IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 m 
 Hi 
 
 123. IIIII2.5 
 
 IIIIM |||||Z2 
 
 1^ 
 
 IM mil 2.0 
 
 1.8 
 
 1 
 
 1.25 1.4 
 
 1.6 
 
 
 ■^ 
 
 6" — 
 
 
 ► 
 
 ..^ 
 
 V} 
 
 <$> 
 
 ^ 
 
 /}. 
 
 '/a 
 
 ^a 
 
 ^. 
 
 e. 
 
 % "> 
 
 '^M' c>1 
 
 /A 
 
 ^yjw 
 
 o 
 
 7 
 
 Phot(^raphic 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 # 
 
 4< 
 
 s. 
 
 ^ 
 
 \ 
 
 \ 
 
 ^<b 
 
 s^. ^ 
 
 6^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STPF«T 
 
 WEBSTrR N.Y. i4580 
 
 (716) 875-4503 
 
 '1>^\. ^ 
 
 fl? 
 

 i^.- 
 
 ^% 
 
 i/x 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
 :\ 
 
 ^ 
 
 >^ 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be bibliographically unique, 
 which may alter any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 L'Institut a microfilmd le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a 6x6 possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la m^thode normale de filmage 
 sont indiquds ci-dessous. 
 
 □ Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 □ Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 n 
 
 Covers damaged/ 
 Couverture endommagee 
 
 □ Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagdes 
 
 □ Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaurde et/ou pellicul6e 
 
 D 
 
 Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 Pages restaur6es et/ou pellicul^es 
 
 D 
 
 Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 I ]/ Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 I Vi Pages ddcolordes, tachet6es ou piqu^es 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes g^ographiques en couleur 
 
 Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 □Pages detached/ 
 Pages d^tach^es 
 
 r~T^Showthrough/ 
 I 1 Transparence 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 □ Quality of print varies/ 
 Quality indgale de I'impression 
 
 D 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Relie avec d'autres documents 
 
 □ Includes supplementary material/ 
 Comprend du materiel supplementaire 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distortion le long de la marge intdrieure 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes 
 lors dune restauration apparaissent dans le texte, 
 mais. lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas ^t6 film^es. 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partiellement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, 
 etc., ont 6t6 filmdes d nouveau de facon 6 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 n 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires suppl6mentaires: 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqu^ ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 14X 18X 22X 
 
 26X 
 
 30X 
 
 y 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
tails 
 
 du 
 idifier 
 
 une 
 nage 
 
 The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 National Library of Canada 
 
 The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grSce d la 
 g6n6ro8it6 de: 
 
 Bibliothdque nationale du Canada 
 
 Les images suivantes ont dt6 reproduites avec le 
 pL'S grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettetd de l'exemplaire filmd, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustr.ited impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprim6e sont filmds en commenpant 
 par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
 plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont filmds en commenpant par la 
 premidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la dernidre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol —►(meaning "CON- 
 TINUED "), or the symbol V (meaning 'END "), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la 
 dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbole — ♦► signifie "A SUIVRE", le 
 symbole V signifie "FIN". 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent §tre 
 filmds & des taux de reduction diffdrents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour §tre 
 reproduit en un seul cliche, il est filmd d partir 
 de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la mdthode. 
 
 irrata 
 to 
 
 pelure, 
 n d 
 
 □ 
 
 32X 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 1 
 
 6 
 
/ 
 
 M 
 
 
 E 
 
"Sf;', ,;<-. 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALIS! 
 
 AND 
 
 MATERIALISM, 
 
 AS VIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF 
 
 HOLY SCEIPTTJRE, 
 
 BY 
 
 THE REV. EDWARD SOFTLEY, B.D. 
 
 WITH INTRODUCTION BY 
 
 -•:. 
 
 THE 
 
 PR 
 
 ROWSE 
 
 REV 
 
 IXCIPAL 
 
 ■. W. CAVEX, D. D., 
 
 OF Knox's College, Toronto. 
 
 * 
 
 ILL & 
 
 TORONTO : 
 HUTCHISOX, PRINTERS, 
 
 
 1879. 
 
fo' 
 
 r^ 
 
 19 62 45 
 
 /^ 
 
 r 
 
 )<9 
 
 f 
 
 TI 
 
 Entered accorc'inc; to Act of Parliament of Cttnada, in the year 1879, by Reverend 
 Edward Softlet, in the offl e of the Minister of Agriculture. 
 
TO 
 
 THE RIGHT REV. I. HELLMUTH, D.D., D.C.L., 
 
 Lord Bishop of Huron, 
 
 THIS VOLUME IS RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED 
 
 BY 
 
 THE AUTHOR. 
 
in 
 it 
 
 Ji 
 
 B 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 BOOK I. — Modern Universalism. 
 
 Part 1. 
 
 Negative Universalism, as represented by the Rev. H. N. Oxenham, 
 in his pamphlet, "Is the received Doctrine De Fide ? and, if not, Is 
 it true ? " 
 
 Mr. Oxenham's questions answered aeriatim. 
 
 Part 2. 
 
 Positive Universalism, as represented by Revs. S. Cox and A. 
 Jukes, in " Salvator Mundi, " and "The Restitution of all Things." 
 
 Chap. 1. — Analytical Synopsis. 
 
 " 2. — Process of Investigation. 
 
 " 3. — Laws of Scripture Exegesis. 
 
 " 4. — First Born and First Fruits. Negative View. 
 
 " 5. — Law of Election and True Function of Punishment. 
 
 " 6. — First Born and First Fruits. Positive View. 
 
 " 7. — Revelation and Moral Agency. 
 
 *• 8. — Restitution of all Things. Scripture Teaching. 
 
 BOOK II. — Modern Materialism, as represented by 
 the Rev. Edward White, in *' Life in Christ." 
 
 Chap. 1. — Introductory chapter, with notice of the Geological 
 and Biological argument. 
 " 2.— Immortality of the Soul and Philosophy. 
 " 3. — Fall of Man and Terms of the Curse. 
 
VI 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 CiiAP. 4.— Crucial words, " Life " and •' Death." 
 
 " 5.— Death of Christ, as related to the •' Death " ; the 
 
 Curse of Sin. 
 " 6. — Usits LoquemU of the Sacred Writers, and Hebraisms 
 
 of the New Testament. 
 " 7.— Figurative Description of Future Punishment. 
 '• 8.— Literal Terms. 
 • ' 9. —Of Probation in Hades. 
 
 Collateral Issues involved in Mr. White's book :— 
 
 (a) Nature of God. 
 
 (b) Nature of Sin. 
 
 (c) Character of Regeneration. 
 
 (d) Atonement of Christ. 
 
 (e) Inspiration of the Sci iptures. 
 (/) Prayers for the Dead. 
 
 A.— Comparative View of Universalism and Materialism. 
 B.— The Moderii Via Media, as represented by Prof. Birks. 
 C— Positive Results. 
 
 {a) Proximate, and as related to Future Punishment. 
 (h) Ultimate, and as related to Christian Theism. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 (a) Synopsis of Mr. Carry's Article on aluu. 
 {b) Excursus on the Rise of Moral Evil, 
 (c) Excursus on the Trichotomy Theory. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 In offering the following pages, through the public, 
 and through the Church catholic, to that Church's 
 Divine Head with a view to vindicate His Revealed 
 Word, the author would say a few word.-^, in reference 
 thereto, by way of explanation, (he will not term it 
 apology,) to the reader. 
 
 That explanation is as follows : — 
 
 It Avas not with the ambition of writing a book, 
 that the first, and part of the second portion of this 
 treatise was written. 
 
 In the performance of what he regarded as a duty 
 of obedience to his ordination vows, and of fulfilment 
 of his obligations as a minister of Christ, to endeavour 
 "to drive away, all erroneous and strange doctrines 
 contrary to God's Word"; he took up his pen at that 
 time, and sought the aid and avenue of the religious 
 press, in the prosecution of such endeavour. 
 
 Continued enquiry on his part, and the further 
 development of Rationalistic principles by others, in 
 this direction, finally led him to think, not of a 
 pamphlet, but of a book ; and the dimensions of the 
 same, have, by the same cause, been further enlarged. 
 In the belief that the endeavour, as it has for its 
 object, that which is of supreme consequence to man. 
 
Vlll 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 and of glory to God ; has also, in its inception and 
 progress, been favoured with tokens of the Divine 
 presence and help ; the author has been encouraged 
 to persevere, in a work of some little labour. In 
 doing so, he has been greatly assisted and cheered, 
 by the kindness of many able and eminent men, 
 who have passed so very favourable a judgment, 
 upon such portions of his work as came under their 
 knowledge ; that he has had his hands greatly 
 strengthened thereby, and by the consideration of 
 which, he has often been reassured. The reception 
 which he has met with, from his clerical brethren, in 
 his personal intercourse with them, in connection here- 
 with ; has been of a most cheering and gratifying 
 character, and has afforded great satisftiction to him, 
 as it has given evidence of the general orthodoxy, and 
 true catholicity of the Church in Canada ; as its 
 several parts stand related to each other, and to their 
 Divine Head. 
 
 While he most gratefully appreciates the kindness, 
 and reciprocates the love, of all the dear brethren in 
 Christ, before referred to ; he feels constrained to make 
 special acknowledgment, of the prompt and cordial 
 help, of Provost Whitaker, Rev. A. Sanson, Dr. Potts, 
 Dr. Robb, Professor McLaren, Archdeacon (now Bishop) 
 Sweatman; of the ma'*^ d kindness of his valued 
 friend, and honoured brother. Principal Caven, w^ho 
 has written the Introduction, and whose interest in 
 the work has been unceasing; and though last, not 
 least, of the valuable help of his friend of many years, 
 the Rev. J. M. Cameron. 
 
PBEFACE. 
 
 IX 
 
 It has been the endeavour of the author, to serve 
 the cause of the Master herein, " as of the ability tliat 
 He giveth"; and also, to justify their favourable opin- 
 ions. That they will cover its blemishes, for this 
 reason, with the mantle of love, and that, for what- 
 ever it may be accounted worthy of praise, all honour 
 may be given to the Lord, and Giver of All, is the 
 wish of the Church's humble servant, for the Master's 
 sake. 
 
 The Author. 
 
ina 
 vo 
 de 
 hu 
 
 to 
 
 ex 
 qu 
 cai 
 bu 
 res 
 W( 
 we 
 J 
 a g 
 the 
 sor 
 exi 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 BY 
 
 THE REY. W. CAVEN, D.D., 
 
 PRINCIPAL OF KNOX COLLEGE, TORONTO. 
 
 J 
 
 It is not necessary to say anything regarding the 
 importance of the questions discussed in the following 
 volume. All that relates to man's condition after 
 death is invested with the deepest interest ; and the 
 
 human mind cannot cease— with hope or with fear 
 
 to contemplate the endless future. 
 
 We have no certain knowledge of the future state 
 except as we receive it from the Word of God. The 
 question as to the very existence of man after death 
 cannot bo answered with certainty by any authority 
 but the Bible ; and whatever conscience may say 
 respecting a scene of retribution, it is the inspired 
 Word which completes the evidence that it shall be 
 well with the righteous, and ill with the wicked. 
 
 Much speculation has of late been indulged in, and 
 a good deal written, regarding the future condition of 
 those who die without a holy character. Many per- 
 sons are maintaining that the wicked shall cease to 
 exist at death ; or that, though raised up at the last 
 day, their existence and their punishment shall both 
 
m 
 
 'm 
 
 xn 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 terminate in the second death ; or that, after a period 
 of discipline, longer or shorter, they shall attain to 
 faith in Christ, and become partakers of redemption ; 
 and thus all men shall be saved. 
 
 The views entertained on these momentous ques- 
 tions must necessarily exercise a great influence upon 
 the other opinions, and upon the life, of any man ; and 
 it cannot be an unimportant service to the Church of 
 Christ, to subject the whole matter to a careful and 
 thorough examination, in the light of Scripture. Such 
 service the author of the present work has sought to 
 render. Mr. Softley's treatise is not only opportune 
 in its appearance, but is characterized (we feel sure 
 that fair-minded readers will ratify this judgment) by 
 profound reverence for the teachings of the Word of 
 God, by clearness and good method in the treatment of 
 the several topics, and by able and exhaustive exami- 
 nation of the arguments adduced, whether by Restora- 
 tionists, or by those who adopt the theory of " Life in 
 Christ." The book, moreover, is kindly and sympa- 
 thetic in its tone, and no one can doubt that the 
 writer is earnestly and prayerfully seeking to guide 
 his readers in the path of truth and peace. 
 
 We are satisfied that there is really need for such a 
 work as Mr. Softley has here produced ; and our hope 
 is, that it may be used by Him whose glory it is 
 written to advance, for the vindication of His truth, 
 the resolving of doubts on the part of those who are 
 uncertain what Scripture teaches, and the further 
 establishment in the faith of all by whom these pages 
 shall be read. 
 
a period 
 ttaiii to 
 mption ; 
 
 js ques- 
 ce upon 
 an; and 
 lurch of 
 jful and 
 e. Such 
 >ught to 
 )portune 
 eel sure 
 lent) by 
 ^Vord of 
 :ment of 
 3 exami- 
 Restora- 
 ■' Life in 
 sympa- 
 liat the 
 )o guide 
 
 r such a 
 )ur hope 
 ry it is 
 s truth, 
 who are 
 further 
 56 pages 
 
 MODERN UNIVEESALISM 
 
 AND 
 
 MATERIALISM, 
 
 AS VIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF 
 
 HOLY SCEII^TURE. 
 
 BOOK I. 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM. 
 
 PART I. 
 
 Negative Universalism, as represented hy the Rev. 
 H. N. Oxenham, in his iKinipldet, " Is the received 
 doctrine De Fide, and if not, is it true" ? 
 
 In discussing the modern objections to the received 
 doctrine concerning Future Punishment, I follow the 
 order in which I have been led to examine them, before 
 collecting the results of such examination into the 
 present form. I do so, because it i^' here, both fitting 
 and convenient. Before considering the questions 
 proposed by Mr. Oxenham, and which questions he 
 proceeds to solve in harmony with the Restorationisi 
 
MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 tlieoiy, I wish to ay a few words on his letter to Mr. 
 Gladstone. That letter sufficiently indicates the bias 
 of the writer — an important matter in connection with 
 the questions offered. 
 
 He quotes from a writer in the " Contemporary 
 Review," who proposes that the doctrines of Oi-iginal 
 Sin, Imputed Righteousness, the legend of the Fall, 
 and the Story of the Incarnation, together with Bap- 
 tismal Regeneration, Eternal Punishment, the Trinity, 
 and the A.tonement, be allowed gcntlj^ to fall into the 
 shade, as mysteries which it is vain to seek to penetrate, 
 and, regarding which, silence is our least injurious, and 
 most respectful course. This, it is true, Mr. Oxenham 
 does not approve of, in full : notably with reference to 
 the Incarnation ; but it indicates the school to which 
 lie belongs, and hoiv far he is at present prepared to go 
 in furtherance of Modern Rationalism. 
 
 A few words also, on his " Statement of Doctrine." 
 
 (rt) He objects to the doctrine that there is "no place 
 for repentance, or amendment beyond the grave, and 
 that such amendment, if possible, will be futile," because 
 it seems to imply a charge against God of " amazing 
 cruelty and injustice." 
 
 There is indeed an admitted possibility that we are 
 unable to judge aright upon these subjects; but if so, 
 why this charge against God as cruel and unjust ? 
 Whereas God has given us a sufficient period of proba- 
 tion and grace upon earth, ivhy may He from the 
 standpoint of faith in a Divine Revelation, be considered 
 even seemingly cruel and unjust, because that probation 
 is confined to earth ? 
 
 
 ■j 
 
 l: I 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 3 
 
 Q)) He objects to the doctrine that the torments of 
 the lost will never end, because it implies a failure to 
 a very great extent, in a purpose to redeem mankind, 
 the which, he says, God had designed before the founda- 
 tion of the world. 
 
 This, however, entirely depends upon what is deduced 
 from the general teaching of Scripture upon this head. 
 It is plainly inconsistent with universal salvation ; but 
 'iwt with the Scripture statement that Christ laid down 
 his life for the sheep ; (John 10: 15,) that He loved the 
 church, and gave Himself for it; (Eph. 5 : 26,) nor with 
 the doctrine that He will justify and save those who 
 accept of the terms of His salvation. 
 
 (c) He objects to the doctrine that the majority of 
 men will be lost, because that good will never finally 
 overcome evil, but be everlasting with' it. 
 
 To this however, it may be said, that it is a doctrine 
 of Divine Revelation, that God did not help the angels 
 that sinned ; and we have not the slightest intimation 
 of their forgiveness, or repentance in the future ; is it 
 therefore more impossible to believe that He will 
 punish with eternal misery, persistently wicked and 
 unbelieving men, after a fitting period of probation and 
 grace, seeing that in either case the same objection will 
 remain ? 
 
 In short, the whole of his objections are open to the 
 same charge, which he lays against the received and 
 orthodox doctrine, on this subject, viz. : that he inter- 
 prets Scripture to suit his preconceived opinions. 
 
 The plenary inspiration, and authority of Holy 
 Scripture, being received as a fact, these is no more 
 
f 
 
 M 
 
 4 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 I 
 
 
 difficulty in receiving the doctrine of eternal punish- 
 ment, than that of punishment for an indefinitely 
 protracted, although limited period. The fact appears 
 to be, that Mr. Oxenham and the school to which he 
 belongs, are strongly inclined to judge of Divine Reve- 
 lation, and of the Divine Being, by their own standard 
 of right and wrong, and not by His, and as a natural 
 consequence, wish to make both to agree with their 
 own theory. 
 
 There can be no doubt, that a want of belief, cordial 
 and entire, in the full inspiration and authority of the 
 Bible, as the alone rule of faith and practice, is at the 
 root of the whole difficulty. We can admit all the 
 enquiry within just bounds, that "modern science," 
 and fair criticism may suggest ; but the premises 
 referred to, must, in order to any legitimate argument, 
 be fully maintained. 
 
 God is ; and the Bible reveals Him. 
 
 The only just enquiry is, " what saith the Lord 
 therein" ? 
 
 The questions proposed by Mr. Oxenham are six in 
 number. 
 
 The First is, with respect to almvio^ : " does it neces- 
 sarily mean everlasting " ? 
 
 The Second, *' Is there any other word used in Scrip- 
 ture with reference to the destiny of the wicked, that 
 has this necessary and invariable meaning" ? 
 
 Mr. Oxenham, I think, should have inverted the 
 order, if the latter word has any bearing upon the 
 argument, with reference to the punishment of men. 
 That it has such a bearing, we are assured by our Lord 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 I punish- 
 iefinitely 
 t appears 
 which he 
 ine Reve- 
 standard 
 a natural 
 7ith. their 
 
 ef , cordial 
 ity of the 
 I, is at the 
 it all the 
 I science," 
 premises 
 argument, 
 
 the Lord 
 are six in 
 
 IS it neces- 
 
 in Scrip- 
 cked, that 
 
 erted the 
 upon the 
 t of men. 
 J our Lord 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 Himself, when He says that the wicked shall " depart 
 into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his 
 angels." Devils, and persistently wicked men, we are 
 assured by Holy Scripture, shall have a common doom. 
 Therefore, whatever just interpretation may be put 
 upon that passage in which a/iSto? refers to the devils, 
 must have an important bearing upon the future 
 destiny of weji, and must be considered first. By a 
 manifestly incorrect exegesis of the passage in Jude G, 
 ai^io^ is made to mean until, and also a material form 
 given to the " chains," there spoken of, which is not in 
 keeping with the circumstances referred to. The pas- 
 sage treats of the sin of the angels, " who kept not 
 their first estate, but left their own habitation," and 
 for this reason, they are '* reserved in everlasting chains 
 under darkness, unto the judgment of the great day." 
 
 St. Peter, speaking of the same matter, terms them 
 " chains of darkness." That this is figurative language, 
 none can doubt. Sin is frequently, in Holy Scripture, 
 termed a cord or band. So Solomon says, Pro v. 5 : 22, 
 " His own iniquities shall take the wicked himself, 
 and he shall be holden in the cords of his sins." Our 
 own Liturgy also makes use of this simile : " We are 
 tied and bound wdth the chain of our sins." 
 
 The chains or bonds spoken of in relation to Satan, 
 are of three kinds : — 
 
 First, with respect to his unalterable character, our 
 Lord says : " He was a murderer from the beginning, 
 and abode not in the tiutli, because there is no truth 
 in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his 
 own, for he is a liar and the father of it." — John 8 : 44. 
 3 
 
I 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 
 i\ 
 
 «-■; 
 
 From this we learn, that since his fall, to sin, is with 
 him a necessity ; as he is unable, because unchangeably 
 umuilling, to do aught else. This, it appears, is a 
 necessary consequence of his sin, and also of those 
 spirits connected with him in his rebellion. 
 
 But, Secondly, the devils are bound by the special 
 power of God upon them, and arc limited in their 
 ability to do evil to men. 
 
 Thirdly, by a similar moral power of conscience, they 
 are bound, as expecting and awaiting their inevitable 
 and merited doom. 
 
 It is noticeable here, how there is a similar language 
 used, both with respect to the bonds wherewith Satan 
 and persistently sinful men are bound, and also with 
 respect to their continuance. 
 
 Both St. Peter and St. Jude, in speaking of repro- 
 bates and apostates, say, that " blackness of darkness," 
 (Jude 3), and " the mist of darkness," (2 Peter 2 : 4,) 
 " is reserved for them for ever" ; while our Saviour 
 speaks of the " everlasting fire, (tw irvp tw alcoviov) 
 prepared for the devil and his angels," as their common 
 portion. 
 
