dureth forever," arc true as ai)plicd to the saved. It is also said '' Thy judgments 
 are a great deep ;■' of tlie wicked, " I yill feed them with judgment;" and Paul 
 speaks of " eternal judgment " as a doctrine of Christ. 
 
 The restoration theory is very indefinite as to the time or period of the sup- 
 posed deliverance. Using this world's terms, it may bo a hundred, a thousand, 
 or a million years before the purifying tire does its work. Mr. Jukes likes to use 
 the phrase " ages of ages. Kestorationism does not offer a very pleasing future 
 to the wicked ; it supposes the spending of a little eternity in suffering, if not an 
 fiitire one. Now all the thunder of Canon Farrar, and the polished sophistry of 
 j\Ir. Jukes, will tell strongly against this little eternity of sorrow. We ask Canon 
 Farrar, why does the loving Father allow his creatures to suffer so long ? Is 
 this delay an evidence of his great love ? We ask Mr. Jukes why the " first-born " 
 cannot mon; speedily save the " later-born ?' Is this delay any proof of the love 
 of the former toward the latter? If God cannot permit his creatures to perish 
 for ever, he cannot permit them to suffer " ages of ages ;' the love that saves 
 from the one will save from the other. The Universalist and Restorationist 
 argument from God's love proves too much ; it falsifies history and experience. 
 Restorationist indefiniteness is painful, it gives us conjecture for fact, a stone for 
 I tread. 
 
 The terms used by Restorationists are vague and contradictory. Canon 
 Ffirrar has titled his philippic against eternal punishment, " Eternal Hope.'' 
 The eloquent Canon could scarcely have been more unfortunate in selecting a name 
 for his book. What is eternal hope ? To hope eternally is never to realise ; it 
 is "hope deferred which maketh the heart sick." The expression "eternal 
 hope," as applied to the lost, presents anything but a hopelul outlook ; if they 
 are to hope forever for deliverance they will simply suffer eternal punishment. 
 It would seem as if Dr. Farrar had unwittingly given in the title of his volume 
 isome support to the doctrine he has so vehemently set himself to destroy. This 
 confusion of terms appears in other writers. Mr. Jukes speaks of a divine 
 change being effected in men "through waters and through fires," (p. 80.) and 
 on the next page says, " In and thnjugh Christ we receive this transmutation," 
 and much more to the same effect. The truth is, Restorationism is not a doc- 
 trine of revealed religion, and men cannot describe it in the language of 
 Inspiration, remarkable for its coherency and force ; they must use a human 
 vocabulary, thus giving proof of its earthly origin . 
 
 Says Dr. Salmcm, "If Christ revealed any doctrine of universal restitution, 
 he did it so indistinctly that his followers failed to apprehend it. From the 
 ♦mrliest times, the popular and prevalent view among them was that which mar 
 be described as the popular view with Christians still. The doctrine of universal 
 restitution, if ever ttiught at all, was but the private idea of speculative men, 
 struggling for a bare toleration, and ultimately struggling in vain." — (Reply to 
 Canon Farrar.) This witness is true. We reject this theory on the ground of its 
 novelty, and because it tends to change radically the motives to embrace religion, 
 and lead a godly life. Novelty in religion is the worst species of the genus, 
 and should at all times be viewed with suspicion. The liope of the world is 
 Christ. Our danger can only be accurately measured by the sacrifice he made 
 to redeem us. Let Christ, and him alone, be the basis of our future expecta- 
 tions. Casting aside ornately-dressed human speculations, and taking the 
 Bible for our guide, let us travel on to the future. 
 
Sermon VII. 
 
 THE SPIRITS IN PRISON. 
 
 •' For Clirist also hath once suffered for sins, tlie just for the unjust, that he 
 might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the 
 Spirit : by wliich also he went and preached to the spirits in prison ; which some- 
 time were disobedient, when once the long suffering of Ciod waited in the days 
 of Noah, while the ark was preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls wen* 
 saved by water."— (1 Peter 3:18-20.) 
 
 There is an article in the Apostles' Creed concerning Chrisfs descent into 
 hell. Bishop Pearson in his " Exposition of the Creed,' says, " the descent into 
 hell was not in the ancient creeds or rules of faith.'' — (p. 340.) He further observes, 
 "The first place we find it used was in the Church of Aquileia ; and the time we 
 are sure it was used in the creed of that Church was less than 400 years after 
 Christ." — (p. 341.) It is more than marvelous that if our Lord's descent into hell 
 be a part of the true Christian faith, such a doctrine found no place in any form- 
 ulary or confession of belief for some 400 years after Christ. That it then took 
 shape is strongly suggestive of human additions to the faith of the apostles. 
 There is but one text of Scripture which gives any support to the idea of our 
 Saviour's descent into hell. In his sermon on the day of Penteco.st, Peter said 
 of Jesus, " For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before 
 my face, for he is on my right hand that 1 should not be moved : therefore did 
 my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad ; moreover also my flesh shall rest in 
 hope: because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine 
 holy one to see corruption,'' — (Acts 2:25-27.) This is Bishop Pearson's sole 
 foundation for the expression in the creed, "He descended into hell.' In his note 
 on the original passage in the 16th Psalm, Dr. A. Clark says, " As to leaving the 
 soul in hell, it can only mean permitting the life of the Messiah to continue 
 «nder the power of death ; for sheol, the word translated hell, signifies a pit, a 
 ditch, the grave, or state of the dead." The word used by Peter and translated 
 hell, is hades^ and means, as has been observed in other places, the unseen world 
 or place of separate spirits. Peter simply asserts in his explanation of the 
 words of David that Christ's soul did not remain in the legion of separate 
 spirits; he makes no allusion to (jehcnna, the place of torment, and therefore 
 the statement in the creed, as exj)ounded by Bishop Pearson, and as commonly 
 understood, is unfounded. Bishop Pearson readily admits that the passage con- 
 cerning preaching to the spirits in prison has no reference to t\n\ descent into 
 hell, and to this we may add the opinion of Calmet, a learned and pious Roman 
 Catholic commentator, Archbishop Lejghton, St. Augustine, and others. 
 