 But, it will be proper now to remark upon the gram- 
 matical meaning of the phrase, in the passage Jude 6. 
 The "everlasting chains under darkness," are eh Kpla-vv 
 fieyaXr]'; rjfxkpa^. Mr. Oxenham renders this, " until the 
 judgment of the great day." Winer, in his " Grammar 
 of the New Testament Diction, tells us, sec. 53 (c), thr.t 
 et? with the accusative, when transferred to internal 
 relations or in a tropical use (which is evidently the 
 case here), is used of every object, and aim, of the 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 is with 
 ngeably 
 irs, is a 
 )f those 
 
 ! special 
 in their 
 
 ice, they 
 evitable 
 
 angiiage 
 ih Satan 
 Iso with 
 
 f repro- 
 .rkness," 
 er 2 : 4,) 
 Saviour 
 alcovLov) 
 common 
 
 le gram- 
 Jude 6. 
 9 Kplcrvv 
 tntil the 
 rammar 
 (c), thr.t 
 internal 
 titly the 
 , of the 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 measure to which something rises, the state into which 
 it passes, or of the result." 
 
 I should render it here, of the result, particularly. 
 Thus, St. Paul says Rom. 10 : 20, " with the heart, man 
 believeth unto (ek) righteousness," So, here, of the 
 devils, they are bound by their sinful nature and its 
 actings, ek, unto, the Kpia-u^, or condemnation, of the 
 great day. In the former passage, BtKaioa-vprj may be 
 rendered justification, which makes the analogy more 
 perfect. But, of the aim, and 2:>uri:>ose, as having rela- 
 tion to the power of God, by which their ability to do 
 evil is limited, or restrained, we may find a parallel 
 passage in 2 Pet. 3 : 7, where he says, " The heavens 
 and the earth which are now, by the same word, are 
 kept in store, reserved unto fire, against (et?), the day 
 of judgment and perdition of ungodly men." 
 
 Of course I only quote this as a grammatical parallel. 
 
 Thus, having ascertained, first, that their bonds are 
 of a spiritual, and secondly of an eternal character, 
 and thirdly, that the word eh, translated " unto," is 
 continuative from, and not terminative with the day 
 of judgment, but expresses both a purpose of God in 
 relation thereto, and a certain result connected with 
 their state of sin ; and having also seen that the same 
 Kpia-L^ which awaits them, awaits wicked men, and that 
 their doom is the same ; and that as the word aiZio^ 
 does indisputably mean everlasting ; therefore, it most 
 certainly applies both to the judgment awaiting the 
 devils, and awaiting wicked men. 
 
 Another important consideration, confirmatory of 
 this conclusion, is the^fact of the unchanged enmity of 
 
8 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 lit i 
 
 \y r 
 
 I \ 
 
 \ 
 
 m 
 
 the devils to the throne of God, even to the end, (see 
 Rev. 12 : 12-17,) so that if the bonds wherewith they 
 are bound anterior to the last day, be of an eternal 
 character, we cannot conceive that there will be any 
 mitigation of their punishment, continuative from 
 thence ; and also it must legitimately affect the meaning 
 of that word, by which the duration of their punish- 
 ment is afterwards expressed. 
 
 2. We now proceed to the second question, (properly,) 
 " Does the word aloivLo^ necessarily mean everlasting" ? 
 
 The question here put is not, I think, a fair one, as 
 its order in Mr. Oxenham's pamphlet is not so, and the 
 interpretation put upon the passage just considered, is 
 not correct. 
 
 The question rather is, " What is the true mind of 
 the sacred writers in this place, where alcovio^; is used 
 in reference to Future Punishment, as viewed in con- 
 nection with other passages in which the same subject 
 is treated of, and particularly in connection with the 
 word (uSlo^ ? " 
 
 We have seen that the doom of the evil angels, and of 
 persistently evil men, is conjoined not only in the time 
 of final sentence, but also in the terms by which that 
 sentence is expressed. First, it is said of the evil 
 angels, that they are " bound in everlasting chains, 
 under darkness," (Jude 6), and that they are " cast dowTi 
 to hell," and delivered into chains of darkness to be 
 reserved (et?) unto judgment. (2 Pet. 2 : 4,) At that day 
 Christ will say unto wicked men, " Depart from me, ye 
 cursed into everlasting fire, reserved for the devil, and 
 his angels. Matt. 25 : 41 ; Rev. 20 : 10-15. 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 end, (see 
 ith they 
 I eternal 
 il be any 
 Ive from 
 meaning 
 punish- 
 
 )roperly,) 
 ■lasting" ? 
 ir one, as 
 I, and the 
 idered, is 
 
 mind of 
 ? is used 
 d in con- 
 e subject 
 with the 
 
 Is, and of 
 the time 
 licli that 
 the evil 
 ; chains, 
 ast down 
 ss to be 
 that day 
 m me, ye 
 evil, and 
 
 :; 
 
 In other places (Jude 13, 2 Pet. 2 : 17,) we are told 
 of wicked reprobates and apostates, that " the blackness 
 of darkness," and the " mist of darkness," is resei-ved 
 to them for them, for ever. 
 
 And now, what is the impression that we are to gain 
 concerning the meaning of the whole ? The " black- 
 ness of darkness," expressly said to be reserved for 
 wicked men, is precisely analogous to what St. Peter 
 says of the condition of the wicked angels, anterior to 
 the day of judgment. Of the one it is said, that they are 
 reserved in chains of darkness ; of the other it is said, 
 that blackness of darkness is reserved for them. 
 
 The only fair and reasonable conclusion that we can 
 arrive at, is this : the future of wicked angels, and of 
 wicked men, is in this respect similar in kind ; and as 
 their doom is united, (see Rev. 20 : 10-15) similar also 
 in duration, being in each case unchangeable. But 
 when wc are told of the everlasting fire, of which both 
 shall be partakers, we must consider that another 
 aspect of that punishment is presented to us. May we 
 not say that it refers to place and circumstances ? As 
 it is said cf Judas that he went to his own place, (Acts 
 1 : 25,) so here; and also that such points to, what Theo- 
 logians term, positive, as distinguished from natural 
 punishments ; the one proceeds from an unchangeable 
 character, the other from correspondent and suitable 
 inflictions awarded by the Most High 
 
 But now with respect to the application of the word 
 Schleusner, quoted by Mr. Oxenham, says, 
 that the reference of the term, is to be gathered from 
 the nature of the subject, and the discourse of the 
 
 al<avLO<i. 
 
'H^ 
 
 10 
 
 MODERN UNIVFRSALISM 
 
 I i; 
 ? 
 
 writer ; and so when it is conjoined with irvp, KoXaai^y 
 and Kpiaif, he himself renders it as meaning "eternal." 
 This is only reasonable ; and when we consider mau's 
 condition with respect to knowledge of Divine things, 
 and also as to God's uniform practice and method in 
 revealing Himself and His purposes, it is the only just 
 and reasonable conclusion. The word atcowo? confess- 
 edly, in all cases, means indefinite time ; the enquiry 
 here may justly be : " Has God anywhere said that this 
 punishment shall cease, or given the faintest hope of it 
 doing so " ? 
 
 When we consider that this word expresses the pun- 
 ishment ultimately awarded to devils, as irreclaimably 
 confirmed in their sin, have we any reason to suppose 
 that God, who is inflexibly just, will be retrogi-essive 
 to such in the duration of His punishments? Have 
 we not rather to expect that those punishments awarded 
 at the great day will be cumulative, according to the 
 settled malignity of their sin ? 
 
 This, I think, is conclusive of the whole matter, but 
 another consideration is to be added. We are given 
 to understand that none are finally condemned, until 
 after trial and oflTer of mercy, and none until they have 
 actually chosen death rather than life. Man's ultimate 
 condemnation is not based upon one or many acts of 
 sin, but upon a confirmed habit and character of wilful 
 disobedience to known trut^ ; specially of refusal to 
 believe in the Son of God. Of such it is said, that they 
 " shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on 
 them." Man's deliberate and final action upon the oflTer 
 of a Saviour, marks him as ripe for weal or for woe. 
 
 t',^ 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 11 
 
 , KoKacifiy 
 ' eternal." 
 ler mail's 
 e things, 
 ethod in 
 only just 
 confess- 
 enquiry 
 that this 
 lope of it 
 
 the pun- 
 laimably 
 suppose 
 Dgi'essive 
 ? Have 
 awarded 
 ^ to the 
 
 ttcr, but 
 re given 
 ed, until 
 ley have 
 ultimate 
 T acts of 
 Df wilful 
 fusal to 
 lat they 
 Ideth on 
 bhe offer 
 for woe. 
 
 He that is unjust is to remain unjust still, he that is 
 filthy as filthy still, he that is righteous and holy shall 
 remain so still, and the award of Jesus, in such con- 
 nection, to every man will be, " according as his work 
 shall be." (Rev. 22:11,12.) 
 
 No intimation is given of subsequent modification 
 or change, as indeed this utterance stands at the very 
 close of the canon of Revealed Truth. It only remains 
 to remark upon the two first questions, that the sta- 
 bility of the doctrine of the Eternity of Future Punish- 
 ment is, in view of the ^ remises considered, by no 
 means impaired thereby ; and also that the opinion of 
 Bishop Wordsworth, to which Mr. Oxenham refers, is 
 only an opinion, but so far as it goes, from its am- 
 biguity- of expression, may as well be understood of 
 the received and orthodox belief 
 
 The Third — " Is there any statement in Holy Scrip- 
 ture which must of necessity mean the popular 
 doctrine ?" 
 
 The question here put, is too exacting in its charac- 
 ter, in view of the subject. The object of the author 
 would appear to be, to require each passage referring to 
 the subject, to fully express the whole doctrine, and 
 (having, as he supposes, destroyed the evidence from 
 the meaning of the words used to express eternity), so 
 destroy the force of the evidence as a whole, by reject- 
 ing it in its several parts, in detail ; whereas it is an 
 important canon of interpretation that the subject 
 matter, and the scope of a writer be dulv considered. 
 The more just enquiry is this : — Seeing that there is a 
 word used in Holy Scripture, in connection with the 
 
K 1 
 
 li 
 
 
 12 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 punishment of the wicked, which does certainly and 
 indubitably mean endless, or eternal, does the general 
 scope and tenor of the Holy Scripture go to corrobo- 
 rate the conclusion afforded thereby, that the punish- 
 ment of persistently wicked men, will, like that of 
 devils, be literally endless or eternal ? 
 
 If God has so ordained, that the punishment of the 
 wicked shall be endless, it is reasonable to suppose that 
 in some one place we may find decisive language to 
 that effect ; it is but required, having found such testi- 
 mony, that the general scope of the Sacred Writers 
 shall be such as to confirm that conclusion. The pas- 
 sages, St. Matt. 12 : 31, 32 ; St. Mark 3 : 28, and St. 
 Luke 12 : 10, when compared with each other, lead us 
 to this conclusion, viz., that there is a sin which can- 
 not be forgiven, Neither the Law nor the Gospel 
 makes any such provision; for this no doubt is the 
 reference in Matt. 12 : 32, where tovtw t& altavL is con- 
 nected with Tfp /jiiWovTi. St. Mark says, "it shall 
 never be forgiven." St. Luke says, " it shall not be 
 forgiven," Here, also great weight is to be given to 
 the fact, that all hope of forgiveness to the sinner, is, 
 in the mind of the writer, confined to earth and time. 
 These passages are to be compared with 1 St. John 
 5 : 16 : " There is a sin unto death." Here, as in the 
 passages before referred to, we learn that there is a sin 
 resulting in death ; the one idea is expressed in all. 
 
 It would be sufficient for our argument, if this were 
 confined to the particular sin referred to, but I tako it 
 also to mean, that the natural and necessary result, of 
 chosen, malignant, and unrepented sin, as developed in 
 
 .J 
 
 ,' 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 13 
 
 linly and 
 e general 
 corrobo- 
 B punish- 
 j that of 
 
 nt of the 
 pose that 
 iguage to 
 uch testi- 
 
 I Writers 
 The pas- 
 3, and St. 
 r, lead us 
 hich can- 
 e Gospel 
 bt is the 
 fvc is con- 
 "it shall 
 
 II 710^ be 
 given to 
 
 dnner, is, 
 ind time. 
 St. John 
 IS in the 
 e is a sin 
 in all. 
 ihis were 
 I tako it 
 result, of 
 eloped in 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 this life, is declared, after death, to be irremissible. 
 St. John expresses this by death {Odvaros;). There is 
 no doubt that this refers to future punishment, the 
 " second death," or the " loss " of the soul. 
 
 Mr. Oxenham admits all that we can require, or the 
 passages actually teach, save when he says, " that this 
 while 'endless,' is entirely different from what we 
 usually understand by everlasting punishment," and 
 " it is compatible with existence in heaven."* 
 
 I think it is " generally understood" that the pains 
 of hell and the joys of heaven (while each will be 
 " endless"), will consist of both what is derived from 
 character, and fitting circumstances appointed by God 
 in accordance with character. 
 
 Severally considered, happiness and misery, in the 
 
 * The argument of Mr. Oxenham from the etymology of the word 
 aiplrjiii is not justifiable from the nsus lotpiendi of the sacred writers, 
 for we find it used as a convertible term with lAdaKOfiai, which also 
 means to forgive. Both in their etymological reference, are essen- 
 tially connected with the Atonement of Christ, by whose sacrifice 
 sin is taken away. 
 
 iSupfffis is the word generally used to express forgiveness, and we 
 find the verb used, not only in the verse preceding, where our Lord 
 says, all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men ; 
 (Matt. 12 : 31,) but also in the Lord's Prayer, St. Matt. 6 : 1*2, and in 
 St. John 1 : 9. The antithesis between cKpid^fftrai aury, and ovk 
 aipfO^fffTai, is found in the removal of the punishment in the one case, 
 by the imputation of Christ's merits ; in the other, that there is no 
 such removal, because to them Christ's merits are not imputed. 
 
 This, of course, includes all the teaching of Scripture with reference 
 to forgiveness. Where sin is pardoned of God, we are taught to 
 believe that all its effects and consequences, material and moral, are 
 ultimately fully removed. 
 
 The forgiveness of the believer, as a necessary consequence of hia 
 justification and trust in Christ, is full and complete, and in all its 
 results will be perfectly disclosed at the day of judgment. The very 
 opposite will be the case with the wicked, who wul receive all the 
 results of his unbelief. 
 
I >! 
 
 :t I 
 
 H 
 
 i It 
 
 
 14 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 
 future world, will be chiefly from character and society, 
 and how " loss of capacity to know and love Him who 
 is the Truth," is compatible with existence in heaven, 
 where the people of Jesus Christ shall be "like Him," 
 and "awake up after His likeness," I cannot learn from 
 the Bible, nor can I conceive of. More especially when 
 we are told that " there shall be no more curse," that 
 the hunger and thirst after righteousness shall be satis- 
 fied, or " filled ;" which leaves room for no want, of the 
 renewed nature. 
 
 Mr. Oxenham afterwards takes up (B) what he 
 rightly defines as " another set of texts." They are so, 
 because they refer to what is termed the "positive" 
 aspect of future punishments. They do so under the 
 figure of "the worm that dieth not, and the fire that is 
 not quenched." St. Matt. 18 : 8, 9 ; St. Mark 9 : 43, 
 44. I am of the opinion that Mr. Oxenham's argu- 
 ment from the tropical language here employed in 
 relation to future punishment, would nullify the 
 teachings of the larger portion of Holy Scripture, were 
 it applied in all similar cases. That the fires in the 
 Valley of the Son of Hinnom, or Tophet were kept 
 burning, is, I think, admitted, and although they were 
 of a temporal character, they were used by our Lord 
 to express, not only the positive torments of hell, but 
 also their continuance, in accordance with the subjects 
 of such torments ; and if Mr. Oxenham allows that the 
 human soul is immortal, then is it also conclusive evi- 
 dence in favour of such positive punishments as are 
 here referred to, being eternal in their duration. 
 
 (7.) What Mr. Oxenham refers to, in St. Matt. 3 : 12, 
 
 iPi 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 15. 
 
 ad society, 
 Him who 
 in heaven, 
 iike Him," 
 learn from 
 ially when 
 urse," that 
 Jl be satis- 
 xnt, of the 
 
 what he 
 hey are so, 
 "positive" 
 under the 
 fire that is 
 \vk 9 : 43, 
 am's argu- 
 iployed in 
 ulhfy the 
 iture, were 
 res in the 
 were kept 
 they were 
 T our Lord 
 f hell, but 
 le subjects 
 s that the 
 lusive evi- 
 
 nts as arc 
 ion. 
 
 att. 3 : 12, 
 
 
 ■i 
 
 : 
 
 i 
 
 \ 
 
 and St. Luke 3 : 17. viz., the "chaff" which John the 
 Baptist declares shall be burnt " with unquenched fire," 
 is at least conclusive evidence, as I consider it was 
 designed to be, of the effectual character, as well as the 
 severity of future punishment. God is declared to be 
 Himself "a consuming fire." What is the idea we get 
 from hence ? Evidently that the judgments of God 
 are inexpressibly severe, and taken in connection with 
 the other passages of Scripture, they certainly afford 
 no hope whatever, of final restoration, to the sinner 
 who leaves this world unpardoned and unrenewed. 
 
 Mr. Oxenham, in noticing some passages referred to, 
 in Pearson on the Creed, says that they contain noth- 
 ing morn material than those already considered. We 
 will, however, review them. First, of Rev. 22 : 8, 
 " The lake that burneth with fire and brimstone," is 
 spoken of. If we look upon this description, as con- 
 nected with what was before spoken of, has it no 
 additional teaching ? ■ In order to estimate the force of 
 Scripture teaching on any subject, we must take into 
 account that teaching as a whole. There is no doubt 
 that yievav rov irvpof in St. Matt. 5 : 22, is parallel with 
 Rev. 22 : 8, where for " the gehenna of fire " we have 
 rf} Xl^vt) TTJ Kaio/xivrf irvpl Kal Bei^; but with the 
 addition, " which is the second death." Now here we 
 have the combination of two ideas, the one of utter 
 destruction, the other of suffering and ixiin, and used 
 thus, to express the hopeless condition of the wicked 
 in the future world. The same idea is expressed by 
 St. Paul, in 2 Thess. 1 : 8, 9, by " everlasting destruc- 
 tion — from the presence of the Lord." And although 
 
m I 
 
 lil }< 
 
 i 
 
 I. 
 
 i- 
 
 I 
 
 I! 
 
 ! I 
 
 ii 
 
 I > I 
 
 
 16 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 mayvio'i is used here, yet arguing from the fact that 
 the word atSLO': is applied to the same subject, and as 
 we have seen there is a connection between the pun- 
 ishment of devils and wicked men which makes it 
 applicable to the latter ; and consequently, as al(ovio<i is 
 used in connection with ttO/o, lire, and kindred expres- 
 sions, as a convertible term with atSLo<{, therefore, in 
 view of these facts, we ai'e fully justified in here trans- 
 lating it by everlasting in the strictest sense, and in 
 concluding that all the passages considered under this 
 head, (Question 3) when taken collectively, do undoubt- 
 edly teach the eternity of future punishment, in the 
 literal sense of that word. 
 
 Fourth. — " Is there any decree of the Universal 
 Church, which expressly asserts, or evidently and 
 necessarily presupposes the doctrine in question ?" 
 
 From the relative value of Church councils and de- 
 crees as compared with the word of God, we might, in 
 view of the evidence given by the latter, pass over this 
 question entirely ; and it is quite sufficient to remark that 
 while in the early ages of the Church, there was indeed 
 great diversity of opinions upon theoretic doctrines; 
 yet in practical matters, there was little, if any; and 
 this may account for the fact, that a truth so generally 
 received, and it may be added which the moral sense 
 of mankind must ratify, viz., that of future punishment, 
 was so little a matter of controversy, in its details. It 
 would not indeed matter, had the council referred to, 
 declared that Origen's opinions as to future punishment 
 were correct ; and why they were silent upon the sub- 
 ject, a probable conjecture may be given, which is at 
 
 ft 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 IT 
 
 least of as much value as that of Mr. Oxenliam, viz.^ 
 that the error itself, carried its own refutation. 
 
 Fifth. — " Is there any express consensus, on this 
 exact point, such as to leave no room for doubt as to 
 the mind of the whole Church ? " 
 
 It may be objected here, as to some of the former 
 questions, that they require too much, and if it is not 
 legitimate to require evidence from Holy Scripture,, 
 such as to represent a demonstration in the strict sense 
 of the word ; still less is it reasonable to require such 
 proof from the opinions of men, who as they are at best 
 imperfect ; so moro especially in the visible Church, 
 (where the evil are ever mingled with the good,) must 
 we look for conflicting opinions. What doctrine of 
 Holy Scripture is not controverted, and by men whom 
 we may not declare to be unchristian ? 
 
 Here, I notice, Mr. Oxenham remarks upon the doc- 
 trines on which he affirms the eternity of Future 
 Punishment to rest. May we not more correctly say, 
 with which it is connected ? He remarks (page 28 a) 
 that the " final judgment," does not necessarily make 
 that judgment irrevocable, and he supports this idea, 
 by the fact that penalties of earthly courts have an 
 end, although there is a final sentence from the human 
 tribunal. 
 