 Our text is legarded as the corner stone of Restorationism. Chief among the 
 builders upon this foundation is that master of the mystic and lover of the fanci- 
 ful, Rev. Andrew Jukes. In "Restitution of all Things,' page 39, Mr. Jukes 
 asks, " To whom shall the Church be priests after death? Shall it be to the 
 great mass of our fellow-men who have departed hence in ignorance? Shall it be 
 to the spirits in prison, such as those to whom, after his death, Christ himself 
 once preached?" In a foot-note our author says of the words of the text, -'They 
 ihstinctly assert that our Lord went and preached to the spirits in prison, 
 who once had been disobedient in the days of Noah.'' Our task in the 
 present discourse is to rescue these words from the misrepresentations of Mr, 
 Jukes and his friends, and, while giving their true meaning, to show that Res- 
 torationism here, as elsewhere, is discountenanced. 
 
42 
 
 The liret statenitut in the text is, that our Lord Jesus Christ was a vicuriotH 
 sacrifice for human sin. " For Christ also liath once suffered for sins, tlie ju.st 
 for the unjust," &c. lie suffered for sins, not his own, for lie was holy, undefiled, 
 separate from sinners; he suffered for the sins of others. He, as '< the just,' 
 suffered for "the unjust.' Here the suhstitutional idea is strongly hrought out. 
 Taking the notion that Jesus suffered as a martyr to the truth, sealmg liis 
 testimony with his blood, it cannot he said that He in any sense suffered /or 
 the unjust. He might have suffered /ro/zt them, or bi/ them, but not for them. 
 It was human guiltiness that brought suffering on Christ. tSin as an evil must 
 have its ajjpropriate punishment; this is an everlasting law, the demands of 
 which cannot be ignored. When the Father gave His only begotten Hon there 
 could be no exception ; He stood in the place of sinners, bore the wrath due to 
 their transgressions. Christ not only suffered to meet the demands of eternal 
 justice. He was put to death in the flesh "to bring us to (rod." While we have, 
 in the satisfaction rendered to divine law, the legal aspect, we have, in the design 
 to bring men to God, tiie benevolent side of our Saviour's death. The enjoy- 
 ment of (Jod is man's chief good. The Creator has placed the worlds in their 
 orliits, given to the great natural forces their missions, so constituted the lower 
 < reatures that they are happy in the positions assigned, aiming at nothing 
 beyond. Mans excellency is seen in his moral and spiritucal capabilities; ho 
 can commune Avith (Jod, and, because capable of this, is really unsatisfied without 
 it. He may try to satisfy his soul with the things of earth, its wealth, honor, 
 pleasure, but his heart misgives. It may be safely said man never finds the 
 (iegree of contentment he seeks, and expects to find, in the world ; and the 
 reason is obvious, the world has not that measure, it can be found only in God . 
 Naturally, we are far oft" from God; it is thj^ fact that makes the death of 
 (Tirist of such consequence, it brings us to God. Is it wonderful that the 
 redeemed in heaven sing of this death ? That it is the boast of the saved on 
 earth ? Surely not. To be brought to CJod, is to be emancii)ated, to receive life, 
 relationship, fellowship ; it is salvation from sin and hell, from all evil, and for 
 ever . 
 
 The Holy Spirit performed an important part in the work of redemption . 
 He not only overshadowed the virgin, i)rovi(ling a body for the Incarnate Word, 
 it was through the Eternal Spirit Christ "offered himself without spot to God;' 
 and on the morning of the resurrection, his body was "quickened" by this same 
 Spirit. The Spirit that infused life into the dead body of the world's deliverer, 
 inspires life into our dead souls. The Father appoints, the Son procures, the 
 Holy Spirit imparts; thus, the deliverance and elevation of a human soul call 
 fortii tlie thought and activity of the ever-blessed God — Father, Son and Holy 
 (ihost. 
 
 The second statement in the text is, that Christ, by the Holy Spirit, went 
 and preached to the spirits in prison. The relative pronoun "which," has direct 
 reference to the word " Spirit " going before. Says Peter, " Being put to death in 
 the Hesh, but quickened bj"^ the Spirit, by wliich also he went and preached.' 
 Nothing is here said about the Saviour going personally upon any such mission 
 as that imagined by Restorationists ; the work done was accomplished by the 
 Holy Spirit. A very clear distinction is drawn in Scripture between our Lord 
 and the third person in the Trinity. Before His crucifixion, Jesus said to His 
 disciples, " But when the Comforter ia come, whom I will send unto you from 
 the Father, even the Spirit of Truth which proceedeth irom the Father, He shall 
 testify of Me." — (John 15 ; 2G.) Here Christ promised to send the Spirit. No 
 one could understand him to mean he would come in person ; he would comfort 
 — instruct — them by the Spirit. The assertion of the text is, that he preached, 
 not personally, but by the Holy Ghost; and yet Mr. Jukes has the temerity to 
 say, " Our Lord went and preached to the spirits in prison !' Surely, in his zeal 
 
43 
 
 for his new faith, our author forgot the rohitioiir; of words, and the projirictics of 
 the case. In the sense of the text, the Saviour preiiches to-day wherever the 
 (Jospel is prochiimed. 
 
 When did tliis preaching talie place? ft is most unfortunate for the theory 
 of restoration, that the reference to Noah, and to the l)uilding of the ark, follows 
 so closely upon that to the spirits in prison. If this damaging allusion were not 
 here, a somewhat i)retentious theory, perhaps, might he huilt up. As it is, any 
 Kuch attempt can only lead, like the building of the tower of Bal>el, to a confusion 
 of tongues. Our thcorizers have a fondness for lutting a text loose from its 
 context, when the context is awkwardly in t)ie way. By such a method, an 
 exegesis becomes wonderfully convincing; the countenances of believers in the 
 new gospel are radiant ; their hearts swell with emotion ; in prophetic vision, 
 they see the nations walking in the new light, fUled with a universal charity ; 
 Avhen suddenly, some old-fa-shionedexegclist challenges the premise.*^, couples the 
 severed links of some continuous passage, and there is a collapse. 
 