 So, also, of the separation of the wicked from the 
 righteous, by a similar analogy, as the human sepa- 
 ration is not final, so may the Divine one not be so, 
 " because God is certainly not less merciful than man." 
 It needs little consideration to see that this reasoning 
 is entirely fallacious and inadmissible. The fact that 
 
18 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 the Judge in this case is both perfect, and because 
 perfect, unchangeable, may be a sufficient answer to 
 both, inasmuch as God being unchangeable, can only 
 be supposed to remit the sentence passed, by reason 
 of a change in the character and conduct of the offen- 
 ders. Put where has He ever given the faintest hope 
 of another time, and other conditions of trial ? Mr. 
 Oxenham would appear to cherish some hope (shall 
 we call it ?- -) of such a provision or purpose, from 
 1 Cor. 15, which speaks of the general resuiTcction. 
 Most certainly this is, at best, a speculation, if there 
 are even the faintest grounds for this; on the other 
 hand, God has expressly intimated that this world 
 is the place of trial for a future state, and solemnly 
 admonished us so to consider it ; but He has never 
 intimated that the results of such trial, can ever after 
 be remedied or changed. 
 
 With respect to God's mercy in punishing, as com- 
 pared with that of man, it is to be remembered that 
 the mercy of God can be no greater than His justice, 
 and even His justice is part of His love. Therefore 
 no inference can be drawn from this, nor can there be 
 any analogy or comparison of His ways with those of 
 man ; and it may be philosophically as well as Scrip- 
 turally argued, that as His nature is unchangeable, so 
 at least will be that judgment which follows such a 
 condition of trial — at least we are not justified in the 
 remotest expectation of such a change, in the absence 
 of any expressed purpose on His part, to do so. Mr. 
 Oxenham asks where Mr. Keble finds the " oath " of 
 God for the eternity of future punishment. I am of 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 19 
 
 i 
 
 
 the opinion that it is in what I have referred to, viz., 
 His " Name," who has said, " I am Jehovah. I change 
 not." Mr. Oxenham, by a literal, and as I regard it, a 
 forced interpretation of Is. 28 : 21, tells us that God's 
 wrath is something foreign and " strange " to His 
 nature ; but love is the essence of His being. Mercy 
 and truth, are indeed, in our conceptions, opposed to 
 each other ; yet are we given to understand, that both 
 exist in God in equal ratio, and each is a part of His 
 perfections. This is expressed in the atonement, — 
 where mercy and truth are shown to us, as " met 
 tofjether." 
 
 Mr. Oxenham (page 35-6) objects to Eternal Punish- 
 ment, and favours, yea, rather we may say teaches 
 Universalism, by a partial interpretation of the follow- 
 ing passages, 1 Tim. 1:15; 2 Tim. 2 : 4 ; 2 Tim. 4 : 10. 
 To the argument here for Universal Salvation, from 
 texts of Scripture, must be opposed other texts which 
 tell of God's electing a certain portion of mankind to 
 salvation by Christ. Eph. 1 : 4-6 ; 1 St. Pet. 1:2; 
 2 Thess. 2 : 13 ; and others, which say that Christ's 
 sheep "shall never perish"; St. John 10: 26-28: that 
 He " loved the Church and gave Himself for it ;" Eph. 
 5:25; and that He gave His life a ransom form any : 
 St. Matt. 20: 20. If the general teaching of Holy 
 Scripture is to be received, and not human opinion, 
 this is conclusive against all such aro-uments. We know 
 that God's purpose cannot, and will not fail. The 
 question from a Scripture stand-point is this : — What 
 was God's purpose in sending His Son into the world ? 
 The answer appears to me to be this : 1. To open a way 
 for salvation to all men. 2. To effectually save those 
 
1^ \i 
 
 ana 
 
 
 1 :i 
 
 I 
 
 "I 
 
 I i- 
 
 ill] 
 
 ilii 
 I 
 
 !H 
 
 :i> 
 
 H 
 
 20 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 who believe. 3. To magnify His character in their 
 salvation, and also in the just punishment of those who 
 being offered salvation.'reject the same by unbelief and 
 persistent disobedience. 
 
 I now notice Mr. Oxenham's remarks on the Parable 
 of Lazarus and Dives. His chief objection is, that the 
 events described are anterior to the day of judgment ; 
 but we are distinctly told that at death the righteous 
 go to a place of happiness, and the wicked to a place of 
 misery, and although the cup of each be not full until 
 the day of judgment, yet do we learn that their several 
 conditions are unchangeable. There is no information 
 of ultimate deliverance for the wicked. The Avhole 
 parable tells fatally against the theory of the Destruc- 
 tionists, inasmuch as it tells of conscious torment, and 
 from it we learn that the wicked even then, are not 
 without what are termed positive, as well as natural 
 punishments ; and obviously the parable has additional 
 evidence in favour of the doctrine of Eternal Punish- 
 ment, and against the theory of final restoration, inas- 
 much as its general teaching evidently confines all 
 hope of the sinner to earth alone. 
 
 The Sixth : " Is there any necessity known to us, or 
 even probability arising from the nature of the case, 
 which would sustain the popular doctrine" ? 
 
 Mr. Oxenham, imagining that Scripture countenances 
 the restoration theory, in like manner imagines that 
 Natural Religion does so too. But I think it may be 
 said, that there is at least a strong probability in favour 
 of the eternity of future punishment, from the nature 
 of the case : i. e., that man being a moral agent, and 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 21 
 
 that an infinitely wise, perfect, and unchangeable God 
 has appointed him here, "vvith so many warnings, a 
 place and time of probation for a future state. I con- 
 sider that the arguments of Butler in his second chapter, 
 go very far to prove, as far as Natural Religion can do 
 so, that not only is a future state reserved for man, but 
 that the future state of the wicked, like that of the 
 righteous, will be final. The argument from analogy 
 is sustained by Scripture, where the Prophet says, Jer. 
 8 : 20, " The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and 
 we are not saved." The above quotation, by all law 
 for the interpretation of prophecy, looks to what is 
 commonly called Eternal Salvation : to " the hour of 
 death and the day of judgment." But, in addition to 
 tills, I believe that man's moral sense goes to ratify this 
 conclusion. Aggravated, heinous, and persistent sin, 
 begets despair. What doth this teach us ? Is it not 
 that man's moral sense (the work of God) tells him, as 
 does also the law, written and revealed, that for pre- 
 sumptuous sins, and persistent sinners, there is no 
 atonement or forgiveness ! Hope has its dvrelling 
 place on earth ; despair has its home in the recesses of 
 hell, the abode of the lost. So this reminds us of 
 another weight}^ utterance of the Lord of life : " what 
 shall It piofit a man, if he gain the whole world, and 
 lose his own soul " ? Is there the least hope here held 
 out, of that loss being remedied at a future day ? 
 
 Having examined and answered the questions of 
 Mr. Oxenham, as they stand related to the doctrine of 
 Eternal Punishment, I will now remark upon his criti- 
 cisms of the aro-uments of the j^reat theologians whom 
 
 r 
 
^r 
 
 22 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALIS^ 
 
 i!^ 
 
 ill 
 
 i'li 
 
 j 
 (Ml 
 
 I 
 
 il i- 
 
 l! i 
 
 he has selected as representing that doctrine. Without 
 presuming to stand as apologist for those great divines 
 in this connection, I may yet remark that I am of 
 opinion that the doctrine under discussion is not to be 
 measured by philosophical argument, nor can such be 
 safely used, save in subordination to, and in coiTobora- 
 tion of, the express testimony of the word and will of 
 God. 
 
 If St. Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas, have dealt 
 largely with philosophical argument upon this subject, 
 Mr. Oxenham has also attempted the philosophical 
 and speculative argument ; and he will pardon me if 
 he should ever see or hear of what is here written, if I 
 say, that I think that all his argument is rather from 
 the stand-point of reason than that of Divine Revela- 
 tion. He speaks (p. 55,) of the punishment of the wicked 
 to eternity, as being speculatively possible, and says of 
 it ; "I disbelieve it." The grounds of his " disbelief," 
 he gives, as being that he considers it contrary to God's 
 purpose and nature. Nevertheless, God has revealed 
 himself as inflexibly just, as well as inflexibly good. 
 
 Mr. Oxenham believes in eternal happiness, because 
 he considers this agreeable to God's nature. In the 
 light of Revelation, w^hy may it be argued that God is 
 more good than just ? Because Mr. Oxenham does con- 
 sider that the nature, and practice of sin (although 
 against God, and a God of great patience and long- 
 suffering as well as goodness, who has given a Saviour 
 in his Incarnate Son — given the Holy Spirit, and a 
 period of probation), sin, does not, in justice, require 
 such a punishment. (See p. 39.) What kind of 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 25 
 
 Without 
 b divines 
 I am of 
 lOt to be 
 such be 
 )iTobora- 
 d will of 
 
 ive dealt 
 s suV)ject, 
 osophical 
 Dn me if 
 itten, if I 
 ;her from 
 e Revela- 
 le wicked 
 id says of 
 disbelief," 
 Y to God's 
 revealed 
 f good. 
 s, because 
 In the 
 lat God is 
 does con- 
 (although 
 and long- 
 a Saviour 
 irit, and a 
 3e, require 
 kind of 
 
 
 argument can this be called ? Nay ! we may not ask 
 of what kind, but of what quality ? This at least we 
 may say, not only is it speculative, but it is rather 
 the argument of a mere moralist, than of a Christian 
 believer ! If otherwise, it must involve most unscrip- 
 tural views of original sin, and a very inadequate 
 estimate of the value of the atonement. 
 
 There is but one more matter that I shall notice, 
 and this is because it has a bearing upon the argument 
 from Scripture, under the head of question 2, as pro- 
 posed by Mr. Oxenham. At page 60 he quotes the 
 example of Satan and the evil angels, as given by Dr. 
 Pusey, as " a speculative argument by way of analogy." 
 He says, that there can be no analogy between Satan's 
 sin, and that of incorrigibly wicked men, on account 
 of Satan's superior advantages, and he depreciates our 
 advantages in such a manner, as to conclude that we 
 may not justly be placed in the same category as sub- 
 jects for God's judgment. But here I have to remark, 
 that we are not left to speculative argument upon this 
 matter, inasmuch as we have evidence from Holy 
 Scripture. So far as we may trace any analogy, it 
 lies m this : — whatever Satan's advantages were, he 
 and those with whom he was associated, had a test 
 appointed by God, and a time of trial, as w^e learn 
 from St. Jude, and 2 St. Peter 2 : 4. The devil and 
 his angels fell from their allegiance, and for them no 
 Saviour was provided, by reason of their previous 
 advantages ; at least, we are led so to infer. 
 
 Adam when tried, fell, and so all his posterity. In 
 the Avisdom of God, for him and for them, a Saviour was 
 
 li 
 
 .•># 
 
24 
 
 MODERN UNIVEllSALISM 
 
 Ai 
 
 ir$ 
 
 ! 
 
 I 
 
 ! 
 
 ! 1 
 
 ( 
 
 ( 
 
 ) 
 
 provided, and a further period and terms of grace. 
 Such as refuse those terms, and are finally disobedient 
 in this world, will share Satan's doom. The doom of 
 Satan and wicked men, is the same — described in the 
 same terms; by the word ai'iSto? as applied to Satan and 
 the evil angels, and by the word al(avio<i, with irvp, and 
 KoXaai^, when both are spoken of ; while it is said that 
 this TTup, and Kokacn^i, is " prepared for the devil and 
 his angels." As partakers of a like character, they 
 will be punished together, in the same place, and by 
 the same punishments; and as the two expressions 
 appear to be used as convertible terms, it amounts to 
 a demonstration, that their doom is the same — endless 
 and eternal. 
 
 That this should provoke the objections of philo- 
 sophic sceptics, we might not wonder, or that it should 
 evoke the opposition of wicked men : we may well 
 wonder that any sincere believers in the Holy Scrip- 
 tures, may find in it any just cause of stumbling, either 
 to themselves or others. That it is indeed a profoundly 
 solemn, yea, aiufiol subject, we should and must feel; 
 but in accordance with all the scope and tenor of Holy 
 "Writ, it can but call forth such utterances now, as it 
 did from believers of old. " Thou even Thou, art to 
 be feared, and who may stand in Thy sight when once 
 Thou art angry " ? Psalm 76 : 7. " Thy righteousness 
 is like the great mo'antains; Thy judgments are a 
 great deep." Psalm 80 : G. 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 25 
 
 PART 2. 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM IN ITS POSITIVE ASPECT. 
 
 Chap. I. 
 
 Analytical Synopsis. 
 
 The objections of Mr. Oxenham to the received doc- 
 trine concerning Future Punishment, appear to have 
 been preparatory to, what is now explicitly advocated 
 by others, thfit is to say, +he doctrine of universal 
 salvation. 
 
 Two writers of the present day are decided teachers 
 of this doctrine : These are Mr. Jukes and Mr. Cox. 
 The one is the author of " Salvator Mundi ": the other 
 of the " Restitution of all Things." They take some- 
 what different methods in arguing for their theory, so 
 ii will be necessary to take both works, more or less, 
 into consideration, in endeavouring to present the 
 Scripture argument, against the system which they 
 represent. It will, I think, be conceded by all, that 
 the character of Holy Scripture, is a question which 
 underlies thn inatter for our consideration. According 
 to the views held, concerning its nature, as a revela- 
 tion from the Deity, so will our exegesis of its teach- 
 ing, be governed. What is applicable to the whole of 
 its teaching, is perhaps especially applicable to this 
 
rr 
 
 wawngim 
 
 wmmm 
 
 26 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 i 
 
 w 
 
 ^i i 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 i! 
 
 I' 
 
 most solemn, yea, awful subject, of Future Punish- 
 ment. Mr. Jukes introduces his teaching by a state- 
 ment of his views concerning " the nature of Holy 
 Scripture." That he does so, is evidence, not only that 
 he accepts the principle which I have stated ; but also, 
 that his argument is a candid and honest one, although 
 I believe it to be based upon an incorrect view of the 
 inspiration of Holy Scri})ture. 
 
 Herein, his position is quite different from that of 
 many writers upon the subject of Future Punishment. 
 
 All who reject the orthodox view, fail here ; but not 
 in the same way. The position taken by "A Layman," 
 in criticising Canon Farrar's work, is the boldest one 
 that I have met with, in this connection. He says, 
 *' Let us clearly understand that we have to deal with 
 this question, in terms of the moral system," (to use 
 Mr. Mansels's phrase,) " and having said that, let us 
 stick to it." This, as I understand it, leaves the 
 question to philosophic morality, and excludes revela- 
 tion, and so, the God of Revelation, as a witness in the 
 case. The " Layman" is evidently a Univei'salist, and 
 as he is also evidently a representative man, amongst 
 the academic laity, I will quote another passage. 
 *' You will find, among eckicated and thoughtful per- 
 sons, a few here and tliere, who cannot at once see, or 
 will not admit, that the idea of an infallible Book is as 
 absurd as that of an infallible Pope." With this writer 
 the author of the Bible is no more infallible than the 
 Pope ; for remember, it is the Bible — God's Book, that 
 he is speaking^of, and not this o:* that interpretation of 
 it. We see, therefore, what a principle we have to 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 27 
 
 deal with ; and the inference is very clear and ready 
 as to whence that principle proceeds. 
 
 Now, to consider Mr. Jukes's theory as to the nature 
 of Holy Scripture. I must first, however, notice that 
 he gives as a reason for the view afterwards set forth 
 concerning its nature, and inspiration, that he found it 
 to solve certain " difficulties," and " apparent contra- 
 dictions" in Scripture, concerning the " I'estitution of 
 all things," and other statements concerning Future 
 Punishment. The grounds of such "apparent con- 
 tradictions," we will consider hereafter. Mr. Jukes 
 endeavours to trace an analogy between what he terms 
 " the three Revelations of God ;" that is to say, Nature, 
 Holy Scripture, and the Incarnate Word. He says, that 
 it is true of all of these, they are " as much a veil, as a 
 revelation of the Deity." (pp. G-17). I shall not pro- 
 ceed at any length to comb it this statement, as it refers 
 to God's works in Nature, nor to the Person of our 
 Lord and Saviour ; I will but say that it equally applies 
 to all three of these " Revelations of God," that the 
 knowledge which we obtain of Him thereV)y, is an 
 imiierfcct knowledge ; equally so, as to the fact, though 
 not so, as to the degree ; but it cannot be said of any 
 one of them, that it bears doubtful, or contradictory 
 testimony to its author. It is true of our incarnate 
 Saviour, that He presented the Deity to us, under the 
 veil of humanity ; still the Scriptures tell us, as a 
 fact, that " God M-as manifest in the flesh ;" that " men 
 beheld the light of the knowledge of the glory of God, 
 in the face of Jesus Christ : " (2 Cor. 4 : IG,) so also, 
 that " He (Jesus) has declared Him," or mad Him 
 
I. li . 
 
 28 
 
 MODERN UXIVERSALISM 
 
 'ill 
 
 1:1 
 
 l« 
 
 ;•! 
 
 ,^ 
 
 t! 
 
 lij 
 
 manifest. (John 1 : 18.) Equally clear is the witness 
 borne by other portions of Holy Scripture to the fact 
 that God's vrorks in nature give a similar testimony to, 
 and manifestation of His character. So, Ps. 19 : 4, as 
 quoted by St. Paul, in Rom. 10 : 18, " But, I say, have 
 they not heard ? Yes verily, their Found went forth 
 into all lands, and their words unto the ends of the 
 world." So also, that " the invisible things of Him, are 
 clearly seen, being understood by the things that are 
 made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that 
 they are without excuse." (Rom. 1 : 20.) The char- 
 acter of our Lord Jesus was no clouded nor dubious 
 revelation of God's character. His character, we may 
 say, was fully exhibited, as far as man could profitably 
 behold it, and also clearly and unmistakably, both by 
 His miracles, and by His human holiness. It is equally 
 true that all God's works praise Him : /. e. as God. (Ps. 
 145 : 10). 
 
 This truth is quite unaffected by the fact of " the 
 sun appearing to go down," as noticed by Mr. Jukes ; 
 because the revelations referred to, in their analogy to 
 Scripture, and to the Scripture doctrine of Future Pun- 
 ishment, are such as concern God's character, as a moral 
 governor, and not matters of mere detail, or modus 
 operandi. 
 
 The views taken by Mr. Jukes, concerning Holy 
 Scripture, directly contravene the statements of Scrip- 
 ture concerning its own character. He says, that it 
 contains both a Divine and a human element, even as 
 our Saviour Christ had both a Divine and a human 
 nature. St. Paul, we find, commends the Thessalonians 
 
 'ri.',.|r.rffi« 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 29 
 
 (Prs- 
 
 s 
 
 (1 Thess. ii. 13) in that " when they received the Word 
 of God, which they heard of him, they received it not 
 as the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the Word of 
 God." 
 
 This statement, while acknowledging human instru- 
 mentality, excludes, as do many other similar utter- 
 ances, the principle of a human element entering into 
 its comiJosition. It is simply and purely the Word of 
 God ; not of God and man. God's Word by Peter, or 
 Paul, or John, yet God's Word only. As such, there- 
 fore. Truth : simply, purely, perfectly, not containing 
 truth. 
 
 This does not necessarily entail what is called the 
 " mechanical " theory of inspiration ; on the C(3ntrary, 
 as opposed both to that theory and to the view of Mr. 
 Jukes, I believe that not only the mental faculties of 
 the writers were utilized, but also, that all the sur- 
 roundings of such mental faculties, as stereotyped in 
 the individual man, even the idiosyncrasies of his 
 mental training, and mode of thought, and associations 
 of life, are visible in all those writings ]»y him, the 
 substance and elements of which are all, nevertheless, 
 pui-ely and fully, the work of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 Any lower view of inspiration than this, does in 
 litect deprive us of all that comfort and confidence 
 ^^lJid' we look for in an inspired and authoritative 
 Revlati jn from the Diety. Herein, as the generally 
 received and proper view (as I conceive) of revelation, 
 is based upon a different view of the nature of inspira- 
 tion than that which underlies Mr. Jukes's book, it must 
 
 obviously lead to very different conclusions, as also to 
 G 
 
 m> 
 
30 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 'Hi 
 
 I'.i ! 
 
 ili 
 
 a very different principle of exegesis ; but as I intend 
 to say a little upon the latter subject, afterwards, I 
 shall not enter upon it here. 
 
 I shall now but compare the different processes 
 adopted by Mr. Jukes and Mr. Cox, in presenting 
 and arguing for Universalism. Both start with a 
 " difficulty." 
 
 Mr. Jukes has a certain view of some passages of 
 Scripture, some of them obscure in their meaning. 
 
 He believes that the lanf^uaj^je of a certain class of 
 passages, that he considers to be represented by Acts 
 3: 21, which speaks of "the restitution of all things^ 
 of which Gi ' had spoken by the mouth of all His holy 
 Prophets sine: world began ;" refers to a design of 
 
 ultimate salvatio v of the whole human race; but this 
 view is oj^posed by another class of passages, much 
 more plain and obvious in their meaning, which point 
 to quite a different result. That result, however, is one 
 so repugnant to Mr. Jukes's view of moral fitness, that 
 he seeks refuge from it, in the view of Holy Scripture 
 previously noticed, by which the literal sense is 
 excluded, as the human element in Revelation. Mr. 
 Cox starts with our Lord's words to Chorazin and 
 Bethsaida : " Woe unto thee, Chorazin ! Woe unto thee, 
 Bethsaida ! for if the mighty works which were done 
 in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, or in Sodom, 
 they would have repented long ago, and continued unto 
 this day ": Matt. 11 : 20, 24. Why, then, says Mr. Cox, 
 were they not done, in order to bring about such a 
 result, which God would have, seeing He desires all 
 men to be saved ? In the first place, he says that 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 31 
 
 Christ's miracles could not have been done in every 
 age ; so, although he chose that age to appear in, and 
 to do miracles before those who would not be profited 
 by them, for good and sufficient reasons ; yet, such is 
 God's necessary character, that as He wills (?) so He 
 can, if He wdll, save all men ; therefore, there must be 
 another period of trial given to men, besides that in 
 this world, when God will so work upon all men (yea 
 and the devils, too, says Mr. Jukes,) that they will all 
 repent, and all at last be saved. But how to bring 
 Scripture to say so ? Mr. Jukes's method is allegorizing 
 interpretation. Mr. Cox's is, first, to choose cei'taiu 
 jnu'ts of Scripture, excluding the rest for the time ; 
 secondly, to take certain tuords in their abstract and 
 etymological signification ; sever them from their con- 
 text ; then to reject a particular meaning, legitimate in 
 certain connections ; say they never have that mean- 
 ing ; then to take an ex i:>arte view of the whole scope 
 of revelation ; and the result is, the desired end, which 
 is, that Scripture teaches universal salvation. 
 