 Mr. Jukes quotes Dean Alford's comment on the text as follows : — '• I under- 
 stand these words to say that our Lord, in his disembodied state, did go to the 
 l)lace of detention of departed spirits, and did there announce his work of re- 
 demption, preach salvation, in fact, to the disembodied spirits ot those who re- 
 fused to obey the voice of God, when the judgment of the flood was hanging 
 over them." — (p. 40.) Were there no others in hell at this time but the spirits of 
 those whom the judgment of the flood took awcay ? According to the common 
 chronology the flood took place 2,349 years before Christ. Where were the inhab- 
 itants of the cities of the plain, said by St. Jude to be '■ suftcring the vengeance 
 of eternal fire ?" AVhere were I'haraoh and the Egyptian host ? Korah, Dathan , 
 Abiram and tlieir followers ? the Cannanitish nations? and other nations whose 
 idolatrous worship was full of immentionable abominations? Were none of 
 these there ? This restorationist notion of Jesus preaching to the spirits of 
 those drowned by the deluge, leads to one of two extraordinary conclusions : 
 either there were no lost souls in hell but themselves — none had gone before theiu 
 to that place for some 1,600 years, for some 2,300 years after hell had not opened 
 its gates to receive a single sinner — or our Lord passed by all, in his mission of 
 mercj^, but those who died by the flood ! Mr. Jukes, Dean Alford, and all wlio 
 adopt their views, impale themselves upon the horns of this dilemma. The 
 former conclusion makes falsehood of the Scriptures, the latter represents the 
 Saviour of men as a merciless partialist, going among nations of the lost, and 
 selecting some as the objects of his compassion, leaving others to sufler. No man 
 of reason can accept either alternative. The restorationist view of this text 
 cannot be sustained. Lacking any cohesive element it falls to pieces ; as a 
 phantom, or the mirage of the desert, it dissolves, and, " like the baseless fabric 
 of a vision, leaves not a wreck behind." 
 
 The preaching by the Holy Spirit, referred to in the text, took place in thi' 
 days of Noah, this pieacher of righteousness being the visible agent. It is said 
 of the spirits in prison that they " sometime were disobedient, when once the 
 long-suiiering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was prepar- 
 ing.'" The plain teaching of St. Peter, is that Christ, by the Holy Spirit, 
 preached to the spirits now in prison in the days of Noah. That the Holy 
 Spirit operated upon the minds of men at that early period is historically true. 
 If you turn to the sixth chapter of Genesis you read, "And the Lord said, my 
 spirit shall not always stfive with man. « ♦ • And God saw that the 
 wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the 
 thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord 
 that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the 
 Lord said, I will destroy man, whom I have created from the face of the earth." 
 — (Verses 3-7.) Several points here demand notice : 
 
44 
 
 1. "Tlic lonR-snffering of God." This lasted 120 years, during which time 
 the building of the ark proceeded. God might have made a full end at once, 
 but he preferred to delay the coming stroke. God's forbearance with the ante- 
 diluvians displays his character. He never allows justice to lay bare her arm 
 until mercy has been offered in vain. How men test the long-suffering of God 
 to-day I It is possible to test it too long, to presume upon divine mercy until 
 we arc swei)t away. Let us avoid tempting God. 
 
 2. The spirits now in prison had an opportunity of salvation by the ministry 
 t»f Noah, and the Holy Spirit, while the long-suffering of God waited. In the 
 matter of warning they had line upon line. Not only had God declared what 
 he would do, he emphasised his words by ordering preparations to be made to 
 save the repentant. As the Holy 8pir|t strove and Noah preached ; as the ark 
 reared its massive j)roportions, its shape indicating that it was to fl^at upon 
 the waters ; as year after year of the one hundred and twenty passed away short- 
 ening their time and lessening their chances ; they could not but acknowledge 
 the impressiveness and fullness of their privileges. Not a sinner sank beneath 
 the tempestuous waters of the deluge but was called, and might have been 
 saved. All the perishing may be saved to-day. We have the sum(! Sj)irit striving 
 with us, we have the gospel and men to proclaim it. If we go to prison it 
 will be more tolerable for the antediluvians than for us. 
 
 3. The spirits now in prison were stubbornly disobedient in the days of 
 Noah ; their disobedience was the cause of their death and subsequent im- 
 prisonment. 
 
 'J'he general idea of the text is Christ's perpetual influence in his Church . 
 Says the learned Archbishop Lcighton : " There is nothing that so much con- 
 cerns a Christian to know as the excellency of Jesus Christ, his person and 
 work ; so that it is always pertinent to insist much on that subject. The apostle, 
 having spoken of this Spirit, or Divine Nature, and the power of it, as raising 
 him (Christ) from the dead, takes occasion to speak of another work of that 
 Spirit, to wit, the emission and publishing of his divine doctrine ; and that not 
 a new thing, following his death and rising, but as the same in substance witli 
 that which was, by the same spirit, promulgated long before, even to the first 
 inhabitants of the world. — (Commentary, p. 2G5.) This is a very clear putting 
 of the case. True religion is one and the same in all ages, and is sustained and 
 propagated by the same almighty power. Peter recognized this, and reasoned 
 accordingly . 
 
 It may be objected to this exposition that the word "spirits" must mean 
 disembodied spirits, and therefore the preaching was to such, instead of men in 
 the tlesh as in the case of the antediluvians. As Dr. A. Clarke points out, in his 
 comment on the text, this does not follow. In Scripture, " spirits " are spoken 
 of when enbodied, living men are meant ; a part is put for the whole. God is 
 addressed by Moses and Aaron as " the God of the spirits of all flesh." — (Num- 
 bers, 16:22.) Again, Moses says: *< Let the Lord, the God of the spirits of all 
 liesh, set a man over the congregation." — (Numbers, 27:16.) Now, those servants 
 of God did not mean that God was not the God of the bodies of men in the sense 
 of being their creator and preserver : their form of speech was elliptical. Job 
 speaks of God as the being " In whose hand is the soul of every living thing." 
 — (Job 12:10) Taking the word soul to mean life, or otherwise. Job evidently 
 means the whole being. When Paul asks, " Shall we not much rather be in sub- 
 jection unto the Father of spirits and live ? " — (Heb. 12:9) he certainly includes 
 men in the flesh in the term spirits. From these examples we see it is not un- 
 common to use the word spirits when men in the flesh are referred to, and this 
 breaks the force ot the objection. Then it will be seen that when St, Peter 
 wrote the condition of disembodied spirits was their then condition, he spoke of 
 them as they then were, and referred to certain advantages offered as they had 
 been. It would be quite within the limits of coherency and truth for a minister 
 
45 
 
 to say, in rt'gard to some ungodly attcndimtK upon his ministry who had died 
 without hopt', that he had pivacheiJ to spirits in prison. No ono would supposo 
 he had descended into hoil ; but that the Gospel was proclaimed in this world, 
 and in tho days of their life. This will illustrate St. i'eter's style of language, 
 and show the limits within which the text is rapal)le of a true scriptural in- 
 terpretation. 
 
 It will he gathered from what has boon advanced that the theory of Restora- 
 tionisru receives no support from the text. Peter's theme is a certain offer of 
 salvation to the living, not to the lost. We argue the folly of this conception 
 from the entire silence of Scripture on tho subject. It is true Rev. A. Jukes 
 tries to gather proof for his favorite idea, but it is manufactured, and even then 
 decidedly shadowy and frail. After discoursing on the ceremonial law, particu- 
 larly that feature of it called the law of redemption, and making points from "the 
 lamb redeeming the ass," tlie " purification of women on the birth of a male or a 
 female child " — (p. 40-52), in which circumstances Mr. Jukes sees the coming 
 glory of restitution, he says, " The prophets repeat the same teaching, still 
 further opening out this part of God's purpose, in a later age to visit those who 
 were rejected in an earlier one." — (p. 54.) On examination of the teach- 
 ings of the prophets, as indicated by Mr. Jukes' references, we find 
 them to consist of certain involved and highly figurative predictions 
 regarding Moab (Jer. 48:47) ; Egypt and Assyria (Isaiah 19:23-25) ; 
 Elam (Jer. 49:39); and Sodom and her daughters (Ezek. 16:53-55); — 
 language, as James Anthony Froude would say, that bears about the 
 same relation to final restitution, that " color does to sound, or longitude to the 
 rule of three." Mr. Jukes tiikes for granted what he ought to prove, viz. : that 
 those prophecies refer to a restoration in a future state. An unbiassed study of 
 the passages can only result in the conviction that they describe certain national 
 changes in this world, of those nations when they were nations, or of others who 
 may be indicated by their names. Does Mr. Jukes suppose that Moab, Egypt 
 and Assyria, Elam, &c., will exist as distinct nations in the future state? This 
 would be necessary for the predictions to be fulfilled in their restoration. Then 
 '< Sodom and her daughters " are to return to " their former estate " What was 
 their former estate? A state of vile, unmentionable sin, that could not be tole- 
 rated ; a state of judgment by fire and brimstone from Heaven. Taking the 
 prophecy as it reads, then Sodom and her daughters are to return to their former 
 estate of sin, followed by judgment ! This is unfortunate for Mr. Jukes. It is 
 marvelous that so acute a thinker did not see where he was planting his foot. 
 Admitting, for argument's sake, the correctness of Mr. Jukes' idea of those pro- 
 phedes, they do not prove enough for his theory. Granted, the lost of Moab, 
 Egypt and Assyria, Elam, Sodom and her daughters, are restored, what becomes 
 of the lost of the rest of the nations of mankind ? Mr. Jukes' pet notion is a 
 universal restoration ; his argument from the prophets is against himself. Our 
 friend is not more successful in his appeals to the New Testament than in those 
 to the L.aw and the Prophets. His oriental imagination never leaves him. As 
 he leaps from one dispensation to another, the glamour of his theme is more and 
 more enchanting and deceptive. In the company of Christ and his apostles, he 
 can find no proof for final restitution. There is much fine writing, but most of 
 it is in the interrogative form, a specious, non-committal method of pressing a 
 case, and a confession of weakness in the matter of dogmatic proof. If the sal- 
 vation of the lost through successive ages were the purpose of God, it would be 
 fully revealed. So great a subject as the restoration of every fallen, suffering 
 child of Adam, and possibly of the devil and his angels, as Mr. Jukes intimates, 
 would be declared in the plainest language, that all might understand. Tho 
 actual situation is the opposite of this. The dispassionate mind can only draw 
 one conclusion : God entertains no such purpose of universal restoration, and, 
 tiiereforc, makes no revelation in the case. 
 
 4 
 
46 
 
 The deluge waB the greatest judgment the world ever passed through ; it is 
 to he followed by a greater one. When Christ, the judge of quick and dead, 
 shall come in the glory of His Father, when all nations are gathered before him, 
 the books are opened, and men are rt^^arded according to their works, then shall 
 there be such a time of tribulation as will shadow every previous display of the 
 kind. We sustain a relation to the coming period somewhat analogous to that 
 of the antediluvians to the judgment of the flood. We are apprised of its com- 
 ing, and warned to prepare. The Gospel is preached, the Holy Spirit strives, 
 Christ is held up as the true ark, the Almighty Ruler of all things is longsuffer- 
 ing, what more can we ask? If we go to the prison of the disobedient, it will 
 bo in spite of all this. Am. I addressing any who, like the sinners of Noah's 
 time, feel indifferent to all warning, and laugh at Christian concern on their 
 behalf? Look through the Gospel telescope, sec your brethren oftlio antedi- 
 luvian period, the view tells you human nature is the same to-day as it was forty 
 centuries ago. They of old trifled and scorned until destruction came without 
 remedy. Allow me, as an honest man, to place the fai ts before you. Your 
 present course predicates judgment, leads to prison. Tuii from sin to Christ. 
 Have your names taken out of God's criminal calendar, havt tiiem enrolled with 
 those of the virtuous. This is your day of grace ; improve it, husband your 
 time. Every stroke of the bell 
 
 " Is the knell of your departing hours : 
 
 Where are they ? With the years beyond the flood." 
 