 I will here add a few words, as to Canon Farrar's 
 views on inspiration. 
 
 I am unable to conclude otherwise than that he con- 
 curs in all that " A Layman" has advanced, as he says, 
 in his " Answer to his Critics :" " The three remainincr 
 papers powerfully support what I desired to maintain." 
 
 Again, the remarks of the " Layman" deserve the 
 very earnest consideration of all who desire, above all 
 things, to be faithful, honest, and true. 
 
 It is, no doubt, a connnendable feature of the " Lay- 
 man's" criticism that it is outspoken ; but does Canon 
 
32 
 
 MODERN UXIVERSALISM 
 
 I I 
 
 Mi 
 
 Farrar endorse his teaching .ns to the inspiration of the 
 Scriptures, and the "terms of the moral system ?" I 
 &m. obliged to conclude that he does. 
 
 Ln his "Life of Christ," pages 156, 157, and 158, ch. 
 23, Canon Farrar gives further evidence of radical 
 unsoundness upon this all-important subject. 
 
 I shall next consider Mr. Cox's order of investigation 
 •of the testimony of Holy Scripture. 
 
 Chap. II. 
 Process of Investigation. 
 
 I now r^onsi«^<^v ]\Ir. Cox's method and order of 
 •enquiry into the teaching of Holy Scripture. 
 
 It would, indeed, appear as if he would rather have 
 declined such a course, (i.e. iin appeal to Holy Scrip- 
 ture.) He enters a preliminary "protest against the 
 assumption that Reason and Conscience are to have no 
 voice in the determination." 
 
 " Still, as the appeal is to the Bible, (he) will go to 
 the Bible, reserving, however, the right to interpret it 
 by (his) reason and conscience." p. 25. 
 
 In entering the field of Holy Scripture, he makes 
 another provision ; namely, that " not every Book of 
 the Bible speaks, on all themes, with equal distinctness 
 and authority." That the utterances of our Lord and 
 His Apostles have a prior claim to our regard, as of 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 33 
 
 more weight. Also, he objects to severing expressions- 
 from their context (p. 25). This is noteworthy, and 
 will be hereafter considered. For the reason given 
 above, he prefers to go to " the very cream of Scrip- 
 ture," " the plain teaching of our Lord and His 
 Apostles." But let us understand that here, while he 
 excludes the Revelation of St. John, he also excludes 
 the Parables of our Lord, because of these, he says, 
 " we have not the key I " He professes, indeed, great 
 fairness and honesty of intention in this process ; but 
 while I do not intend to pronounce upon his motives, I 
 do most decidedly pronounce an objection to the fact 
 of such an order and rule of investigation. If it is 
 written concerning even so obscure a Book as the 
 Revelation of St. John, " Blessed is he that readeth the 
 words of t)ie prophecy of this Book," which has a 
 distinct connection with the Eschatology of the race, 
 as well as witli the Historv of the Church ; if it is said 
 also, that " those tiling's which are revealed beloni: to 
 us and to our children for ever," for a similar purpose 
 of instruction and profit ; it is at least equally true of 
 the other parts of the Inspired Record, excluded by 
 the judgment of Mr. Cox. 
 
 Moreover, there is a principle of " fairness " and 
 sound reason in taking a very opposite course to that 
 proposed by him : that is, it is manifestly the only fair 
 and reasonable method of enquiry to follow the chro- 
 nological order, and begin to consider Scripture testi- 
 mony upotl this subject, where Scripture itself begins, 
 at the Genesis of man's history as a fallen being, 
 subject to deatli and judgment. But there is another 
 
 ill 
 
34 
 
 MODERN UXIVEIISALISM 
 
 > 'I 
 
 y ia.il 
 
 i il; 
 
 .!!,!' 
 
 ijlt.t 
 
 **' 
 
 factor in the calculation not to be forgotten. That 
 factor is, Natural Religion. It runs in parallel line 
 with man's history as a fallen being. It tells man, as 
 does Revelation, " the soul that sinneth it shall die," 
 and it has ever borne this testimony since man became 
 a sinner. Orthodox Theologians, and all who love 
 and supremely believe in the Bible as a supernatural 
 Revelation from God, may be grateful for the ftict, 
 upon which Canon Farrar congratulates Prof. Jellett, 
 that he has " with a calmness and courtesy worthy of 
 all praise, defended the great canon of Bishop Butler 
 on the relation of Natural to Revealed Religion;" and 
 also that Principal Tulloch " urges against Universalism 
 the law of continuity." (Canon Farrar's Answer to 
 his Critics, pp. G1-G2.) I hope to show that Natural 
 Religion, justly interpreted, is no more favourable to 
 Universalism in all its aspects, than it is to Materialism. 
 Suffice it here to say, that I prefer to commence the 
 study of Holy Scripture in its relation to Universalism, 
 just where I commence such study in relation to 
 Materialism — at the Book of Genesis. 
 
 In this case, I do so, fortified by a special argument 
 against Mr. Cox's method of procedure, that as there 
 was no man, nor time, at which, and to whom, natural 
 religion did 7iot bear its testimony in relation to sin 
 and judgment; so neither was there any period since 
 the Fall, in which Holy Scripture did not do so too. 
 
 With regard to degrees of knowledge concerning this 
 and every doctrinal and practical truth, it is important 
 to bear in mind, that the Bible presents a iirogressive 
 Revelation ; but, at the same time, that of those neces- 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 35 
 
 saiy elements of religion, essentiall}'" connected with 
 the person and character of Deity, and man's duty in 
 regard to Him, man was never left wholly without 
 light ; hence, if Future Punishment is true now, it was 
 true then, as God's character and man's relation to Him, 
 as a sinner, are the same now as then. While God 
 from the beginning threatened a punishment to sin ; 
 when He pronounced and carried out senten o against 
 man. He gave Hope of a future deliverance by " the 
 seed of the woman." The efficacy of such deliverance, 
 as it applied to the individual man, was obviously 
 limited to such of the race as hoped and trusted in it. 
 The upright and sincere endeavour to " seek after the 
 Lord," — the favour of whom they had forfeited b}^ sin, 
 " if haply the}'- might feel after Him, and find Him," 
 should be so accepted, and also their sincere efforts to 
 obey that knowledge, was so provided for. From the 
 beginning then, we can trace a provision for the 
 acceptance of the sincerely obedient, while the diso- 
 bedient came under the penalty of a broken law ; a 
 penalty pronounced by " the voice within the heart," 
 and ratified by an oral and written Law. We have 
 from the beginning, evidence of God's Law, His revealed 
 Law of procedure with His creatures ; and that such 
 Law points to the trial of all, and the acceptance of 
 some. It is evident, whatever may be the character, or 
 durcdion of the punishment inflicted upon the disobe- 
 dient, that some, yea ! a large portion of the human 
 family, have lived and died without a full knowledge 
 of it, in these aspects, although not without a know- 
 ledge of the fact. That fact was, in the Divine Wisdom, 
 
 I! 
 
86 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 tit 
 
 m 
 
 W- 
 
 regarded as sufficient : also the similarly imperfect 
 knowledge of a provision for Redemption. Here then 
 is provision, — so far as man could then know, — for a 
 dualism of character and condition. This, as a certain 
 fact, was made patent to man's moral sense, by two 
 witnesses, by Natural and by ] evealed Religion. Here, 
 too, is unmistakable proof, that this first principle of 
 practical religion was from the first inculcated. We 
 have proof also, not only that such a truth was taught, 
 but also that it was in like manner illustrated. 
 
 This dualism of character and of destiny, was exem- 
 plified in the first brothers, and in the first family. One 
 was "of God "; the other, "of that wicked one, and slew 
 his brother. And wherefore slew he him ? Because 
 his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous." 
 
 Shortly after this period in the history of the race, 
 we read of men beginning to call upon " the name of the 
 Lonl." By this we understand to be declared, the fact 
 that assemblies of prc^fesscd worshippers of Jehovah 
 w^ere formed, and so distinguished from the children of 
 wickedness. 
 
 Then of the translation of Enoch, who walked with 
 God, and quickly follow^ing, of that all but universal 
 and monstrous wickedness in the Earth, which called 
 down at last, a signal judgment from the Almighty. 
 
 The Tower of Babel, Noah's Flood, the call of 
 Abraham, the history and destruction of Sodom and 
 Gomorrha, all bear evidence to a continuous line of 
 witnesses for evil and for good, and of the Almighty's 
 dealings with such according to their works. So of the 
 Exodus, and of Pharaoh and the Egyptians, j. The 
 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 37 
 
 children of God on one side, and of Satan on the other, 
 and of God's progressive and continuous trial and 
 separation by moral law and moral sanctions, between 
 the righteous and the wicked. 
 
 The history of Job is testimony in the same age of a 
 similar character of procedure. 
 
 The same constancy of the Divine character, and of 
 a sharp drawn line of demarcation, constituted by Him 
 between the character and destiny of the righteous and 
 the wicked is uniformly evident all through the Sacred 
 Writings. Solomon says : (Prov. 24 : 24,) " He that 
 saith to the wicked, thou art righteous, him shall the 
 people curse, nations shall abhor him ; but to them 
 that rebuke him shall be delight, and a good blessing 
 shall be upon them." 
 
 This evidence is very important, as Ave shall see 
 hereafter, although Universal ists are ready to acknow- 
 ledge that there is a j^7'ese7?^ difference between the 
 characters and prospects of men. With them this 
 difference is not so essential, so radical, so permanent 
 and far reaching, as we ha\'e long learned to consider 
 it to be. Let us have it well established in our minds, 
 that it is a deep settled purpose of the Almighty, that 
 there shall ever be a broad line of demarcation between 
 the righteous and the wicked. " Say ye to the 
 righteous, that it shall be well with him, for they shall 
 eat of the fruit of their doings. Woe to the wicked ! 
 it shall be ill with him, for the reward of his hands 
 shall be given him." (Is. 3 : 10, 11.) This +?«timony 
 could easily be amplified, but it is quite unnccor^sary. 
 
 The whole Book of Job bears testimony, even at 
 7 
 
 ..4 
 
 M 
 
 ■if a 
 
II 
 
 38 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 !|l 
 
 that early day, that no principle was better known 
 than this, " that the wicked is reserved to the day of 
 destruction ; they shall be brought forth to the day of 
 wrath." (Job 21 : 30.) Also, that " destruction shall 
 be to the wicked, and a strange punishment to the 
 workers of iniquity." Job 31 : 3. 
 
 The Hebrew is expressive of something different 
 from annihilation, ^i;j^ in its Etymology, being d( rl 
 
 from '^^i;*^ to bend, or to burden. So also -j^i^ a strange 
 
 marvellous, or remarkable thing, from '^^^ To look 
 
 upon intently, — 1. To admire. 2. To wonder. 
 
 This fact as it stands associated (1) with the charac- 
 ter of sin, (2) with persistent sinners, and (3) with 
 Satanic alliance and co-operation, is anything but a 
 hopeful outlook from a Scripture standpoint for the 
 the advocates of Final Restoration, or for those who 
 cherish Canon Farrar's principle of a Hope in that 
 direction. It is, I fear, but a false hope, in p^ Its 
 essential features. 
 
 Specially is it to be noted that our Lord and Saviour, 
 in very plain words, states this wide distinction between 
 the destiny of the righteous and of the wicked. He 
 explicitly confines the blessings of His salvation to 
 " His Sheep," to " those who receive Him," to those 
 who hear His words." For such He gave His life. 
 Such His Father " had given to Him." Of them He 
 would " lose none," but they should be " raised up at 
 the last day," — that is, to glory. Of all others He says, 
 they shall " die in their sins." They shall be raised to 
 " the resurrection of condemnation." To such He will 
 say, " Dejpart ye cursed." 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 39 
 
 Without giving passages in detail, it is quite sufficient 
 to remark, that the words "death" and "life," as applied 
 to the righteous and to the wicked, and also such 
 expressions as " destruction," " consumption," " rooted 
 out," " perish," &c., kc, which are applied by Material- 
 ists, in support of annihilation of the wicked, afford 
 very clear and decided evidence against any hope being 
 held out by Holy Scripture of the restoration of such 
 to God's favour, upon whom sentence has been passed 
 at the last day, or to those who " die in their sins." 
 
 Surely words could not be " plainer" than these ! It 
 would take a very plain and full revelation to make 
 out that all this intends only a fatherly, and purgative, 
 and reformatory discipline. But, as further reason 
 against such a fancy, be it remembered that our Lord 
 said to some, " Ye are of your father the Devil, and the 
 lusts of your father ye will do." Of one of His own 
 disciples it is specially and emphatically said by our 
 Lord, he " is a devil." What do we understand by 
 this ? One desperately and finally matured in chosen 
 and malignant sin. So, too, 1 't it be remembered, that 
 the Gospel of God's grace, when knoivn and sinned 
 against, matures the most desperate sinners. 
 
 Let me notice, in the last place, that as Revelation 
 proceeds, it gives cumulative force to two great and 
 cardinal ideas. These are. Judgment and Salvation. 
 The judgments threatened to individuals in relation to 
 time, or predicated of them as connected w4th certain 
 courses of conduct, are all utilized, and strongly 
 expressed, to point to spiritual and fatiire judgment. 
 Thus the force acquired from such expressions with 
 
 %; 
 
 |.i|;^i: ' \ 
 
 m 
 
 VV'^ 
 
 m 
 
TT 
 
 40 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 w 
 
 it 
 
 regard to their remediless chai'acter, are misapplied by- 
 Materialists. 
 
 So the salvation of the righteous in this world by 
 the Lord, as in Psalm 1, " Salvation belongeth to the 
 Lord : Thy blessing is upon thy people," points to a 
 greater salvation, yet to be manifested. 
 
 Further, as local national judgments are prophesied 
 of, they are so associated with a great and universal 
 judgment of all the nations ; and again tJiis great crisis 
 in the world's history is but representative of, and 
 preparative for, something far more tremendous and 
 decisive. Such are we to understand of the last great 
 onslaught of Anti-Christian power, after the millennial 
 reign of Christ and His saints. 
 
 All this, (in illustration of " the law of continuity," 
 in all its relations,) docs not give much encouragement 
 to those who look for Final Restoration. So, the judg- 
 ment of " Babylon the great," is bound up Avith the 
 forces of Satan and wicked men. Here we have 
 the co-extensive consolidation of oi)posite forces of 
 righteousness and of wickedness ; for, as each is becom- 
 ing the choice and confirmed practice of the moral 
 agents allied therewith, so is the future of each, by a 
 law of God, stamped on all His works, physical and 
 moral, being determined and fixed accordingly. So I 
 read Holy Scripture, and so I understand the teaching 
 of Natural Religion. 
 
 Mr. Jukes, by an allegorical interpretation of Scrip- 
 ture, fancies that he sees a difierent purpo.se in the 
 Divine government. I shall therefore next endeavour 
 to consider the Laws of Scripture Exegesis. 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 41 
 
 11 
 
 a 
 
 i-al 
 a 
 
 Chap. III. 
 
 Laius of Scripture Exegesis. 
 
 As preliminary to the consideration of this important 
 topic, it will be necessary to refer again to the position 
 assumed by ISIr. Jukes, in regard to the Nature of Holy 
 Scriptuie. We have seen that he says of it, as of the 
 other revelations of God referred to, it is a veil as much 
 as a revelation. We now have to notice the fact, that 
 he makes this assertion to apply to every ixirt of 
 Holy Scripture, and for all practical purposes it would 
 appear, in an equal degree. It is true that he recognizes 
 (p. 14), " law and gospel, flesh and spirit," yet he says 
 (p. 13), that "throughout it is a veil, while it is a reve- 
 lation." So, it is evident (1) that this afhrmation is 
 intended, by what he says, (p. 11) to include the His- 
 torical Books of Scripture ; and (2) that as he says of 
 all the revelations, they are alike *' veils," so also he 
 says of Holy Scripture that it is so, "throughout;" 
 therefore, that in its several 2>ctrts, it is equally so, "a 
 veil as well as a revelation." Whether the principle 
 which he asserts, is intended to apply in degree, as well 
 as in ki7id to the whole of Holy Scripture, or not, the 
 principle must invalidate the trustworthiness and vera- 
 city of the Historical Books of Scripture, because it 
 decidedly militates against, and denies the literal sense, 
 as it declares it, to be the human element : the " veil," 
 not the "revelation." So that, if indeed any History 
 is allowed to be given to us thereby, it is not actually 
 
 
 r 
 
m 
 
 42 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 li ■ 
 
 
 (because not discernibly and literally, to the plain 
 understanding and common sense of mankind at large,) 
 an intelligible, and therefore not a true History. 
 
 It would also be a valid objection to such a view of 
 Holy Scripture, that it is not regarded as a progressive 
 revelation of the Deity. Such would appear to be 
 intended by Mr. Jukes. But, if he does not intend to 
 assert, that the degree, as well as the principle of a 
 '* veil" in revelation, equally holds throughout; such a 
 view of matters would appear to be required, in order 
 to the homogeneity of the theory which he propounds, 
 in regard to all the revelations ; that an equi <s well 
 as a similar principle of obscurity, pervades the whole ; 
 and that Holy Scripture, as a part of the revelations 
 that God has given, shares throughout, in all its p)arts, 
 in an equal degree, in this common principle of them 
 all, of being "a veil as well as a revelation." 
 
 Such a view is decidedly adverse to a known and 
 Divinely asserted principle of God's governance ; but 
 not only so, it distinctly depreciates the very highest 
 revelation of God's character, which He has seen fit to 
 give to us, and has explicitly so declared ; for our Lord 
 Jesus says : " If / had not come and spoken to them 
 they had not had sin, but now they have no cloak 
 for their sin." However, we need not to press either 
 argument against Mr. Jukes. It is quite sufficient for 
 our purpose, that his theory, in order to its logical force 
 as an exegetical principle, must destroy (I do not say 
 now, a cardinal principle of inspiration — its veracity), 
 but the distinction between, (I mention no more,) the 
 historical and other portions of the Word of God. 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 48 
 
 Either there is, or there is not, such a distinction. If 
 there is vm such distinction, one principle of exegesis 
 will apply to them all. If, on the other hand, there is 
 such a discernible and stated difference, then the same 
 principle of exegesis will not apply to them all. 
 
 Now, that such a difference between the several 
 books of the Holy Scripture is discernible, the plain 
 and uninstructed reason of an unlettered person, (I will 
 not say of any literateur, or historian) may, and will 
 acknowlege, and declare. Let us, too, remember that 
 the Bible is addressed to a mixed class of readers, and 
 not exclusively, either to the learned, or to the religious. 
 But we are not left room to doubt, or, so far as Bible 
 testimony is received, to differ upon this point. 
 
 The Bible tells us of this difference. St. Luke, in 
 the preface to his Gospel, speaks of such narratives or 
 histories, of the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth^ 
 being prepared and arranged by others; and so, on 
 account of a similar knowledge of the historical facts 
 thereof himself, he proceeds to do the same, for the 
 purpose of ratification of the historical verity of the 
 Gospel. The Greek word Bu]yr)(n<i —narrative, or his- 
 tory, is entirely unequivocal in its signification. It is 
 not necessary to elaborate proof, that what is true of 
 the Gospels, viz., that they contain, and are presented 
 as conveying, a literal and true history of the life, and 
 death of our Saviour, is equally true of the Acts of the 
 Apostles, and that the Books of Moses, have, as a ivhole, 
 this distinct character of Historical Books. 
 
 So likewise, that the Book of Psalms, as a whole 
 is devotional, and the Book of Proverbs, of a moral or 
 
44 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 practical character. All that is necessary for us to 
 notice is this, that Mr. Jukes's theory as to the "nature 
 of Scripture," would destroy all and every distinction, 
 by making every part of Holy Scripture, as much a 
 veil, as a revelation of the Deity. 
 
 Of course we recognize, when referring to the his- 
 torical character of the Gospels, that while such is 
 the great fact concerning them, and the feature that 
 characterizes them, viz., that they are histories, and 
 therefore correct records of facts, concerning our Lord's 
 life ; that they also contain a true statement of His 
 oniracles, and of His teaching ; and therefore that such 
 parts of them require a different method of exegesis. 
 More than this, our Lord's teaching was both dogma- 
 tical and parabolical ; therefore, such teaching requires 
 a further sub-division, as to the method and rule of its 
 
 exegesis. 
 
 To the one belongs a literal, to the other, a figurative 
 method of interpretation. It is just at this point, 
 that the great error characterizing Mr. Jukes's theory, 
 declares itself. His method of allegorical interpreta- 
 tion, as applied to the whole of Scripture, is his way of 
 meeting the difficult problem of God's method of moral 
 government. We may not say that it is made for the 
 occasion, for no doubt Mr. Jukes fully believes in it as 
 correct. So have many mystics been equally sincere, 
 but no less in error. 
 
 It may be noticed here, that while the allegorical 
 sense is the dependence of those, who, like Mr. Jukes, 
 while being Universalists, give some honest tribute to 
 Holy Scripture ; the literal sense is the only way that 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 45 
 
 the Materialist, who does not altogether deny the 
 Word of God, can find even a semblance of support 
 for his theory, which at best, is both illogical and 
 unscriptural. 
 