 Too many of those hours have gone to waste, let the past prodigality suffice. 
 You have gone far enough on the down-grade to the prison of the impenitent. 
 Give the signal, « Down brakes 1" Switch oflf on the other track ; it is up-grade, 
 but it leads to the city of God . 
 
Sermon YIII. 
 
 THE UNPARDONABLE SIN. 
 " Wherefore I say uuto you, all manner of sin and blasphoray shall be for- 
 given unto men -. but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be for- 
 given unto men. And whosoever spe^eth a word against the Son of Man, it 
 shall be forgiven him : but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall 
 not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come."' — 
 (Matt. 12:31-32.) 
 
 This passage of Scripture opens up a momentous question, momentous to 
 us because we are sinful beings, and are the parties concerned. There is so 
 much spoken and written in these days about the salvation of the entire human 
 family, so many are disposed to entertain what is termed the *< larger hope," that 
 the possibility of committing an unpardonable sin is scarcely considered ; and 
 because of this tendency of modern thought there is reason to search the Scrip- 
 tures and ascertain their verdict upon a subject so directly bearing upon the 
 prospects of our race. It is no part of a minister's duty to get into a rut ; to 
 aiscourse continually upon certain familiar portions of God's word, of obvious 
 meaning, to the neglect of ethers whose signification is not so clear. Christ said 
 " Every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a 
 man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new 
 and old." — (Matt. 13:52.) It cannot be said of any Scripture that it is purpose- 
 less, much less of any part of the sermons of our Lord. All the utterances 
 of the Great Teacher meet a human want, communicate a knowledge, without 
 which our necessity would be great indeed. I have no sympathy with those 
 who try to soften down, or explain away, a truth of God because it may fall 
 alarmingly upon the ear, or be unsavory to the taste, The fault is not with 
 the truth, but with the ear and the taste. The ear requires to be accustomed to 
 a little artillery fire, and the taste to a process of Christian education. As min- 
 isters, our business is to take the word of God as wo find it, giving it a com- 
 mon-sense interpretation, and pressing its lessons upon the public mind. The 
 text is remarkable for its plainness ; it is one of the least ambiguous of all our 
 Saviour's sayings. At the same time it is an aw^e-inspiring statement, and the 
 more so from the fact that it comes from the lips of Him " who was wounded for 
 our transgressions," and whoso loving heart goes out in longings after a guilty 
 world. 
 
 The text directs our attention to the sin of blasphemy. The word in the 
 Greek text is blasphemia . Eays Webster: "The first syllable, bias, stands for 
 blapsi, from blapsis, damage, injury ; the last syllable is phemi, I say, 1 speak." 
 The meaning of the word is damaging or injurious speech. Mr. Webster fur- 
 ther observes : " Blasphemy is to attribute to God that which is contrary to his 
 nature and does not belong to Him, and to deny what does. It is an indignity 
 offered to God by words or writing ; reproachful, contemptuous or irreverent 
 words uttered impiously against God," Rev. Richard Watson defines it to be 
 " an impious attempt to derogate from the Divine Majesty, and to alienate others 
 from the love and reverence of God." The blasphemer, therefore, is a calum- 
 niator or reviler of the Deity. Any word spoken with this tendency, whether 
 literal or figurative, violent or placid, amid frowns, tears or smiles, is blasphemy. 
 Blasphemy under the law of Moses was a crime punishable with death. We 
 have an instance of this in the book of Leviticus, chapter 24:10-10. The en- 
 ormity of the oft'enco may be judged from the fact that the blasphemer men- 
 tioned was almost at once stoned to death by the ccmgregation of Israel, as God 
 commanded Moses. This sin is indictable in England and the United SUites 
 to-day, but the law is not often enforced. Another case of Idasphemy is re- 
 
48 
 
 corded in I K-ings 18:17-.'{7. iSctinai liorib, kiii^ ol Assyria, sent ilabHliulu 1) and 
 a ^'icat army against .TeruRalem. Rabshakch blasphemed God in addressing the 
 j)eoplc on the wall of the city. God brought upon tlie king and his army swift 
 retribution. An angel of the Lord smote tlie Assyrian camp by night, and 
 destroyed 185,000 men. The remnant beat a hasty retreat, while Sennacherib 
 was slain by his own sons. Blasphemy is common in our day. Habitual or 
 casual profanation of the name and attributes of God by common swearing is 
 blasphemy. No man of ordinary respectability, no well-bred person, no gentle- 
 man, ever swears. The swearer is always of low habits and loose companion- 
 ship. The words of blasphemy on a man's lips are sufficient indication that he 
 is of very questionable character, and that it is time for hearers of such language 
 to move into another atmosphere. The crime is contagious. A blaspheming 
 father will have a blaspheming son, thus one generation corrupts another. The 
 offence is wide-spread. On steamboats, railway trains, at railway stations, at 
 cab stands, in our streets, we hear the horrid words of blasphemy. The sin 
 shows a desperate state of heart and life. 
 
 There are three stops to blasphemy. One in to accustom ourselves to treat 
 the Supreme Being with irreverent familiarity. How often we see this. Men 
 talk of God in a strain of humor and jocularity fearful to hear. There are men 
 to whor^ nothing is sacred. Death, religion, the future, the God in whose hand 
 their breath is, are all more or less the subjects of their unholy ridicule. Some- 
 times more is indicated by the eye and the facial expression than words can 
 unfold. Then men are not satisfied with the ordinary language of sarcasm. 
 They coin forms of expression, thus perverting the natural faculty of invention 
 to a purpose worthy of the severest reprobation. A flippant method of speech 
 regarding God and revealed solemnities is the opening of the road leading to 
 fully developed blasphemy. 
 
 Another step to blasphemy is to arraign the divine attributes. The free- 
 thinking, infidel class do this. They find fault with God's goodness because evil 
 exists; with His justice because He punishes the rebellious, &(;., &c. Tlierc is 
 great folly and sin in accusing an infinite being at the bar of our very limited 
 intelligence. The wisest of men are but children in understanding as compared 
 with the wisdom of the omniscient God. The spii it that prompts murmuring, 
 fault-finding, is the spirit of blasphemy. 
 
 Another step to blasphemy is to revile God's providence. Men do this 
 when some crushing affliction falls upon them. An individual loses his wife by 
 death, parents lose a beloved child, some accident disables one before remarkable 
 for his activity, a fire destroys valuable property, a business failure brings ruin, 
 and so on through the catalogue of calamities. Instead of being submissive, 
 there are men who curse providence, or what they are pleased to term their 
 ill-fortune. They declare providence is one-sided, unjust, and take uji tlio 
 attitude of stubborn rebellion. Such reviling prepares for any sin ; it is as 
 foolish as it is criminal. To speak disparagingly of God's providence, is to 
 speak injuriously of God — providenct; is God in action. 
 
 Such is the sin to which the Saviour makes reference in the text. That it 
 is so prevalent is a blot upon our civilization. We should avoid any step 
 leading to so great a transgression. The blossom of such evil fruit, the bud of 
 so poisonous a flower, the first shoot of such rank and offensive vegetation, 
 should be destroyed. Let us watch our hearts. If our hearts be piu'e, our 
 tongues will b(? under good government ; we shall be reverent, guarded, 
 submissive. 
 
 According to the text, blaspliemy against the Father and the Son is pardon- 
 able. " All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men ; but tiie 
 blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men." Why the 
 sin against the Father and the Son should be pardonable, as distinguished from 
 that against the Holy Ghost, wi' do not know, and have no means of knowing. 
 We believe the persons in the God-head are equal in power, glory, and eternal 
 
49 
 
 (luiatioii. Il would lie rcasonahio to supposf tliut wliat would \ic uupardonalili! 
 ns an oftcncc against one, avouKI be so in the case of each ; but it is not so. The 
 words of Jesus are clear and enii)hatic. He diptinctly states tliat all sins arc 
 pardonable but this one against the Holy Ghost. There is, then, an unpanhm- 
 able sin. There is a reason why the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost should 
 be unpardonable. All divine procedure is founded upon reason ; but the reason 
 in this case is not revealed ; it is hidden in the deep counsels of God. It would 
 be rasl), presumptuous to speculate upon a matter of such awful moment ; and 
 after speculating ever so finely and wisely, we would be no surer that we had the 
 truth than before. Our eagle-feathered imagination may take us round the cir- 
 cumference of the truth, but it woidd be unlikely to conduct us to its centre. It 
 is more becoming to accept the Saviour's statement as to the fact, leaving the 
 why and wherefore with Him. 
 
 It is matter for thankfulness that all sins, even blasphemies, against the 
 Father and the Son are pardonable. There is hope for the desperately wicked. 
 The surroundings of the sinner may be in every sense unfavorable ; his moral 
 and intellectual education may be grossly defective : the chains of habit, forged 
 to the stiength of welded iron, may bind him ; a personal and vindictive devil 
 may drive him whithersoever he listeth ; the gloom of the nethermost hell may 
 partially envelope him ; but, if he have escaped one terrible transgression, there 
 is hope. So teaches the Lord Jesus Christ ; so we preach on His authority. 
 
 Let us now look more particularly at the unpardonable sin. If we consider 
 the circumstances under which the words of the text were spoken, we find our 
 Lord had cast out a devil. " There was brought unto Him, one possessed with a 
 devil, blind and dumb ; and He healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb 
 both spake and saw. But when the Pharisees heard it they said, this fellow doth 
 not cast out devils but by Beelzebub, the prince of devils." — (Matt. 12 : 22-24.) 
 The Pharisees here simply stated that Jesus, being in league with the devil, had 
 cured the man by Satanic agency ; that the power working in and through Him 
 was diabolical and not divine. Our Lord understood them in this sense ; tor he 
 immediately proceeded to show the .absurdities involved in their conclusion. 
 " And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, every kingdom divided 
 against itself is brought to desolation ; and every city or house divided against 
 itself shall not stand ; and if Satan cast out Satan " (their supposition) <' he is 
 divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand ? And if I, by 
 Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out ? Therefore, 
 they shall be your judges. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then 
 the Kingdom of God is come unto yon. • • • Wherefore I say unto yon, all 
 manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men ; but the blasphemy 
 against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men." Three things here 
 appear very clear : 
 
 1. The Pharisees termed the Sphit of God working in Christ the devil. St, 
 Mark says, chap. 3 : 28-30, the Saviour uttered the awful words about blasphemy. 
 " Because they said. He hath an unclean spirit," or was possessed with a devil. 
 
 2. The statements of the Pharisees were damaging, or injurious language, 
 (see etymology of the wonl blasphcmia,) and constituted blasphemy against the 
 Holy Ghost. 
 
 3. Our Lord addressed the Pharisees in the text as having commitlcd the 
 unpardonable sin. Ho clearly teaches such to be the fact ; only, indeed, upon 
 this ground have Ilis words coherency and apjdication to the occasion. To sup- 
 pose Christ uttered such awful sentences in regard to a sin that had not been 
 perpetrated, and could not be, is to charge him with folly of thought and speech. 
 Blasphemy against the Holy (JIiomI, the unpardonable sin, according to the Great 
 Teacher, forms one in the long catalogue of human transgressions. The text is 
 a danger signal menifully placed along our track. May wo heed the warning. 
 