 Therefore, upon the basis of this radical distinction 
 in the objects and methods of their teaching, mainly 
 the distinction between facts and trutJts properly so 
 called, to which Holy Scripture testifies, we have to 
 reject Mr. Jukes's arbitrary'- and partial system of Scrip- 
 ture exegesis. There is one nature and character that 
 marks the Word of God as a whole : it is fully and per- 
 fectly a Divine communication, although through a 
 human instrumentality ; and although such instrumen- 
 tality preserves therein, all that belongs, naturally, to 
 the capacities and surroundings of the individual moral 
 agent ; it is free from all imperfection, while it shews 
 the human medium by which it is conveyed. It is the 
 Word of God, and not containing the Word of God ; 
 it is Divine, not Divine and Human ; it is the Revela- 
 tion of God, entirely sufficient to meet the need which 
 God has ordained it to supply ; and not at the same, 
 time both a veil and a revelation. Therefore, while one 
 great feature and characteristic belongs to it as such, 
 as being a Book of God ; it requires in its several parts, 
 different rules of exegesis, in accordance with the 
 ends and objects, the time and circumstances, belonging 
 thereto. It is upon this basis, that certain Canons for 
 the intei^retation of different parts of Scripture, have 
 been framed, and have long been accepted, by learned, 
 and laborious students of Holy Scripture. 
 
 It is not necessary to notice these in detail ; it is 
 8 
 
 r 
 
4G 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 A* 
 
 li- 
 
 
 quite sufficient that we have shown good and sufficient 
 grounds, for the principle here asserted, as opposed to 
 the partial and arbitrary method laid down by Mr. 
 Jukes. Such Canons are based upon the accepted and 
 ascertained fact, that while all of the Bible is fully 
 inspired, some portions are historical, some prophetical, 
 some poetical, some moral and dogmatical, some para- 
 bolical. The two great features of Scripture interpre- 
 tation, are the literal, and the figurative sense. Both 
 are true, and applicable according to the beforemen- 
 tioned sub-divisions and classifications. A just princi- 
 ple of Scripture exegesis, embraces both. Universalism 
 identifies itself with one ; Materialism with the other. 
 I have said that it is but necessary to shew, a radical 
 difference in the aim and object, or of the circumstances 
 surrounding, certain portions of the Word of God, in 
 order to deny the validity of Mr. Jukes's plea for his 
 method of interpreting Holy Scripture; I cannot, how- 
 evei*, close this branch of the subject, without noticing 
 the fact, that the absolute rule of allegorical interpre- 
 tation, does also militate against the important principle, 
 of a gradual development of God's purposes, and of 
 progressive clearness in the whole of His written reve- 
 lation. He says, (p. 32,) " While it is true that the 
 letter of that law (of Moses) cannot be explained but 
 by the Gospel, it is no less true that the Gospel, in its 
 breadth and depth, cannot be set forth save by the 
 figures of the law, each jot of which covers some blessed 
 mystery." This does not give much advantage to the 
 Gospel as a clearer revelation. The "veil and the 
 revelation," a})pear to be about equal in both cases. 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 47 
 
 Certainly it does not justify St. Paul's depreciation of the 
 ceremonial law as " weak and beggarly elements." (Gal. 
 4 : 9.) Nor his statement that the types of the law 
 constituted a tutelage for mankind, when, at an earlier 
 period of their history, they were in God's wisdom, 
 treated as " children under tutors and governors : (ch.4 : 
 1-3.) Nor does it give much emphasis to what he 
 says, 2 Cor. : 3 — that it (the law) " had no glory in 
 this respect, because of the glory that excelleth," and 
 that the Gospel has a superior, because an enduring 
 glory, while the glory of the law is done away. Mr. 
 Jukes however, tells us that we cannot appreciate the 
 Gospel without the aid of the law, as it unfolds its 
 glory to us. Indeec all that ingenious and elaborate 
 theory which he evolves from Revelation by this pro- 
 cess, does but amplify the statement. 
 
 It cannot be said, however, that it justifies it. By 
 his method of interpretation, the order is actually 
 inverted, and the ceremonial law assumes greater glory 
 than the Gospel, as it gives us (what we could scarcely 
 dream of without it,) a clear revelation, — that is, sup- 
 posing the theory to be true, — of a perfect scheme of 
 salvation for the whole human race, as a purpose of 
 God eternally conceived, and to be carried out, through 
 or by means of, successive " ages ! " 
 
 Here, however, we will pause, and in the next chap- 
 ter take up, and consider in order, the theory he pro- 
 pounds, concerning, 1. The first-bom and first-fruits. 
 2. Concerning salvation by the first-born. 3. Salvation 
 by death, " in the ages " ; or, the doctrine of the aeons, 
 and of the second death. 
 
T 
 
 48 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 /•« 
 
 t^^ 
 
 m 
 
 Chap. IV. 
 First-horn and First-fruits — Mr. Jukes' s Theory. 
 
 Next in order, I shall proceed to consider the theory 
 which Mr. Jukes has elaborated, concerning the First- 
 born and First-fruits ; this will take precedence, because 
 Mr. Jukes has made it the substance of his argument 
 for universal salvation. 
 
 Mr. Cox's argument as to election, is kindred to it, 
 yet from a different stand-point. 
 
 I shall first state Mr. Jukes's argument, and then 
 proceed to discuss it ; and after having reviewed Mr. 
 Cox's theory upon the same subject, I shall deal with 
 the matter in a positive form. 
 
 We have seen his idea of the human element in 
 revelation, as distinguished from the Divine element ; 
 and that the literal sense is to be discarded, because it 
 is the human element in revelation. The connection 
 between his premiss and conclusion is evident, when 
 we consider his theory of the first-born. In order to 
 maintain such connection, he says that it is the first- 
 born, not of the man, but of the woman ; bec'ause "just 
 as He, the Incarnate Word, was born of a woman, out 
 of the order of nature, without the operation of man, 
 by the power of God's Spirit; so exactly has the Written 
 Word come out of the human heart, not by the opera- 
 tion of the human understanding, that is, the man in 
 us, but by the power of the Spirit of God directly 
 acting upon the heart." (pp. 5, 6.) Here, let us notice, 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 4D 
 
 is aMother kind of a scwii -mechanical theory of Inspira- 
 tion : " not by the human understanding, but directly 
 upon the heart //" 
 
 Consequently, the first-born needs to be the ivoman's 
 first-born. 
 
 But here let us also see, that while Mr. Jukes's idea 
 of the nature of Holy Scripture requires him to alle- 
 gorize the ivhole of it ; as the literal sense is the human 
 element, and therefore untrue ; he does here actually 
 use this term of first-born in a literal sense, and he 
 does so most inconsistently with his own theory, and 
 also most incorrectly. A rigid literalism, or a rigid 
 allegorizing, cannot be, it would appear, even con- 
 sistently carried out ; much less can either be so ap])lied 
 correctly. 
 
 The first-born of the woman, then, is required by 
 this hypothesis to be the literal first-born ; but if the 
 law of the first-born is to be traced so fiir back, even 
 from the Fall ; if we are to go back from anti-type to 
 type, the law and practice of the patriarchal age must 
 form a part of tlie law of the first-born. Such in fact 
 would appear to be the Divine Law concerning the 
 first-born, from the Words of Jehovah to Cain, " And 
 to thee shall be his desire, and thou slialt rule over 
 him." (Gen. 4 : 7.) 
 
 Consistently with this, Jacob says of Reuben : 
 " Reuben, thou art my first-born, my might, and the 
 beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity, 
 and the excellency of power." 
 
 So, also, (Deut. 21 : 16) the father n first-born is 
 evidently regarded, in the law protecting the first-bom 
 of the hated wife. 
 
■ 
 
 50 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 Here, then, is a flaw in the argument from the begin- 
 ning : (a) In that the term "first-born" is used liter- 
 ally against Mr. Jukes's own and chosen principle of 
 allegorical interpretation, to which his view of the 
 nature of Holy Scripture commits him throughout ; 
 iind (6) that his theory concerning the woman's first- 
 born, is denied by the facts of the Inspired Word ; and 
 also that such facts, as before referred to, are further 
 ratified by the provisions of the law concerning the 
 first-bom of the hated wife. That Christ is the first- 
 born, primarily to be understood here, is the opinion of 
 Mr. Jukes. 
 
 Christ, however, we are to understand, literally, not 
 metaphorically ; so He is such in a double sense. 1. 
 He is so in His life. " He is the first-born of eveiy 
 creature." " First-born from above, first out of life, for 
 He is tht Only-Begotten Son of God, begotten of the 
 Father, before all worlds." (" Rest of all things." p. 
 31.) Here Mr. Jukes quotes Col. 1 : 15, 17, and IS ; and 
 it would appear that he means a literal first-born, for 
 he says, " first out of life." I do not wish to press his 
 words further in his application of this passage, i. e., 
 " first-born of every creature." But, he says that 
 Christ is (2) the first-born in His death, for He is "the 
 first-born from the dead ;" " first out of death." (p. 31). 
 Here, too, we can no otherwise consider, but that he 
 uses the literal sense. Christ is literally in both appli- 
 cations of the term, the first-born. 
 
 But further, — if Christ is first-born, so are also His 
 people. They are the "first-born" as distinguished 
 from the "later-born"; so here, too, the literal sense 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 61 
 
 holds: partly, in that they are first in order of time, 
 spiritually begotten by His Spirit ; the other class, 
 later so begotten, and begotten by Christ, through the 
 instrumentality of His people. 
 
 But as Christ was "first-born," in His being "first 
 out of life," and also "first out of death," so His people 
 are also; and as they bear part with Christ in his work 
 during life, so also in death. As Christ was a Prophet 
 in His life, so are they; as He was after death to the 
 spirits in Hades, so are they; and through their agency, 
 the later born are begotten in Hades, as also their 
 brethren of the first-horn, are upon earth. 
 
 Mr. Jukes says, they like Christ, are both Prophets, 
 Priests, and Kings, "as first-born with Christ, to share 
 the glory of Kingship and Priesthood with Him, not 
 only to rule, and intercede for their younger and later 
 born brethren, but to avenge their blood, to raise up 
 seed to the dead, and, in and through Christ their life 
 and head, to redeem their lost inheritance." — p. 34. 
 
 In a very singular way, Mr. Jukes endeavours to 
 prove this by the law of the first-born of beasts. The 
 first-born of all cattle, was sacred to Jehovah. So also 
 the first-bom of man, in memory of the Exodus. The 
 first-born of the children were to be redeemed by an 
 animal. So also the first-born of an ass, was to be 
 redeemed by a lamb. 
 
 The clean redeemed the unclean. So Mr. Jukes 
 wishes to prove that the righteous redeem the wicked ! 
 But the law affected many, or at least several kinds of 
 clean animals, and but one kina of the unclean, so 
 that, by the analogy of Mr. Jukes, only a ^^ar^ of the 
 
52 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 H- 
 
 
 unclean, sinners or rebellious, would be provided for, 
 not all. 
 
 What is said by Mr. Jukes of the "ftrst-bom," is in a 
 similar way said of the " first fruits," and in the sheaf 
 of first fruits, and the unleavened cakes of the Pass- 
 over, Mr. Jukes traces a type, severally of Christ, and 
 His people. "Christ the first fruits," (1 Cor. 15: 23) 
 and we " a kind of first-fruits of His creatures." (James 
 1 : 18). Here also, he adheres to the literal sense of 
 the word. His theory of Universal Redemption he 
 conceives to have been favoured by a provision in the 
 calendar of the Church, previous to the Reformation, 
 for the celebration of All-Souls' Day : so, in this fol- 
 lowing All-Saints' Day, he traces a belief at that time, 
 that All-Saints should reach unto All-Souls ; or, a 
 recognition that in their view, God's purpose should 
 reach to the salvation of all men : pp. 45, 46. It is 
 also to be noticed, that he supposes the dift'erent times 
 at which the first-fruits were to be gathered, and the 
 use made of the number seven — (as applied to days, 
 weeks, months, and j-ears,) to refer to successive " ages;'* 
 and that the year of jubilee, or fiftieth year, — which he 
 calls " the great Pentecost," — symbolized the general 
 redemption for all men, i. e., Universal Salvation. 
 
 We pass on now (2) to consider what he says con- 
 cerning " the doctrine of the aeons," to use Mr. Cox's 
 word; or in Mr, Jukes's own language, that this purpose 
 of redemption " is fulfilled in successive worlds or ages." 
 (p. 148.) In making this statement, he is somewhat- 
 diffident : as he says (p. 40) he " would p ^hv s bo 
 exceeding his measure," wl\en speaking of > being 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 53 
 
 redeemed by the lamb ; so here (p. 51) he says "it would 
 far exceed his measure to attempt to shew how the law 
 in all its * times,' figured the Gospel * ages' " He does, 
 however, give us an instance and sample of such an 
 elucidation, when he tells us his idea concerning the 
 different times assigned for the purification of a woman 
 after child-birth, according as she had given birth to a 
 male, or a female child. He allegorises it thus : " If 
 the woman, which is our nature, give birth to a man- 
 child, or receive the seed of the word of truth, in this 
 age ; then there is hope tliat even * our vile body,' shall 
 be cleansed, when we reach the end of this present dis- 
 pensation ; but if its (i. e. our nature's,) fruit, is a female 
 child, or merely natural, instead of the ' new man/ 
 then it is unclean double that time." 
 
 But there is a very apparent difficulty connected 
 with this hypothesis, as the enquiry is made, " who is 
 responsible for such a result ? " — {i e. the bearing of a 
 man, or a maid child). Is it the woman ? So says Mr. 
 Jukes. But evidently it is not true of the type, as ho 
 considers the woman to be. 
 
 We know very well, that it is no choice of hers, but 
 God's will or appointment ; ergo, if we. carry out his 
 analogy, our nature i.e., loc, are not responsible as to 
 how we treat God's word when we hear it. It is not 
 our fault, if we believe not ; and the result will be, in 
 consequence of our mishap, or rather of GocVs appoint- 
 ment, that we shall not be cleansed or saved, at the 
 end of this age, but at the end of another ! That is, 
 we shall be punished for that which we cannot help ! 
 Yea, more than this: — perish the thought! he punished 
 9 
 
 .» 
 
64 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 )$ 
 
 of God, not for our own doings, hut His disposal! ! 
 The monstrosity of such a conception, is evidenced by 
 the monstrosity of the result. What has Mr. Jukes's 
 fancy given birth to ! In endeavouring to define the 
 character of God's mercy, he makes Him to be gratui- 
 tously cruel and unjust ! But we must trace his 
 hypothesis still further. He says, that those who do 
 not receive seed in this life, and are not hero purged, 
 will be so hereafter: i.e., in Hades. 
 
 Let us however remark, that he only conceives it to 
 be possible, not certain, that the righteous will be fully 
 purged in this life. Some may, but not all. That is, 
 they will not have done with trial and pain when they 
 leave this world! They will, however, be employed in 
 Hades, in teaching, judging, and interceding for the 
 wicked — " their younger brethren." 
 
 Such may reconcile them to further purgation, so 
 Mr. Jukes conceives : pp. 81-84. So Mr. Cox (Sal. Mundi 
 pp. 188 & 189.) So he, (Mr. Jukes,) explains the sen- 
 tences against Moab, Amnion, and other nations. After 
 a time the interdict was removed. 
 
 So, he finds no difficulty with those passages, as he 
 says " called <lifficult." 1 Pet. 3:18-20, 1 Pet. 4:G. Christ, 
 he says, preached to them in a8^9, so will the saints, 
 his people. In another place I shall refer to this. See 
 Pt. ii. ch. 9, Probation in Hades ; also Appendix Pt. ii. 
 Note. In those places, what is common to Universalism 
 End Materialism, will be duly considered. 
 
 It remains now (3) to examine Mr. Jukes's view of 
 the "second death." 
 
 Here, in Mr. Jukes's definition of the 'adical idea 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 55 
 
 le 
 
 je 
 
 a 
 
 contained in the Scripture use of the word " death," I 
 am happy to be able to say that I am quite agreed ; it 
 quite answers to what I have set forth in another 
 place, (Book II. ch. 4 ;) and in the appendix thereto, I 
 shall quote Mr. Jukes's words, verbatim. It is only 
 needful here, to give a synopsis of them. He says, that 
 in Scripture, " death" simply means separatioyi from a 
 previous state of being or existence ; so that " death," 
 as applied to the hochj, separates the soul from it, and 
 from the things of this visible world. The same may 
 be, and is, applied to God, and also to sin. So, in 
 either, or any case, it includes a change of condition. 
 It may be good, or bad, but it does not include annihi- 
 lation. So far, all is well and true. But now, to Mr. 
 Jukes's use of this. He says, that " all advance of life 
 is through change, death, and dissolution." This makes 
 death in the aspects considered, to be not only necessary, 
 but also beneficial. So, death is not an evil, it is a good. 
 
 Mr. Jukes says truly, that the only way to life is 
 through death ; (that is to sin,) but when he applies 
 this to the disembodied state of the ransomed sinner, 
 it is only as a part of his hypothesis, and without 
 authority from the Word of God. 
 
 Thus he says, " there are fires for the elect even now 
 and in the coming day ; for, ' our God is a consuming 
 fire/ and to dwell in Him we must have a life which, 
 because it is of the fire, (for fire burns not fire,) can 
 stand unhurt in it." (p. 81.) 
 
 Thus, it is not alone the Spirit's work in us now, 
 that purifies the people of God, but according to Mr. 
 Jukes, this is carried on also in another world, at least 
 
 • H 
 
56 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 n 
 
 in some cases, or degree, even with the righteous; more 
 particularly is this so with the wicked, who, because 
 they luill not die to sin here, must die to it there. So 
 (p. 83) he says, " As with the ' first-fruits,' so with the 
 harvest. The world to be saved, must some day know 
 the same baptism." So, (p. 84-) he says, (interpreting 
 the words literally here, and inconsistently with his 
 own premiss,) "it is written 'As in Adam all die, so in 
 Christ shall all be made alive;' (1 Cor. IG : 22)— but 
 not at once, but through successive ages." So he says, 
 that the glories of those so saved at last, " the last," 
 shall not be inferior to those of the " first-born." The 
 reason he gives is, that Christ is l)oth the First, and also 
 the Last ! ! But in order to this, (he delivers to us 
 this strange and dark doctrine,) they are to be delivered 
 to Satan, in the intermediate state, " because they will 
 not learn now, they are to be disciplined by evil." 
 (p. 88j. He then tells us, that he " cannot even attempt 
 to trace all the stages or processes of their judgment," 
 which he so thorou<dily believes in, and which he has 
 elaboi'ated so far; and probably all who read this, will 
 think that he has jj^one far enoujdi already ; as he has 
 gone very far away in his mystical speculations, from 
 the Divine Word, as many others of his school have 
 done before him. I think it unnecessary to weary the 
 patience of the reader by further quotations. Suffi- 
 cient to say, that he so amplifies his meaning concern- 
 ing the " second death," as applied to the \vicked ; that 
 he leaves us in no manner of doubt, as to his teaching, 
 that it means, to them, a curative punishment, in under- 
 going which, they shall be compelled to accept the 
 Gospel, and finally bo saved : pp. 91-95. 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 57 
 
 Chap. V. 
 
 *' Object of Election, and the true function of Punish- 
 ment'* 
 
 I now proceed to consider Mr. Cox's statements con- 
 cerning each of the above topics. With the latter, we 
 may join what he says concerning " the doctrine of 
 Retribution." 
 
 1. Of the " Object of Election." His point here is 
 somewhat different from that of Mr. Jukes in dealing 
 with the same matter. Both wish to prov^e that the 
 saints are the means of saving the wicked; not in this 
 world, but in the intermediate state, that is in Hades; 
 so also, not part of those who are now, or were unbe- 
 lievers, but the whole. Mr. Jukes afterwards applies this 
 principle, not only to men, but also to devils! He 
 arrives at his point by allegorizing interpretation, and 
 so makes one of the two thieves crucified with our 
 Lord, to represent Adam, tlie other Lucifer. I do not 
 stop to discuss the question of the transfonnation in 
 the latter case. Mr. Jukes deals with this matter of 
 the elect and their works, as a dogmatic fact; while 
 Mr. Cox proceeds to speculate upon the Divine purpose, 
 in the fact of an election, as declared, taught, or illus- 
 trated in the Word of God. He draws inferences there- 
 from, agreeable to his own hypothesis, but plainly 
 contrary to the teaching and analogy of Holy Writ. 
 Thus, of individual election, he says that Abraham was 
 chosen, that in him, "all the families of the earth 
 
58 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 i: 
 
 should be blessed." So of nations ; one is chosen for 
 the salvation of all. 
 
 This however, while it declared a blessedness in 
 opportunity extended, knowledge bestowed, and privi- 
 lege so vouchsafed; does not include, and we know by- 
 analogy of Holy Writ, did not contemplate the actual, 
 inevitable, and necessary possession, or inheritance of 
 eternal life, herein conveyed to all men. God truly 
 said to Abraham, (1) "in thee shall all the families of 
 the earth be blessed." Gen. 12: 23. 
 
 This we may regard as the operation of a natural 
 law of character. Abraham's eminent faith, as it blessed 
 him ; thereby made him a qualified means of " being a 
 blessing." * So, for this reason, (2) " his seed," lineally, 
 were chosen as the channel whereby, " He should come 
 forth who was to be the Ruler in Israel," a light to 
 lighten the 'Gentiles, and the " glory" of the chosen 
 nation ; so chosen and privileged, in accordance with 
 God's moral and natural law of character, the law bv 
 which He governs, — and in accordance with which He 
 judges, — moral agents, and in which His sovereign will 
 is made to harmonize with the law of human accounta- 
 bility. So, also the Law, the natural and necessary 
 
 1 1 
 
 * Parallel with this passage, is Gen. 28 : 14, where the promise is 
 renewed to Isaac, au heir of Abraham's /ai^/t, and so of Abraham's 
 promise. 
 