 Our Lord declared t(* the Pharisees in clear and forcible language that the 
 sin of which they had been guilty had no forgiveness. His fust statement is 
 
50 
 
 (il)Suliit*'ly UiiijUiililird. lU' sjiys, " 'I'lu; liliispliciny iiK<iiiif>l tlu; Holy Ghost rfliull 
 not l»e foif^iven unto men." This (lo( laiution is limited by no rcstiirtions ; it 
 sweeps all duration; it announccis a fact; a fact in tlio present, in the future, 
 and forever. No amount of re-translation, of cxegetlcal jug,tjjlery, of cutting and 
 j)erversion, can rob this utterance of its meaning; its plainness is its defence. 
 The second statement in the text is, " But whosoever speaketh against tlic Holy 
 (jihost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world 
 to come." The first part of this declaration is as entirely unrestricted as the 
 former one. Universalists and Kestorationists, ignoring other affirmations, try 
 to gather up some crumbs of comfort for themselves and their systems by a 
 criticism of the expression " neither in this w(Mld, neither in the world to come." 
 Rev. A. Jukes translates the Greek to suit himself by .saying that instead of 
 reading " shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world 
 to come " the true rendering is '' shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age, 
 nor the coming one." "But," says Mr, Jukes, "the text says nothing of 
 those ages to come." That is, the ages after the coming age. Mr. Jukes en- 
 tertains the hope that what will not be done in the coming age, may be 
 accomplished in the ages after ; in other language, he takes a supposition of 
 his own, and makes it a prop for his theory of final restitution, Accepting, 
 for argument's sake, Mr. Jukes' translation, it does not help him. At the 
 time Christ thus spoke, the Christian dispensation had been introduced. His 
 spiritual kingdom had been set up in the earth. The cry of John the Bap- 
 tist, the forerunner, "the kingdom of heaven is at hand," had been fulfilled, 
 and Christianity was actually in conflict with a virtually defunct Judaism. 
 Mr. Jukes himself being judge, Jesus said the blasphemy against the Holy 
 Ghost was unpardonable in the Christian age, or the future one. This is all 
 we contend for. The age following the Christian is the eternal age ; the 
 reference to both ages leaves small hope for universal restitution. It will be 
 seen that, after all Mr. Jukes' learned efforts to mend the translation, he 
 lands just where he staited, and leaves the authorized reading really untouched. 
 But, as if to destroy all doubt in the case, our Lord makes use of other 
 language entirely unambiguous. The expression in Luke is " shall not be 
 forgiven. — "(Luke 12:10.) In Mark 3:29, "hath never forgiveness." These 
 collated with the two in in the text, one being explanatory of the other, 
 show that our Saviour cut off all hope from the blasphemer against the 
 Holy Ghost. 
 
 It is argued by some that the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost cannot 
 be committed in our day. They say the yaviour is not now upon earth 
 working miracles, and that, therefore, men cannot ascribe them to Satanic 
 agency. This looks a good deal like begging the question. Blasphemy, as 
 seen by the etymology of the word, is not limited to one set of phrases, or 
 times, or circumstances. To blaspheme, is to revile God. Ho that reviles 
 the Holy Ghost perpetrates the unpardonable sin. Then is it true that there 
 are no miracles in our day? There are miracles of grace. Every true con- 
 version is the casting out of a devil. Satiin rules the unrenewed man, leads 
 him from sin to sin, fills him with hatred of God and goodness. When a 
 devil is cast out of the human soul by the Spirit of God ; when numbers of 
 such cases occur, and men say, as they do sometimes, " It is the work of the 
 devil," how far are they from the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost? It 
 does not become mo t<» dogmatize here, but I cannot help saying that the 
 resemblance between the blaspheming Pharisees and some modern despisers 
 of revivals and conversions, is strong. The same spirit that influenced the 
 Pharisees governs those who talk of "decoy ducks" when Christians surround 
 God's altar to consecrate themselves anew to his service; who laugh at 
 prayer, or any sj)ecial effort to 8av(( men ; at u Christian life, anything above 
 the stiuidard of hcatlujn morality. I would not like to stand in the slices of 
 «uch men ; they occupy dangerous ground. As Jacob said of Simeon and 
 
51 
 
 Levi, 80 wo may s.ay : "0 my soul, come not Ihoii iiitct their secret; unto 
 their assembly, mine honor, be not thou united." 
 
 The teaching: of the text on the unpardonable sin is not that of an isolated 
 passage of Scripture. Paul speaks of a class of men whom " it is impossible to 
 renew again unto repentance." — (Heb. 0:6.) He is here describing total apos- 
 tates, and declares their eternal doom. Again he says, " For if we sin wilfully, 
 after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more 
 sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and liory indigna- 
 tion which shall devour the adversaries.'' — (Heb. 10:26-27.) Here again the case 
 of total apostates is considered ; there being no sacrifice for sins available, they 
 can but perish forever. St. John, in his fir.-*t epistle, says, " There is a sin unto 
 death ; I do not say that he shall pray for if — (Chap. 5 : 16.) That can only be 
 an unpardonable sin, for the pardon of which no prayer can be offered. While 
 Judas Iscariot was plotting the betrayal, Jesus prayed and said of his disciples, 
 "None is lost but the son of perdition." Of the same Judas, our Lord said, 
 " Woe unto that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed ; it had been good for 
 that man if he had not been born." — (Matt. 26 : 24.) Mr. Jukes admits that the 
 words concerning Judas " declare an awful doom,' and that his case «' seems a.^ 
 dark as night." — (p. 131.) These Scriptures are confirmatory of the doctrine 
 taught in the gospel by Matthew, Mark and Luke. Paul and John show the 
 unpardonable sin was not confined to the time of our Lord, but that it may be 
 committed to-day. 
 
 An objector may say, " You prove too much. Jesus says all sins are pardon- 
 able but one ; you discover several others, thus making Scripture contradict 
 itself." I reply, I make Scripture do nothing : I simply take its own utterances, 
 which are in no sense contradictory. Total apostacy, as in the case of Judas, 
 and the instances cited by Paul, may, and evidently does, include the blasphemy 
 against the Holy Ghost. The men referred to are regarded as beyond moral 
 recovery, and must, therefore, to make his wgrds true, have committed the sin 
 described by Christ. The effects mentioned are immediately or remotely from 
 the same cause. 
 
 That there is an unpardonable sin is quite consistent with the fact that Christ 
 died for all men . We are under no necessity to commit the sin ; we are free 
 to resist all temptations in that direction. Grace is offered us which we may 
 use for our personal safety and God's glory. 
 