 Abraham and Isaac were, in thoniselvcs, blessincs to mankind, by 
 the natural and moral law of character ; so also the wicked, by the 
 same law, are curses to the world they live in. The righteous are 
 blessings, objectively, to all, in the way of testimony and moral influ« 
 euce ; subjectively and clTectually, blessings to the moral agents who 
 choose to be benetitcd thereby ; while to those who refuse to be so, 
 tliere is a double debt of accountablity, for such mean9 of blessing. 
 
i ■ 
 
 AND MATERIAXISM. 
 
 59 
 
 law of God's moral governance, that honours and 
 rewards the righteous in such election, does only so 
 certify against, as so it recognizes and combats, the 
 observation of a similar, natural and necessary law, by 
 which moral evil works in the world; and on account 
 of which, it is combated, and the moral agents allied 
 therewith, are condemned to a just judgment. 
 
 In like manner, the positive blessing and privilege, 
 conferred by means of Abraham's " seed," the which 
 St. Paul by Divine inspiration and authority, defines 
 and declares to be, " not of seeds as of many, but as 
 of one ; and in thy seed, which is Christ;" the Reve- 
 lation of Christ, and His coming, His sacrifice, death 
 and resurrection, were indeed to be a inoffered good 
 to all men; not an effectual and inevitable, nor a 
 mechanical, as opposed to a moral and chosen salvation. 
 
 A similarly false and strained exegesis, contrary to 
 the analogy of the faith, is seen where he so interprets 
 St. Paul's words, "and so all Israel shall be saved;" as 
 to apply it to all the nation of the Jews, when it is 
 manifest from what he says elsewhere, (Rom. 4: 13, 14<;) 
 that the "all Israel" which he contemplates, is the 
 whole elected company from all nations. 
 
 I do not deny by this, that there are in God's Word, 
 great bles&ings in store for the Jews as a nation. 
 Undoubtedly, that nation as a nation is not cast away; 
 but the restoration of that nation hereafter to the 
 Divine favour, by no means includes the eternal salva- 
 tion of every individual thereof, either in the past or 
 in the future. Nor does it follow that by Christ the 
 whole world shall finally be saved, if not in this world, 
 
60 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 ;'! 
 
 ;i 
 
 If' 
 
 hi 
 
 yet in the world to come; nor that the Jews already 
 in Hades are there in process of conversion ; nor that 
 such was in St. Paul's niind when he wrote the Epistle 
 to the Romans; nor that in view of the general teach- 
 ing either of that Epistle or of Holy Writ at large, 
 (therefore, by a just principle of exegesis, or by sound 
 logic,) that the principle of universal salvation is con- 
 tained in the Scripture doctrine of election, as taught 
 by St. Paul, or by any other inspired wiiter. 
 
 2. We may now turn our attention to " The true 
 function of punishment " : as Mr. Cox defines it. 
 
 This, he says must, in every case be, and have for its 
 object, the reclamation and final good of the offender. 
 
 He does not state this absolutely as a philosophical 
 principle, but seeks to ground it upon the Word of 
 God. Before we consider the passages which he selects 
 to prove his assertion, let it first be noticed that he 
 utterly ignores the broad distinction everywhere made 
 in the Word of God, between God's chastisements, and 
 His judgments. Much more is this distinction to be 
 found between temporal chastisements, and final future 
 judgment or retribution. 
 
 In fact, we read of such a jjresent chastisement, as 
 preventative of a future retrihiition: (1 Cor. 11 : 31, 32 ; 
 see also 1 Cor. 5:5; and Isaiah 27: 7, 8. 
 
 The passage in Habakkuk 1 : 12, at once describes 
 the faith of the Prophet in God's character, and defines 
 the people to whom the words belong. The dealings 
 spoken of, are God's dealings with a favoured nation, 
 described as God's first-born, or beloved people. So 
 God chastened them as sons. His dealings with that 
 
 \i 
 
"^ 
 
 AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 CI 
 
 nation, describe His dealings with professed Christians; 
 His Church, so privileged, in ihw life; but is there 
 therefore no difference between His dealings hereafter, 
 with such as "despise the riches of His goodness and 
 forbearance and long suffering?" (Rom. 2: 4.) What 
 is the declared end of those in whom repentance is not 
 wrought thereby ? 
 
 It is judr/ment — " indignation and wrath, tribulation 
 and anguish." Tliis is elsewhere amplified as to its 
 character and duration. So, for instance, "Whosoever 
 shall fall upon this stone, shall be broken, but on 
 whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder." 
 (Matt. 21: 44.) The one refers to a moral Jind chosen 
 act, of the sinner, 7iow; the other to a retributive and 
 final coercion and disposal, of the Supreme Judge and 
 Lawgiver. So too, let it be remarked that there is no 
 choice, in the interpretation of that and similar passages, 
 but between annihilation, and remediless i)nnif^hment ! 
 Certainly, neither of them are for the good, and refor- 
 mation of the offender. Tlie same will apply to the 
 passage, Heb. 12: 5-11, as has been said concerning 
 Habakkuk, 1: 12. 
 
 With regard to what Mr. Cox says concerning the law 
 of Retribution, it is sufficiently answered here, and in 
 chap. 2, where I have shewn at large, that the whole 
 scope of Revelation gives progressive and accumulative 
 testimony, to the Divine purpose of a lasting separation 
 between the righteous and the wicked. 
 
 Before closing this chapter, I must say a few words 
 concerning Mr. Cox's view of the " unchangeableness of 
 God," and the "atonement of Christ." 
 10 
 
62 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 He describes the latter as " God's Eternal Passion." 
 I will not here dwell upon what his saying involves 
 concerning God's nature and being. I will confine 
 myself to this point: Admitted, that the atonement is 
 the effect of God's unchangeable love, it is also the 
 efiect of His unchangeable hatred against sin. G'^d is 
 eternally holy and just, as well as good. 
 
 " It phased (f r"!) ^^® Lord to bruise Him," (that is 
 His beloved Son) for us. So, He said that He would 
 " delight over" f iD''tp'^^ ^^^ Jews, to punish them. Deut. 
 28 : 63. God's love will never destroy man's free agency. 
 He will neither bring sa'nts to heaven by physical law, 
 nor will He so bring sinners. Neither will He, nor does 
 He, so force men to Hell, cither by physical, or by 
 moral law. If God is the author of the saints' salva- 
 tion, the sinner is the author of his own perdition or 
 ruin.* 
 
 It may be added, that having proved Mr. Cox's argu- 
 ment, with respect to election, to be unsound ; his infer- 
 ences, in such connection, from the unchangeableness 
 of God and the atonement of Christ, fall to the ground, 
 as illegitimate, without force, and inapplicable. 
 
 Having considered Mr. Jukes's scheme for universal 
 salvation, as developed in his theory of the first-born 
 
 * So, I agree with Mr. Birks wlien he says that neither God's char- 
 acter, nor God's Word, retjuire or declare that He will compel men to 
 obey Him, and so be saved at last. That is. He will not so interfere 
 with their free agency — they shall have the responsibility of their 
 own future. So, I epitomize his oft repeated expressions to this 
 effect. Yet, I am in doulit as to his actual position, in reference to 
 the "Hrst-born," and shall take occasion, hereafter, to notice some 
 utterances which I think open to grave objectiou. 
 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 63 
 
 and first-fruits, and also what Mr. Cox has advanced 
 as it stands related to that theory ; it will, I think, be 
 fitting, having refuted their arguments therefor, to 
 give a positive statement of what I regard as the teach- 
 ing of Scripture, upon the subject of the first-born and 
 first-fruits. To this I shall proceed in the next chapter. 
 
 Chap. VI. 
 
 "Scripture truth concerning the First-fruits and 
 
 First-loim." 
 
 I shall now endeavour to state this, as I view it, in 
 a positive form. 
 
 (a) Of the first-fruits. It is needless to state the 
 enactments of the Old Testament law as to such. They 
 were to be offered to God, according to certxin Divine 
 enactments : (See Deut. 26 : 2.) 1. God required them 
 from the Jews, as to the Jews He had revealed Him- 
 self. Natural religion is a basis of this claim, as the 
 Apostle teaches. Acts 14 : 14-18 ; but it is further 
 enforced and made an incumbent duty by a knowledge 
 of revelation. Specially was it so to the Jews, under 
 the Theocracy, and as a nation peculiarly favoured of 
 Him. As their National God, He commanded it after 
 their entrance into the promised land. It was based 
 
 *■ ' 
 
 I 
 
^4 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 n. 
 
 '^ 
 
 not only upon His actual, but upon His known ; Hia 
 vjell known character. 
 
 (6) It was commanded that they should be offered, 
 hrouyht, and ])resented to Him. It was to be a volun- 
 tary and chosen act. So, they were offered to Him. 
 And it may here be added that what was enjoined 
 upon the nation, was in a similar way enjoined upon 
 individuals; (Prov. 3: 9, 10,) but there as in the law, 
 (Numbers 15: 19-21; Deut. 2G: 2-11,) the provision 
 was for a free-will ottering. The tithe was, as a civil 
 enactment, so obligatory, but not ^o in the case of 
 individuals, with the offering of the first-fruits. 
 
 (c) So, be it noticed, as a duty recognized, and as the 
 expression of a sense of God's beneficence, as also an 
 acknowledgment of His sovereignty, it was accepted 
 of llim. 
 
 If the outward offering did not include what it was 
 supposed and required to express, it was accounted of 
 Him " a vain oblation." Such was His teaching in the 
 infancy of His Church, concerning Himself, His charac- 
 ter and moral government. It was in connection with 
 lower and lesser good, but it led upward to Him, and 
 pointed to better things for them, while it embodied a 
 practical principle applicable to all men, in all time. 
 
 2. But at a later period in the world's history, God's 
 revelation of Himself takes another foiin. 
 
 The principle is unaltered, but its meaning is made 
 more apparent. There is a development in the measure 
 of truth, and a further manifestation, both of God's 
 character, God's claims, and God's work. The ante- 
 type is evolved from the type. God's gifts are 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 65- 
 
 manifested in a spiritual and higher form ; and man's 
 acceptance and recognition of His character and grace, 
 causes first-fruits, a.s represented hy human hearts and 
 human wills, the result of faith in His truth and love 
 in Jesus Christ, to be he ottered freely to Him under 
 the constraining power of His Spirit applying so great 
 truth ; and so, such first-fruits of the Saviour's work 
 and of the Spirit's power, are reaped by Him and 
 accepted of Him. We mark a development, but no 
 change of principle in God's revelation of Himself, and 
 of His moral 'government. Althouirli considerable, and 
 even large numbers, believed, yet some believed not. 
 (Acts 4: 1-4.) So it ever has been : so it will ever be. 
 True it is, that Scripture leads us to expect a yet more 
 mighty manifestation of God's power and love, His 
 sovereignty and beneficence, in a more mighty Pente- 
 cost ; l)ut He does not lead us to suppose, that even 
 then, all will share in its lasting and spiritual benefit. 
 While here is developement of God's character. His 
 supreme sovereignty and supreme b< neficence ; there 
 is clear evidence that under all, the law of dualism in 
 human character and prospects, will be maiii'ained 
 throughout. The key-note of the first-fruits is chief- 
 good ; God the sum of good, God the receiver of such, 
 and God the (jiver. First, not in order of time, but in 
 character and quality. God the best of all good to 
 man ; and man giving to Him what He esteems best, 
 the willing love and loyalty of the rational creatures 
 whom He has made, and wdiom He has made provision 
 to redeem, and whom, as believing such, of His bene- 
 ficence and truth, He has so redeemed. 
 
cc 
 
 MODERN UXIVEBSALISM 
 
 
 II. Of the " first-born." The Greek word, irptoroTOKO^, 
 as generally employed in the New Testament, describes 
 a spiritual chief ty, and not merely a priority of time 
 and order, as Mr. Jukes woiiM require it, by his theory, 
 to do. It expresses, it is true, special legal privileges, 
 as its analogical use requires ; but its special feature, 
 as its foundation, is found in a peculiar endearment to 
 God our Father. To trace it back to Old Testament 
 use, in which the natural first-born is made a type, not 
 only of the spiritual, but also of Him, by whom that 
 spiritual, and so not merely temporal, but eternal privi- 
 lege and endearment is merited and conveyed to us ; 
 we may see that from the Fall, when the promise by 
 the woman's seed was made to Adam ; in a similar way, 
 the first-born was in God's order and appointment in 
 nature, made that appointed type of spiritual chiefty, 
 and special nearness, which (1) His own Incarnate Son 
 should occupy in relation to Him ; and (2) those who, 
 being spiritually His brethren, should be in Him, 
 specially and peculiarly dear to His Father, in that 
 they should be so, distinctively, the children of that 
 Father. 
 
 So too, let us notice that in this analogy of the 
 natural first-born; Christ is the elder brother, while 
 His believing people are, and represent His own privi- 
 leged condition. They arc "first-born," only in Him. 
 
 The phrase, as it is used in a spiritual sense, descends 
 not lower, so as to imply the existence of younger 
 children, similarly beloved as the elder, or first-bom. 
 Its spiritual use, does not contemplate a priority of 
 time, but a priority of privilege, and chiefty of affection. 
 
 / Vi 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 G7 
 
 Yea, moreover we may say, tliat in this present state, 
 in which all men, as sons of God, are in a state of pro- 
 bation, and in which, character is in process of moral 
 determination; such answers to tlie love, which is 
 plainly and dogmatically declared of God, First, and 
 chiefly to those who, specially and distinctively are 
 His children, hy neiv-hirth ; and Secondly, to ail men, 
 whom He has loved, and as His children does so love, in 
 that He has given His only begotten Son, in proof of 
 His desire for their redemption. Yet, so subject to 
 their individnal action, in a voluntary reception of that 
 salvation. Those are loved with a love of benevolence ; 
 these with a love of comi)lacency. To attempt to trace 
 a 'perfect analogy, here, as in the paral)les of our Lord, 
 would land us in difficulty. 
 
 The salient ideas of the figure, are those to be 
 regarded ; and having determined as to such, we may 
 not further press the figure, whereby natural things 
 are made to represent things spiritual. 
 
 The law that the natural first-born should be 
 redeemer of his brethren, comes within the limits 
 which such a principle prescribes. It clearly points to 
 Christ. To Chiist as Messiah; First-born, not in order 
 of time, but in special privileges and peculiar regard. 
 
 To follow the analogy of the natural first-born, if 
 we admit it to imply that the younger are also loved 
 of the parent, and that such there are; it does not deny 
 the principle, that there is a difftirence in the kind, as 
 well as the degree of that love, so far as it relates to 
 the character exhibited. More than this, if during 
 such probation and relationship to God, by reason of 
 
68 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 ;i 
 
 such probation, the wicked are yet treated of God, and 
 theh- brethren, as sojiy, such probation beincf continued, 
 and in pro«,a-ess ; it does not at all imply that there is 
 no radical distinction existing noiu, nor that such 
 relationsliip sliall not terminate, when such probation 
 is ended. 
 
 Yet further. This analogy is further proved as 
 applicable, and our inferences just; from the fact that 
 God's dogmatic utterances do most plainly declare, such 
 distinction and such altsolute change of relationship. 
 
 Mr. Jukes says that Christ is lirst-born in two senses : 
 "The iir.it-ljorn of every creature, (Col. 1:15,) and 
 "The lirst-born from the dead": (Cob 1: 18.) We 
 will thereibre consider tiie two passages of Scripture 
 that he quotes to support his interpretation, that the 
 reference is in regard to priority of time. It is evident 
 that in the llrst passage (pioted, irptoToroKo^ has the 
 interpretation which I have before assigned it, (viz., 
 that of headship, as best beloved,) in that the previous 
 clause, of uKUiv toO deov rov uopdrov, is explained ])y 
 that which follow.s, irfjoiruroKo^ tti'kti]^ ktl(T€o)^ ; that is, 
 as lie is the supreme Cod, lie is Lord by Divine right 
 of all creation. The same is afterwards declared with 
 respect to His jMe.ssiahshi}), so that as He is Lord as 
 Jehovah, He is also Lord as Redeemer of His Church, 
 and as Head of His believing i)eople. So, K€(j)a\i], is 
 there, (Col. 1: 18,) ecpiivalent to, and .synenomous with 
 up)(i}, in the same verse ; " o-pX'h TrpwroioKO't eV twi/ 
 veKpdv" ; and it is eipially api)arent that the clause 
 
 )wer and leadershii), by reason of such 
 
 po^ 
 
 resurrection. So, He is declared to be the Son of God, 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 69 
 
 with power: (Rom. 1: 3, 4,) and be it also observed, 
 that there the phrase, " Son of God," has reference, not 
 to His Divinity, primarily considered, Init to His 
 Messiah ship ; and to His humanity, as such Messiah, in 
 accordance with Psalm 2:7," Thou art my Son, to-day 
 have I begotten Thee." In 1 Cor. 15: 23, where Christ* 
 as first-fruits of the resurrection, is spoken of, the samo 
 is the leading idea ; and not the first-fruits, an gathered 
 of God. 
 
 Thus, Christ the first-fruits, or head, or chief; (the 
 first-fruits were fT^tDI. and fio the top-most, highest, 
 
 and most excellent, and such is the radical meaning in 
 Deut. 2G: 2; and as the "first fruits," not only as the 
 beginning, but as of the best of tlie fruits, were so 
 offered to Jehovah ;) so rose from the tomb, and 
 80 it is said, " Christ the first-fruits, afterwards they 
 that are Christ's, at His coming." His people's resur- 
 rection as a resurrection to glory, is the iwr.hasc of 
 His own, and the result of their union with Him. 
 
 T consider also that that passage in Micah, (2: 13,) 
 refers to the resurrection. " The breaker is come up 
 before them, and they have broken u[), and have passed 
 through the gate and are gone out V>y it: and their 
 king shall paj.3 before them, and the Lord on the head 
 of them." 
 
 Thus, ;n I consi<ler, reason has been fully shewn, 
 both negatively and positively, against the theory for 
 Universal Salvation which Mr. Jukes has elaborated, 
 havitjg for its foundation tlie id(?a of Holy Scripture as 
 being, in its nature, a compound of the human and Divine 
 elements; and by which theory th literal sense is 
 11 
 
70 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 absolutely excluded, and in the course of its allegorical 
 intepretation, Universal Salvation is found to be taught, 
 in the law concerning the first-born and first-fruits. 
 Not only has such been accomplished, but we have 
 fully maintained the principle of orthodoxy, b}' which 
 a rjidical and continuous dualism of character and 
 condition, is declared to be the decided teaching of 
 God's Revelation in Holy Scripture. 
 
 » 
 
 Chap. VII. 
 Revelation and Moral Agency. 
 
 We now return to consider Mr. Cox's statement con- 
 cerning the measure and degree of Divine Re'/elation, 
 as related to man's accountability. 
 
 Mr. Cox. considers that a very large number of tho 
 human race have had, and do now possess, but very 
 little light, and so, (to use their oft-repeated i)hrase,) 
 have not even " a fair chance " of being quickened into 
 life. 
 
 Therefore, from these premises, irrespective it may 
 be said of whether God has revealed such to be His 
 purpose or not ; God in order to be just, according to 
 their conceptions of justice, must give to such, " another 
 
 
 rtff' 
 
AXD MATEKULISM. 
 
 71 
 
 chance," i.e., another time and place of probation. It 
 is true that Holy Scripture is recognized as a rule of 
 judgment, but still it is to be " intci*preted according 
 to our reason and conscience;" and the conclusion is 
 scarcely to be avoided, as I think it to be a " fair " one, 
 that even " reason and conscience " is not appealed to, 
 (in its proper place as corroborative and collateral 
 testimony), but as the first and idtlmate source, by 
 which the question is to be determined : It is thus a 
 foregone conclusion. It must be added, not only against 
 facts, against natural religion, — our reason and consci- 
 eiice properly defined, — but also against the Supremo 
 Being Himself. " Xay but, O man, who art thou that 
 repliest against God V But they say, we entrench 
 ourselves here, and make it to be right for God to do 
 that, which is sinful in a creature. We may reply, justly 
 and truly, " You make that to be right which you 
 decree so, and not what God so decrees, er(ya, you make 
 yourselves to be God." Again, they say, " Has not God 
 created M'ithin us a sense of right and wrong, and is 
 not that true, as well as Revelation?" Granted: A 
 sense of right and wrong is God's work in man's heart, 
 and this, connected with a knowledge of God's works 
 in Nature, is Natural Religion; and to this, we are 
 quite willing that you should appeal, to see and 
 enquire, does it conti-adict Revelation. You nuist 
 first, however, concede that this is itself, a Revelation. 
 It is so, in itself considered, apart from any written or 
 traditional record in the beginning of man's history, 
 of God's dealings with iiim, or revehition of His 
 character and will therein, as related to him. 
 
72 
 
 MODERN UNI VERS ALISM 
 
 ■;i 
 
 f ; 
 
 You must also, as Theists, admit, that God having 
 revealed Himself to man, it is a question to be decided 
 by Him alone, as to what measure of Revelation of a 
 supernatural character, should be accorded to man at 
 any given time. He, and He alone, is the proper and 
 authorized ju<lge. His will is both riyJit and good; 
 else, what ? But, as a matter of fact, neither Univer- 
 salists nor Materialists are willing to give that place 
 and value to Natural Religion, (" our reason and con- 
 science,") which ivally and truly belongs to it. Mr. 
 Heard (Tri-Pnrt Nature of Man, p. 32,) would have 
 Butler's 2nd chapter I lotted out. 
 