 That there is an unpardonable sin is quite consistent with the fact that God 
 has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. The blasphemer against the Holy 
 (Hiost must perish, but, as regards God, unwillingly. There are offences against 
 human law that cannot be condoned. Who will deny to the Most High the 
 right to seta limit to human crime against himself? As the source of all life and 
 law, God violates no good principle, in saying, by the mouth of his son Jesus, to 
 the transgressor, " Thus far shalt thou come, and no farther." 
 
 It is doubtful if men who commit the unpardonable sin live long afterwards 
 upon the earth. Their probation is practically over ; their life has no moral ob- 
 ject ; they can live only for evil. The strong probability is that, like Judas 
 Iscariot, their days are few and evil. 
 
 The unpardonable sin teaches the deity of the Holy Ghost. He cannot be 
 a mere creature or influence against whom it is possible to sin without rijmedy. 
 Peter's address to Ananias settles the point : " But Peter said, Ananias, why hath 
 Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost ? • • • Thou has not lied 
 unto men but unto God," — (Acts 5:3-4.) This text is unequivocal on the doctrine 
 of the Godhead of the third person in the Trinity. We should never forget to 
 reverence the Holy Spirit, ^aqcjorp hyn equally wjth the Father and the Son. It 
 is matter of experience ^rft Vhffri> tljc.'S'jjfrJt <>f H^oil is most .bynored, the cause 
 of religion thrives best.'.4f wt> j^nv^- .eri'e^ in .tlii* Mat>t«lel*us mend the fault 
 in the future, and preseji^ to tlie Ktornnl Sj.irit 'thfe* f>rc>f6u*ulcst homage of our 
 hearts. * ' ^ .'•;• . • 
 
 • • •< • • t * 
 
52 
 
 Wo may ronrludo wc liave not committed tlio nnpardonalile sin by tin' 
 tioublc which the apprehension ranses us, and by om- horror of it. Tlie real 
 sinners arc quiet on the subject. I should jud;;e such a class to be those ot whom 
 St. Paul speaks, «' Who beinf; past feeling, have given themselves over unto 
 lasciviousncss, to work all unclcinness with greediness." — (Ephes. 4:19.) Past 
 feeling 1 A fearful state of heart, a fearful outlook for the future. Watching 
 against all sin is the surest preventative of the sin unpardonable. Do we do 
 this ? We cannot be safe wliile sin has dominion over us ; in an evil hour we may 
 be tempted to pass the limit of pardonable transgressions. If so, who can save ? 
 My unsaved hearer, abandon all sin. In the lines of Young : 
 
 " Give thy mind sea-room ; keep it wide of earth, 
 That rock of souls immortal ; cut thy cord ; 
 Weigh anchor ; spread the sails ; call every wind ; 
 Eye thy great Polo-Star; make the land of life." 
 
 The doctrine of the New Testament in regard to tlie unpardonable .sin 
 proves the teachings of Univcrsalism and Restorationism to be untrue. Thost- 
 systems declare all sin is pardonable, either in this world or in the next ; Jesus 
 Christ and His apostles teach that there is a sin absolutely unpardonable. That 
 the Pharisees perpetrated a sin never to be forgiven, Christ Himself shows in the 
 text and parallel passagea. This is the view of Wesley in his " Notes on the New 
 Testament ;" of Dr. A, Clarke, the commentator ; of the llev. 11. Watson, as 
 shown in his ''' Biblical and Theological Dictionary :" of Kitto, the author of the 
 " Cyclopaidia of Biblical Literature ;" of Bishop Pearson, as shown in his " Expo- 
 sition of the Creed," and of many other authors too numerous to mention. Con- 
 fining the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost to the Pharisees of our Lord's time, 
 if they, as Christ says, "hath never forgiveness," then Univcrsalism is a fable ; 
 the loss of one soul destroys both its name and assumptions. We have seen, by 
 the testimony of other Scriptures, that we are not warranted in restricting this 
 sin to the Pharisees ; this makes the case so much stronger against the theory 
 that all will be saved. We can only conclude from tiie foregoing premises, that 
 Univcrsalism, and its twin-sister, Kestorationism, are anti-Biblical, misleading 
 and dangerous. Together, they form a false beacon, luring the voyager upon the 
 rock-bound coast ; they are a current sweeping on to the maelstrom of personal 
 ruin ; they cast about them the fitful glare of a false hope, to be succeeded by 
 the intense darkness of the under world. Let us not suffer ourselves to be 
 deceived by a sort of spiritual clairvoyance. I urge you, my hearers, to have 
 done with Utopian theory, and take to your hearts the plain focts so clearly 
 stamped upon the page of inspiration. Univcrsalism demands impeachment at 
 the hands of every minister of Christ. As a heresy it is too presumptuous and 
 insinuating to have the silence ot contempt. I impeach it in the name of that 
 God whose nature it misrepresents, whose purposes it defames and tries to make 
 odious to the human mind and heart ; I impeach it in the name of the Bible, 
 whose doctrines it ignoreg in nearly every instance, whose solemn warnings of 
 coming judgment it holds up to popular ridicule, and whose beauty it endeavors 
 to mar by a system of piecemeal perversion opposed to ordinary integrity and 
 every rule of sound criticism ; I impeach it in the name of humanity, whose 
 champion it professes to be, as trifling with the souls of men regarding the na- 
 ture and obligations of the present life, and as liawking roimd a picture of the 
 future simply the product of its own imliccnsed ingenuity. In the name of the 
 generations past who lived and died in the old faith ; in the name of the 
 Christian churches of to-day, which are one in fundamental doctrine, I arraign 
 it as unworthy of public confidence, as injurious to the morals of youth and to 
 the best interests of mature umnhood. Evidence su^licieiit has been presented 
 during the delivery of the;f?(?.diKc&ia.iJS io sustdit the impeachment. To the 
 mind of every inie-llifc'ent pf waui it goe5/)ut t-f <(<urt.;bearing the brand of con- 
 viction, and to mrdi'.n^o ijto ji4ip\-opriat<.' scntcmc of uumcaHurcd condemnation. 
 
:*f.y 
 
 ■ f '-V