 Mr. Cox considers, not alone that Natural Religion, 
 (" the light which is in thee," spoken of by our Saviour,) 
 is of very little h(?lp to man, but even the reflection, if 
 we say no more, of revealed religion possessed by the 
 heathen, and the connt'ction, more or less close, into 
 which they have, in God's plan of moral government, 
 been brought with those whom He had made for the 
 time custodians of His truth, has actually been of little 
 benefit to tliiin ; as, because they have not heard the 
 Gospel, (that is, they have not lived in the Christian 
 era,) they have not had " a fair chance " of being 
 quickened into life. 
 
 He utterly ignores what the author of the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews says, (Heb. 4: 2,) that "the Gospel v:as 
 preached to ihcm, as well as to us; but it did not profit 
 them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard 
 it." I suspect that here is the root of the difficulty, 
 and not as ^Ir. Cox supposes, in an insufhcient degree 
 of light. The confession " video mcliom, 'prohoque, 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 73 
 
 
 (leteriora sequor^' is only a confession of those, who, in 
 any age, or under any liglit, are disobedient unto God. 
 Thus, the inferences drawn by Mr. Cox concerning 
 what is "a fair chance," and what is the actual position 
 of those who have a lesser degree of light, and their 
 capability of undergoing a just judgment, is, uot in view 
 of God's RevM.'lation of Himself, " in our reason and 
 conscience;" but in view of that blind mind in the 
 " natural man," which " is not subject to the law of God, 
 (written, or unwritten,) neither indeed can be." 
 
 But we must examine Mr. Cox's position a little 
 further. The (question rest)lves itself thus: — Is man's 
 capability of receiving gi-ace, regulated by the degree 
 of supernatural revelation vouchsafed by God in the 
 age in which he lives; and so his amenability to Divine 
 judgment; or does it rest with, and is it regulated by 
 a moral faculty within, which, though it has greater or 
 less decrees of light, is yet, under such economy of the 
 all-wise so ordained, and, in connection with an avail- 
 able help from on High to act in accordance with 
 knowledge given — the responsible arbiter of its own 
 destiny ? Is man, as a responsible moral agent, to be 
 won, governed, and judgcl by moral law, or is he, 
 practically, as an automaton, to be acted u})on by super- 
 natural power, cv by that power coerced into ultimate 
 obedience to His ccjmmands, and at last rewanled for so» 
 doing, when he did it not of his own choice ? In short 
 it amounts to this, neither more nor less. '• Is man, so 
 far a I'rce agent in this his fallen condition, as to bo 
 morally responsible ?" If he is so responsible, it holds 
 true under any conditions as to degree of light ; and if 
 
74 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 I 
 
 being responsible and free as ti, his course of life, he so 
 refuses to obey in one state of probation; why may 
 God be bound to give him another ? 
 
 Mr. Cox admits that many disobey God, even under 
 Gospel light, in this age. Yet they, it would appear, 
 who have had "a fair chance," are to have another, and 
 are finally to be coerced into obedience. This, how- 
 ever, is only an exegetical conclusion from a previous 
 hypothesis, which, making one probation insiifRcient, 
 whether under revelation or natural religion, requires 
 another. It all results from that arbitrary interpreta- 
 tion of 1 Tim. 4: 10, which, claiming to interpret Reve- 
 lation, "by our reason and conscience," does actually 
 invalidate, not only natural religion as a just basis of 
 judgment, but also Revelation itself So he says, (p. 14) 
 " If these ancient sinners would have rej)ented unto 
 life, had the mighty works of Christ been done in their 
 streets, why were they not done?" His own answin* 
 is, that since they would not learn by grace, they should 
 learn by ju«lgment, in sufleiing the second death. That 
 is, they should finally, by suH'ering, be compelled to 
 obey, and so be made willing. But, if God, consistently 
 with His plan of salvation, vouldfiiiallij so coerce men ; 
 why not do so without such suffering? So, "our reason 
 and conscience" may argue; but let it suffice that He 
 has not told us that He will do so, {i.r., coerce them by 
 suffering,) but quite the contrary, as we have seen. 
 (Chapt. 2.) 
 
 We may proper!}'- ask tliese questions with regard to 
 God's moral Government. 
 
 1. Has God always given some light to man 
 
 i 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 75 
 
 concerning Himself and His will ? The answer is 
 plain, and cannot be disputed. He has. 
 
 2. Is great light nccessaiy to salvation ? or, is man's 
 willingness to serve God increased with the increase of 
 light? 
 
 3. Will God's future judgment of men, be regulated 
 by the opportunities given to them? i.e., will there be a 
 corresponding ratio, in rewards and punishments, seve- 
 rally considered, in view of man's action upon such 
 opportanities so given? 
 
 "Our reason and conscience" may require the above, 
 and the Revelation of God's will tells us that such tvill 
 be the rule of His judgment. Both agree that He will, 
 as "Judge of all the earth," "do right." 
 
 But Mr. Cox's arfjumeiit takes two forms. 
 
 1. Revelation by Miracles. 
 
 2. By Truth. 
 
 So we ^vill consider the second question just pro- 
 posed. 1. Of Revelation by miracles. Miracles, Mr. 
 Cox says, are a means of grace, yea, " a (jreat means 
 of grace ! they tend to bring, and are designed to bring, 
 men to repentance and so to life." (p. 19.) So says 
 Mr. Cox. But what are the facts of the ca.se ? What 
 effect had the miracles of Egypt u[)on Pliaiaoh and tho 
 Egyptians? Did they not harden their hearts? Exodus 
 7:23; 8: 15, 10; 9; 31, 35. Yea, the more as tho 
 miracles and God's fDilicunuu'i! increased ! Is it not 
 true also, that althoug] miracU;s, like " tongues," aro 
 " a sign for them tliat believe, and not for them that 
 believe not,'' yet the congregation of th(i children of 
 Israel, as a ivhole, forgot God's wondrous works in 
 
7G 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 if 
 
 
 Eg}'pt, the Red Sea, and in the Wilderness ; and the 
 reason of their doing so was, " because they believed 
 not ?" Heb. 3: 18, 19. 
 
 So, also are we told, that the miracles done by our 
 Lord, in no wise caused the Scribes and Pharisees to 
 believe on Him. St. Peter (Acts 2: 22) urged it to 
 their reproof and condemnation, and so, all God's Reve- 
 lations are a cumulative charrjc af;ainst those who know 
 and disobey them. So do we read, (Rev. IG: 8, 11,) 
 that the wicked in the last days, under the exhibition 
 of God's power and judgment, *' blasphemed the God 
 of Heaven, because of their pains and their sores, and 
 repented not of their deeds," — " and repented not to 
 give Him glory." Surely we need say no more about 
 the converting power and influence of miracles. We 
 need no more to combat the unfounded assertion that 
 " they tend and are designed to bring men to repent- 
 ance, and through repentance to life !" 
 
 We may therefore proceed 2, to consider the effect of a 
 gi'cat degree of truth upon sinners, and enquire is this 
 more efficacious ? There is, however, one more matter 
 in connection with miracles, although not directly con- 
 nected with Mr. Cox's argument therefrom, which I 
 must notice. He says truly, that the tendency of the 
 present day is to depreciate the value and force of 
 miracles. There is an endeavour to do so, as it is one 
 aspect of the present attack upon Revelation. Mr. 
 Cox (sparingly) deprecates it, although he admits it to 
 be " in the true line of advance." Why does he do so ? 
 The answer I fear is too plain. It interferes wuth his 
 hypothesis concerning the value and efficacy of miracles 
 as " a great means of grace." 
 
 i 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 77 
 
 Mr. Cox vents his sadness, or shall wc say indigna- 
 tion? — that God should not have done the host to bring 
 Tyre and 8idon, and Sodom and Gomorrha to repent- 
 ance. "It irks and saddens us, he says," and "it seems 
 hard and unjust, that a man's salvation, a man's 11/6, 
 should hang on the age into -which he is born," (p. 15.) 
 So, (p. 21) he gratuitously infers that Socrates and 
 others, not having heard Christ's words, arc to be 
 danmed for not having heard them, or rather that we 
 say so, and retorts upon us with virtuous indignatifni, 
 for so saying. But who says so? Do Orthodox Theo- 
 logians say so? Does natural religion say so? or does 
 God's Holy Word, as we receive it? By no uieans! 
 
 He indulges in a rather unchai'itable, as a gratuitous 
 conjecture, that those who interpret Scriptuie ditler- 
 ently from himself, would, were they less favoured than 
 they are, allow the agument which they 7?o?'' use to 
 have little weight with themselves, (p. 22.) He con- 
 gratulates himself that "the dogma of eternal toi-ment," 
 or that there is no probation beyond the grave, is now 
 held by very few, (pp. 23-24',) and he tells us in the 
 preface, that " few of the more thoughtful and culti- 
 vated preachers of the Go.spel," now hold such doc-trine, 
 and "in a large circle of acquaintance, he hardly knows 
 of one!" So, too, he flings a stone at Lot, by saying 
 that he wa,3 no Jonah even, and reproaches \\m\ for 
 standing in the way of sinners, to secure a fat inheri- 
 tance." All this is special pleading. Lot's wordliness 
 is not excused by us, nor by God's Holy Word, nor by 
 the fact of God'a dealings with him ; yet, although 
 
 He chastened him severely, He recognizes a radical 
 1? 
 
78 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 S 
 
 
 distinction between him and the Sodomites, declares him 
 to be "a ii<diteous man," and that "his ri<diteous soul 
 was vexed from day to day witli their unlawful deeds." 
 (See also the following verse.) The object of all this is 
 to depreciate the sin, and so the responsibility of the 
 inhal)itiints of the cities of the plain, and to secure for 
 them " another chance." 
 
 Now let us first ask, is it not a fact of Revelation, 
 that the choice in the face of hglit, of a principle and 
 practice, (or of a supposed good,) contrary to the Word, 
 will, and cliaracter of Jehovah and His promises; is 
 not such a detenuinate choice, the sin which is charge- 
 able, and chanjed of Cud against man ? Did not our 
 Lord say of Jerusalem, " Jerusalem, Jerusalem, 
 how oft would 1 have gathered thy children together, 
 even as a hen gathereth her brood under her wings, 
 and ye would not!" It was not once, but oflen : and 
 the condenuiing charge was, that under any and all 
 circumstances of light, they luoald not. What was true 
 of such, as a nation, was true in their individual capacity : 
 is true of all the disobedient, in all times. True it is, 
 that our Lord attached a special condenniation to those 
 who simied under the Gospel, (John 3:.'3G,) but it only 
 goes to shew, that such condenniation was cumulative ; 
 and that even all the wisdom and grace of the 
 Almighty, by which He appealed to moral agents by 
 moral law j was, and is, opposed by an inveterate and 
 persistent " law of .sin " in man's mind, which is emnity 
 against Him. 
 
 Against such a moral principle of evil, God opposes a 
 moral principle of good : of truth and wisdom. 
 
 •m 
 
m 
 
 AND MATP:RIALTS>r. 
 
 70 
 
 Still, while He has, as a fact, marie His Revelation 
 progressive, and also (liscerniblo to man's mind, 
 enlightened by such Revelation and by His Spirit, as a 
 fact of siii)reme wisdom and beneficence in relation to 
 the end ; still, as a moral governor, God will not, even 
 so, bestow light so as to neutralize the moral agency 
 and responsible will, with which He has endowed man. 
 Were such to be the case, there could bo no prohtdlon ; 
 and virtue would cease, under such circumstances, to 
 he virtue. 
 
 So we interpret that passage, ^fatt. 1 1 : 20-24. God 
 would, in his bestowing of truth to those guilty cities, 
 conserve their moral agency, as He will Judge them in 
 accordance with it; and with the (Icijrce of light which, 
 in H'iH wisdom, He saw fit to jrive to them. 
 
 It is a fact, admitted by most men, that they know 
 more of what is good, than they practice. So, it is in 
 fact, a mercy of God that He has so gi'adually bestowe<l 
 the means of knowledge. Althou'di a lar<jer measure, 
 in earlier times, would have given more comfort to mme, 
 yet God has regarded the condition and interests of 
 all. * 
 
 It is a well known and accei)ted fact that Gospel 
 truth is very hardening, M'h ere it is not received. It is 
 not therefore, in itself, a mechanical, and necessarily 
 
 * Tlie following quotation from tho Life of Mrs. Jinl.son, aa an 
 experimental fact, ia in point here, .and of value : "A few days after 
 this, as I was reading liellamey's True Religion, I obtained a new 
 view of the character of God. His ju.stice, displayed in condennnng 
 tho finally impenitent, which I had before viewed an cruel, now 
 appeared to bo an impression of hatred to siu, and regard to the good 
 of ueings in general. 
 
IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-S) 
 
 I 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 f Ilia iiM 
 :: 'iiii^ iiiiM 
 
 .;. m III 2.0 
 
 1.8 
 
 
 1.25 1.4 
 
 1.6 
 
 
 ■< 
 
 6" — 
 
 
 ► 
 
 '^i 
 
 ^ 
 
 /2 
 
 ^/. 
 
 0-, 
 
 
 •^^ c^^ 
 
 •cw 
 
 
 ' ^w 
 
 /A 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, NY. 145)0 
 
 (716) 872-450.? 
 
.:<'' .^ 
 
 Q< 
 
 W- 
 
 Q^ 
 
 m 
 
80 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 ■II 
 
 •f 
 
 i 
 I 
 
 -I; 
 i! 
 
 .1: 
 
 efficacious, although a highly spiritual agency. The 
 radical enmity that opposes it, is not of the head, but 
 of the heart and will. (See 2 Thes. 2: 11-12.) 
 
 Here then, in the regeneration and salvation of the 
 sinner, is another high mystery. It is the Creator 
 meeting the creature, as an individual, in the secret 
 chambers of the heart and conscience, although by 
 truth, and there dealing with him! God the Sovereign: 
 yet no less truly, maUy the responsible and moral agent, 
 the moulder and determiner of his future destiny! 
 
 It only finds a parallel in the same truths, set forth 
 everywhere, concernirg the same God. "The Lord, 
 The Lord God, merciful and gracious, forgiving iniquity, 
 transgression and sin, yet who will by no means clear 
 the guilty." 
 
 So of the very rudiments of His religion. He that 
 cometh to God, must believe (not know by demonstra- 
 tive philosophy,) that He is, and that He is the rewarder 
 of such as diligently seek Him." 
 
 What he said to Jacob's seed, that they should not 
 seek His face in vain; what He says by Solomon (Prov. 
 2: 1-5,) "If thou seekest her (i.e., God's truth) as silver 
 and searchest for her as for hid treasure, then shalt 
 thou understand the fear of the Lord, and find the know- 
 ledge of God;" this is true of all men, and in all time : 
 such shall find JHim, as He has provided and as he has 
 promised. Yea, even under the most unfavourable 
 conditions, "if they seek Him with their whole heart." 
 The sad circumstances with which prevailing vice has 
 compassed about many, even in our own day, and 
 in our own favoured father land, (referred to by Mr. 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 8t 
 
 Cox, p. 16,) can form no exception, when we have in 
 view tlie fact, that God's rule of judgment is according 
 to knowledge and opportunity; and although the dis- 
 ' advantages and sorrows of such a condition be great, 
 our unfailing clue for the solution of all hard problems 
 of the moral government of a just and good God, is 
 found in the assured truth of His Word, as well as our 
 just, intuitive, and revealed intelligence of His char- 
 acter; that it shall be always, and certainly, according 
 to the most perfect truth, and the most perfect benefi- 
 cence. 
 
 Chap. VIII. 
 
 " The restitution pf all things." 
 
 I have already, in a positive fonn, answered the 
 question which Mr. Cox has attached to the title of his 
 book, " Is Christ the Saviour of all men ? " In the 
 title, ISalvator Mundi, he says yea ! and doubtless to 
 others he suggests the question, "Is it not so?" I 
 think that I have already shewn from Holy Scripture,. 
 hoiv He is " the Saviour of all men," and also how, and 
 in what respects that is a particular and special salva- 
 tion which He gives " to those who believe." It 
 remains now to give a positive statement of what I 
 regard as the doctrine of Scripture, concerning " the 
 
{'/ ^ ■ "niim ' uiiii m v i m m m wm u m m 
 
 S2 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 If 
 II 
 
 is 
 m 
 
 13 
 
 
 
 restitution of all things." This phrase of Holy Scrip- 
 ture, Mr. Jukes has adopted as the title of his book, 
 and in so adopting it, he makes a sad perversion of the 
 truth therein contained, and expressed in other places 
 of Holy Writ. 
 
 Here again, let us notice, that Mr. Jukes violates 
 that canon of interpretation, which he has laid down 
 for himself, in his view of " the nature of Scripture." 
 He commits himself absolutely to the figurative sense, 
 and rejects the literal as the human element in Revela- 
 tion. The truth (he says) does not. lie upon the sur- 
 face. "The mystery of the Incarnate Word, I am 
 assured, is the key, and the only sufficient one to the 
 mystery of the Written W"ord : the letter, that is the 
 outward and human form, of which answers to the 
 flesh of Christ, and is but a part of the mystery of the 
 incarnation of the Eternal Word." " The Divine is 
 revealed under a veil, and that veil a creature form." 
 (Rest, of all things, pages 41-5.) The " creature form," 
 therefore, the "veil," or the "human body," is the 
 literal sense. This veils the Divine Revelation. Con- 
 sequently, it is uniformly and ahuays to be excluded, 
 in the interpretation of Holy Scripture. 
 
 This, I think, is inevitable from the premiss which 
 Mr. Jukes has laid down for his own guidance. Yet, 
 here, what do we behold ! Mr. Jukes, instead of 
 •excluding, does actually admit the literal sense, " the 
 veil," " the human element." How inconsistent ! How 
 inadmissible from his own premiss ! But more cogent 
 than this, how utterly at variance with the analogy of 
 faith, and the explicit statements of the Word of 
 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 83 
 
 God, as he here makes use of the literal sense in the 
 most absolute way ! 
 
 Actually, and truly, both Mr. Jukes and Mr. Cox do 
 make a sad perversion of the sense of Scripture, with 
 reference to this little word, " all." Truly it is indeed 
 " all" of the things and persons to whom reference is 
 made, and who or which, are contained under that 
 description; but to say that it is in this case, umversa, 
 absolutely, in the most general and unrestricted sense, 
 of things in this world, (to extend it no further,) is 
 quite contrary to what is disclosed as the mind, or 
 intention of the sacred writers. The latter is far more 
 important, and rests upon a much surer foundation 
 than Mr. Jukes's air-spun theory of the "veil and reve- 
 lation." The principle referred to is quite akin, although 
 not absolutely identical with, another very important 
 principle of Scripture interpretation, i.e., regard to the 
 usus loquendi. One refers to the scope embraced in 
 the thought of the writer, or writers, and the general 
 agreement of their testimony, in reference to that par- 
 ticular subject; the other refers to the ^lse made of 
 language by such writers, to express ideas, and their 
 agreement in such use, where such agreement is found, 
 or in whatever degree. The principle contained in the 
 latter, as contrasted with an arbitrary stress upon 
 Etymological derivation, is a prime and important 
 element in the present controversy. But to return to 
 the word " all." As interpreted by Mr. Jukes, it might, 
 n that phr ase, " the restitution of all things," apart 
 from the context, and as adopted to express his ideas 
 of universal salvation, extend to things and persons 
 
84 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 m 
 
 m 
 
 m ; 
 
 m'' 
 
 beyond this world; and so indeed he does apply it, 
 for he makes it to refer to the salvation of devils. But 
 let us now seek the just and proper view of facts, as 
 Scripture sets them forth, in reference to "the restitu- 
 tion of all things." 
 
 The context directs us, as to the scope thereof It 
 is of " which God has spoken by all His holy Prophets 
 since the world began." One great and cardinal truth 
 we learn from this: It is, that it has reference to Pro- 
 phetic revelations of the Divine purpose, not to cere- 
 raonial enactments, covering as a " veil," a secret 
 purpose and plan of Eschatology, or a description of 
 the method of God's moral government. Having ascer- 
 tained this, it, alone, lets in a flood of light as to the 
 meaning of the phrase. We will endeavour to trace the 
 testimony referred to, in the most strict agreement 
 with the terms prescribed by the text. Such speaks 
 of "all God's Holy Prophets," from the beginning. It 
 is evident that the Divine promise in the day of the 
 Fall, cannot be included in this statement. It refers 
 to Prophets. Now St. Jude directs us to the first in 
 this royal line of Prophets, when he says that "Enoch, 
 the seventh from Adam," gave prophetic testimony as 
 to the times of the end. We can go back no further. 
 Let us then first notice the character of the testimony 
 referred to. Does it speak of the Salvation of all men? 
 Does Enoch say that God intends in the future " resti- 
 tution," to restore the rebellious and disobedient? Most 
 emphatically he says, No! Such testimony makes no 
 promise of that nature — it is of judgment most severe 
 and certain. " Behold the Lord cometh with ten 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 85 
 
 thousands of His saints, to execute judgment upon all, 
 and to convince all that are ungodly among them, of 
 all their ungodly deeds, which they have ungodly com- 
 mitted, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly 
 sinners have spoken against Him." Jude 14, 15. These 
 words are very decided, and very pertinent to the 
 matter in hand. Here, we have "all" presented to us 
 from another point of view. Does this mean aZ/ persons, 
 absolutely and unreservedly ? 
 
 No ! it means all the ungodly; as, in Acts 3: 21, the 
 " restitution." spoken of, refers to " all " the righteous. 
 Dualism of character and condition. Such shall be 
 finally re-arranged and put in order, each in " his own 
 place." Let us also notice how such judgment, spoken 
 of by Enoch, and made known to us by St. Jude, is 
 associated with that " blackness of darkness for ever," 
 €69 rov aiwva, spoken of in the previous verse. This 
 corresponds to the Sea-fMoh alBtoiff spoken of in verse G, 
 when treating of the same "judgment " executed upon 
 devils for their presumptuous rebellion. 
 
 It needs not that we pursue the subject here, with 
 reference to the duration of such judgment ; it suffices 
 that the principle of a haKpLa-if is established, in con- 
 tra-distinction from a salvation which embraces all. 
 
 The "restitution" spoken of, has both a negative 
 and positive aspect. The negative aspect, inasmuch as 
 such restitution is with special reference to the people 
 of God, who at present "cry out of violence and wrong;" 
 has for its character a manifestation of judgment. It 
 is in view of the fact that " the earth is given into the 
 hands of the wicked," because wickedness is the ruling 
 13 
 
86 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 m 
 
 •r 
 
 4 
 
 principle, the principle of the majority. The " restitu- 
 tion of all things," is spoken of from this point of view, 
 and with a special reference to these facts. So it is a 
 synonymous term, with what our Lord terms "the regen- 
 eration, when the Son of Man shall sit on the throne 
 of His glory." Here, however, (while it has the same 
 reference,) it assumes a positive form. Of such nega- 
 tive form of judgment, I have spoken in chapter 2, and 
 as the prophetic testimony referred to in the text 
 quoted, Jude 1: 15, has in its earlier record, the record 
 "of judgment to come" on "all that work wicked- 
 ness"; we shall have to pass onward to those later 
 records of the Prophets, who were inspired to write their 
 prophecies, and have, in the Prophetic Scriptures, spe- 
 cially and distinctivelly so called, left us the special 
 testimony of the Most High, of His purpose, in regard 
 to such restitution. If we consider the word Prophet, 
 in its normal signification, and not with its later refer- 
 ence to declaration by Divine authority of things 
 future, and of events yet to come to pass, we might 
 speak of those authoritative declarations which, as 
 moral axioms and first principles, are set forth in 
 the Book of Proverbs, and (in the Book of Job) recog- 
 nized as accepted and incontrovertible truths, enforced 
 in Nature and in the human conscience, that God 
 will certainly, hereafter, reward the righteous and 
 punish the wicked. But we will interpret the text in 
 connection with the more restricted sense of the word 
 Prophet. 
 
 "The Evangelical Prophet," Isaiah, is first in order; 
 and in several places does he give most full and explicit 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 87 
 
 evidence concerning the good times, — the " times of 
 refreshing," in store for God's people. I can only 
 remark in passing, how the Negative and the Positive 
 aspect of such restitution is mingled together, in his 
 Prophecies. More frequent indeed are the places where 
 judgment is spoken of ; but, in places, the Prophet 
 breaks out into joyous strains, as he tells of the future 
 glories of God's chosen. It is generally in direct con- 
 nection with the coming of Christ's Kingdom, and of 
 His assumption of His kingly power. So, in the 10th 
 and 11th chapters, where he speaks of the glory of His 
 millenial kingdom, such restitution is plainly spoken 
 of. So also, in chapters 25 and 2G, immediately follow- 
 ing the most solemn declarations of a future judgment 
 on the wicked, does he tell of "the rebuke of God's 
 people being taken away from off all the earth." 
 
 So, specially in chapter 35. "The wilderness and the 
 solitary place, shall be glad for them" — so also, " the 
 ransomed of the Lord shall return and come to Zion 
 with songs and everlasting joy upon their heads: They 
 shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing 
 shall flee away." So again, chapter 61 to the end of 
 his Prophecy, may be said to be taken up altogether 
 with this glorious theme : — the good things in reversion 
 for God's people, — and the punishment of their enemies, 
 — of the wicked. 
 
 With reference to that millenian reign of Christ, in 
 connection with whose second advent to our world, the 
 Scripture doctrine of Restitution is found; it is inti- 
 mately associated witli the future of the Jewish nation, 
 as a nation, and with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in 
 
 
88 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 ■11! 
 
 the latter days, of which the world has as yet seen but 
 the earnest. Such, we have every reason, from the 
 teaching of Holy Scripture, to believe. Yet, while the 
 gifts and calling of God are here, as in the case of indi- 
 vidual believers, without repentance; such restitution 
 is only contemplated, or declared as in connection with, 
 a regenerated people. 
 
 So, are we to regard all those places in which their 
 future glory is spoken of, as Jer. 30 &; 31; and in 31: 2, 
 where the literal Israel is spoken of, it evidently 
 includes all that people, who are "surnamed," and "sub- 
 scribed unto the Lord:" i.e., by regeneration and faith 
 in the God of Israel, made partakers of that salvation, 
 which He has reserved for all His elect and chosen 
 ones. 
 
 So also, the declaration in Jer. 31 : 11 — that "the Lord 
 has redeemed Jacob, and ransomed him from the hand 
 of him that was stronger than he," is thus to be under- 
 stood and regarded. Chapters 32 and 33 are to be read 
 with the same signification. They do not indeed ex- 
 clude, but chiefly contemplate, the Israel according to the 
 flesh, or the Jewish nation ; but neither do they exclude, 
 but they also contemplate that people, who are in truth, 
 in their individual character and position, what Israel 
 as a nation and people did but typify, afore time: for, 
 as St. Paul says, "they that are of faith, the same are 
 the children of Abraham " ; (Gal. 3 : 7) and so our 
 Lord's language to that people, plainly intimates. 
 
 So that, here we see what is the character of the 
 " restitution " spoken of. It has reference to an elect 
 and chosen people, for whose benefit and relief it is 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 89 
 
 designed, as well as for a vindication of God's character 
 and truth. This has long been doubted of by the 
 many. They have doubted God's truth, His power, and 
 His love. " When His hand has been lifted up they 
 would not see ; but, says the Prophet, they shall see." 
 They have said, and still say, " Where is the promise 
 of His coming?" So our Lord says, " When the Son 
 of Man Cometh, shall He find faith on the earth ?" 
 
 Our Lord's promise to His waiting Church, to His 
 patient and obedient people, " to those who, by patient 
 continuance in well doing, seek for a glorious immor- 
 tality "; are, that they shall hereafter reign with Him. 
 So, Matt. 19: 28, so, Rev. G: 9, 10, so, St. Paul reminds 
 Timothy. Tim. 2: 2, 11, 12. This too, our Lord 
 declares in Matt. 5 : 5, where the promise of inheriting 
 the earth, plainly, by the analogy of faith, relates to 
 such restitution. Such a state of things, without doubt, 
 is different from that now existing. So, although this 
 Millenial reign of Christ is what is first pointed to, as 
 the inception of the future state of blessedness reserved 
 for the godly ; something more, and higher, follows it, 
 where He says, that in that great and decisive day, 
 which is subsequent to the earthly reign of Himself 
 and of His saints ; that then He will confess them be- 
 fore the assembled retinue of Heaven : yea ! more than 
 that, for they, as members of Christ, shall sit with Him 
 to judge that .same world which before had judged and 
 condemned them, as it was opposed to their Master; and 
 with them, also, those rebellious angels, and their great 
 leader Satan, who is the ruler of this present world, 
 and who now works in the children of disobedience. 
 
90 
 
 MODERN UNIVEUSALISM 
 
 as he reigns in them, by sin. This is the culmination 
 of the glory spoken of in Scripture, as belonging to 
 the saints, and this, too, is the culminating point of 
 that restitution which Scripture teaches. It is also, and 
 therefore, as it relates to them, and is spoken of in 
 such connection, the making " all things new." How, 
 and in what respect, our Lord declares by his beloved 
 disciple St. John ; Rev. 21 : 1-5, specially 3, 4, and 5. 
 " And I heard a great voice out of Heaven, saying, 
 Behold the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will 
 dwell with them, and they shall be His people, and 
 God Himself shall be with them, and be their God. 
 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes ; 
 and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor 
 crying, neither shall there be any more pain, for the 
 former things have passed away." So also ch. 7: 13-17, 
 and Isa. 35 : 10. The following quotations from the 
 Prophets, are given as containing, with those before 
 given from Isaiah and Jeremiah, the chief of Scripture 
 and Prophetic evidence concerning the Millenial and 
 future glory of the Church.* 
 
 They are, of course, too lengthy to be transcribed here. 
 I may, however, quote some of the most pointed and 
 specific testimony therefrom. Habakkuk3: 14. "Thou 
 wcntest forth for the salvation of thy pc . |jle, even for 
 salvation for Thine anointed; Thou woundedst the head 
 out of the house of the wicked, by discovering the 
 
 • Ezekiel, 37, 38, 39, 40 ; Daniel, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 ; Joel, 3 ; Amos, 
 9 and 11 ; Obadiah, 17, adjinem\ Micah, 7 ; Nahum, 1 ; Habakkuk, 
 3 ; Zephaniah, 3 : 14 to 17 ; Zechariah, 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14 : 
 Mai, 3:13-18,4: 13. 
 
 I 
 
 ^^- 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 91 
 
 foundation unto the neck." Zechariah 3: 14-17. "Sing, 
 O daughter of Zion; shout, Israel; be glad and 
 rejoice with all the heart, O daughter of Jerusalem. 
 The Lord hath taken away thy judgments, He hath 
 cast out thine enemy; the King of Israel, even the 
 Lord is in the midst of thee; thou shall not see evil 
 any more. In that day it shall be said to Jerusalem, 
 Fear thou not; and to Zion, Let not thine hand be 
 slack. The Lord thy God in the midst of thee, is mighty; 
 He will save. He will rejoice over thee with joy; He 
 will rest in His love, He will joy over thee with sing- 
 ing." Zechariah 13: 8-9. "And it shall co i^ to pass 
 that in all the land, saith the Lord, two part therein 
 shall be cutoff and die; but the third par*^ shall be left 
 therein. And I will bring the third pai o through the 
 fire, and will refina them as silver is refined, and will 
 trj Ihera as gold is tried: They shall call on my name, 
 and I will hear them; I will say it is my people; and 
 they shall say. The Lord is my God." Malachi. 3 : lG-18. 
 "Then they that feared the Lord spoke often one to 
 another; and the Lord hearkened and heard it, and a 
 book of remembrance was written before Him, for them 
 that feared the Lord, and that thought upon His name. 
 And they shall be mine said the Lord of hosts, in that 
 day when I make up ny jewels; and I will spare them, 
 as a man that spareth his own son that sei-veth him. 
 Then shall ye return and discern between the righteous 
 and the wicked, between him that servetli God and 
 him that serveth Him not." Here, again I may remark, 
 is plainly manifested, that dualism of character, and of 
 destiny, which is a prime feature in the history of 
 
92 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 it 
 
 mankind, and of God's dealing with them. The "resti- 
 tution of all things," which is to take place hereafter, is 
 not to abolish that distinctioi., but to make it manifest. 
 There is now and necessarily, a moral distinction; there 
 will hereafter be a fitting, and manifest distinction, in 
 their external circumstances and relations, and such 
 will be a perfect and eternal distinction: one universally 
 existing in all God's universe, and beheld to His glory, 
 by all His creatures. So, will God's character be fully 
 and finally vindicated. So, will its manifestation, there- 
 fore evoke the admiring praises of the Angelic hosts. 
 " And they sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, 
 and the song of the Lamb, saying great and marvellous 
 are Thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are 
 Thy ways, thou King of saints. Who shall not fear 
 Thee Lord, and glorify Thy name ? for Thou only 
 art holy: for all nations shall come and worship 
 before Thee ; for Thy judgments are made manifest'* 
 Rev. 15: 3-4. So, 16: 5 & 7. "Even so. Lord God 
 Almighty, true and righteous are Thy judgments." So 
 also. Rev. 19 : 1-6. "Alleluia : for the Lord God omnipo- 
 tent reigneth." 
 
 I have dwelt more especially upon the " restitution " 
 spoken of in Holy Scripture, as it stands related to the 
 righteous, and as opposed to the positive aspect of 
 Universalism ; but a consideration of the Scripture 
 evidence, goes to prove most clearly and certainly, that 
 in the statement there given, concerning such " resti- 
 tution"; there is, and can be actually, no statement 
 concerning the future of the righteous, which does not 
 stand connected with the future of the wicked; the 
 
 \ 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 93 
 
 I 
 
 principle of a dualism of character and condition in the 
 history and prospects of men, is an essential element 
 pervading the whole of Divine Revelation. 
 
 I wish but to make this point here, against Mr. 
 Jukes's theory of Universal Restitution or Salvation ; 
 (whichever name be used,) viz., that the Scripture 
 statement of a restitution, is in the interest of the 
 righteous alone, not of all men. It most certainly has 
 been, is, and must be, to the pious and reflective mind, 
 matter for wonder and adoration, that the holy God 
 who stands revealed to us in Holy Writ, as the Maker 
 and Moral Governor of the Universe, should, for so 
 long ages, have tolerated and allowed such wide spread 
 and diversified wickedness, to have such prevalence in 
 His creation ; and with such inexpressibly painful and 
 grievous results, to the world at large ; but especially 
 to the "just " and " upright " man, as all facts of his- 
 tory, sacred and secular, go to prove. So indisputable 
 and patent is the fact, that it is evident that through 
 want of faith in the truth and character of Jehovah's 
 government, the many aie practically governed and 
 controlled thereby. " Because judgment against an evil 
 work is not executed siieedily, therefore the heart of 
 the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil." The 
 proud and perverse reasoning of the human heart can- 
 not countervail God's testimony. The " voice within 
 the heart," combines with the written testimony to 
 declare, that " God shall judge the righteous and the 
 wicked. To the righteous it says, " Surely there is an 
 end and thy expectation shall not be cut off." " They 
 shall not be ashamed that wait for me." The intuitions 
 14 
 
94 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 i 
 
 of our moral nature, which are unerring, require that 
 it shall be so, and so says the Word of God. 
 
 The incurable perversity, and the unreasonable 
 character of unbelief, shew themselves here. In almost 
 the same breath it says, — "Tush, God shall not see, and 
 I shall have peace, although I go the way of my own 
 heart." In other words, in view of prosperous wicked- 
 ness, — "God is not the Governor of the world ": and at 
 the same time, — " God is the Saviour of all men." In 
 much the same way, has it been said, " It is inconceiv- 
 able that the Maker of innumerable worlds, would 
 send his Son to redeem this one ;" and also, — " We will 
 not have this man to reign over us." 
 
 Of this, however, let us be assured, that as we 
 believe in an All-Perfect God ; the ways of that 
 God shall, in " the restitution of all things," which 
 He has promised, be fully and forever justified. 
 The hope of the righteous, and the fear of the wicked, 
 — that fear which cannot be wdiolly got rid of, — alike 
 agree with the explicit teaching of God's Word written: 
 (however it may be pleaded against,) that there is, and 
 must be, an essential, manifest, and wide separation 
 between good and evil, in the day that is coming. 
 
 "The fear of the wicked, it shall come upon him; but 
 the desire of the righteous shall be granted." Prov. 
 10 : 24. 
 
 I 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 95 
 
 t 
 
 i 
 
 BOOK II. 
 
 Chap. I. 
 
 Modern Materialism. 
 
 We now enter upon the consideration of the second 
 great divergence from Orthodox and Scripture teaching, 
 as to Future Punishment. 
 
 I will only remark here, that we pass at once to the 
 consideration of that theory which is termed Conditional 
 Immortality. The school of Materialism pure and 
 simple, in entire harmony with Tyndal, Darwin, and 
 Huxley's pseudo scientism, is here eliminated from the 
 subject matter of consideration; as little needing refu- 
 tation, because exercising little influence with professed 
 Christians. 
 
 The writers on the side of Conditional Immortality^ 
 now most prominently before the public, are the Revds. 
 S. Minton, H. Constable, J. Heard, and E. White. The 
 first-named gentleman is credited with having done 
 most service to their theory. The names of the two 
 gentlemen next enumerated, are well known; but as^ 
 Mr. White's book is the most elaborate, and generally 
 looked upon as a "classical authority," upon the subject;. 
 
 iti 
 
96 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALT M 
 
 4- 
 
 I shall chiefly deal with it ; referring to the works of 
 the other writers, as occasion may seem to require. 
 
 It is only needful further to remark, that I do not 
 here profess to deal with the scientific evidence, save in 
 an incidental and corroborative form. As it is a subject 
 without the limits of " philosophy," I cannot admit as 
 valid argument, any view of the intrinsic merits of the 
 case, as we are able to regard it. It is a question of 
 Scripture exegesis, at least primarily, if not absolutely; 
 the second place, we shall give to Natural Religion; 
 and Natural Theology, or Science properly so called, 
 may be looked upon as yet more subordinate and col- 
 lateral testimony. 
 
 I might, therefore, entirely pass over those chapters 
 of Mr. White's book in w^hich he regards the subject 
 from the standpoint of science. Although he discloses 
 a strong bias towards the idea of evolution, he ulti- 
 mately relinquishes it as untenable. There can be no 
 doubt, that were it possible to demonstrate, that the 
 life of man, physical and moral, was but an evolution 
 from a similar life existing in the brute creation, their 
 point would be made; and death as the annihilation of 
 both parts of man's substance, as a compound being, if 
 asserted by the God of nature, would not only probably, 
 but certainly be demonstrable from that Revelation, of 
 which also He is the Author. The former position, 
 however, is not demonstrable. No department of 
 Natural Science can be made to serve this end. There 
 is an essential difference between the intelligence of 
 .animals, and man's mental and moral constitution. 
 
 The argument for analogy between the intelligence 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 9r 
 
 or instinct of animals, and the mind of man, breaks 
 down in a similar way, to that for a diversity ofoHgin 
 in the difiei'ent branches of the human family. That 
 is, as there is an unsurmoun table hamer between genus 
 and genus in the animals; so is there an essential differ- 
 ence between the instinct of the animals and the 
 intelligence and moral faculties of mankind. Quite the 
 opposite is the case, with reference to genus and 
 species in man. In the language of Prof. Richard 
 Owen: "Man is the sole species of his genus, the sole 
 representative of his order." The facts of science, (not- 
 withstanding appearances of analogy between them,) 
 run counter to the hypothesis of evolution, or develop- 
 ment from the animals to man, either as respects the 
 material or psychical portion of their being. There is a 
 well defined distinction between the loivest type of 
 human intelligence, and the highest type of that of the 
 animals, from which we are said to be "evolved." 
 
 There are several flaws in Mr. White's argument, 
 from the subject of the first few chapters of his book, 
 that must be noticed. He says. Geology tells us that 
 our world bears in its crust a record of death, the age 
 of which record, ho admits, cannot be accurately 
 determined ; that is, whether before, or after the period 
 when the Mosaic narrative may fairly be supposed to 
 have commenced; still, however, he concludes that 
 Adam had such an entire familiarity with the idea of 
 death, from this evidence, that he could only under- 
 stand the death threatened by God to himself upon 
 disobedience, after a similar manner, namely : " the loss 
 of his life as a man." But there are two difficulties in 
 
98 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 ■W 
 
 
 
 the way of this theory. " The fossil evidences of death," 
 which have come down to us, may have been siohse- 
 quent to the Adamic period in their actual being ; and 
 if anterior, as we have no data to determine how long 
 Adam was sinless after his creation ; it cannot certainly 
 be said that he was acquainted with such fossil evi- 
 dences of death. As the world left the Creator's hand, 
 he pronounced it " very good," and there is every rea- 
 son to believe, that death in any form to the animal 
 creation, only supervened when sin had entered; for we 
 are told that under such a curse, " the whole creation 
 groans and travails in pain together until now." 
 
 There is another great flaw in the argument of Mr. 
 White, underlying the whole of his argument from 
 Holy Scripture ; that is, he assumes from the very 
 slender information conveyed on the subject, by Biology 
 and Psychology, that the human soul is not immortal 
 in its nature, but like that of animals is perishable at 
 death, although he is led to allow afterwards, when 
 dealing with the argument from Holy Scripture, that 
 it does not so perish actually. This further involves 
 his theory in difficulty. If it does not so perish at 
 death together with the body, as does that of the 
 animals, or at least is lost, so that it is never more 
 possessed by the individual organism, whatever 
 becomes of it ; then the literal meaning of the curse, 
 " Thou shalt surely die," i.e., lose thy being as a man, 
 so as never to regain it, as in the case of the animals — 
 this cannot stand. Furthermore, (although I here 
 anticipate the Scripture argument,) Holy Scripture 
 certainly teaches the conscious survival of the soul in 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 99 
 
 
 Hades ; this being so, how is it that it so survives ? 
 Is it by a special decree of the Almighty, and that, 
 only temporarily, in order that it may not only be 
 subjected to suffering, but also after such infliction, 
 adjudged of God, be then " killed," " destroyed," and 
 made to "perish?" If so, then the simple, literal 
 meaning of " death," " destruction," " perish," " cut off," 
 &c., becomes not a simple, but a compound one. More 
 fatal to it as a system and interpretation of Scripture, 
 it becomes a mere hypothesis, unsupported by proof of 
 Natural Science, or of Revelation. 
 
 Is it not much more rational* more in agreement with 
 the plain language of Scripture, involving less difficulty 
 in its interpretation, because favouring its literal inter- 
 pretation, where it properly admits of it, to suppose 
 that it is from its own quality, with which it is 
 endowed by God, that it so survives in a separate state 
 from the body, whether it be in the case of the right- 
 eous or of the wicked ? 
 
 Although the information given us by Holy Scripture 
 in relation to the subject, is but scanty ; we may not 
 only say to Mr. White and his friends, " on you lies the 
 onus prohandi of a new theory on this subject, and 
 your premiss, is in this, * not admitted ';" but we may, I 
 think, proceed from the negative to the positive, and 
 justly dwell upon the phraseology used in relation to 
 the human soul : it was made in the " image of God ": — 
 and so the destruction of human life, is made punishable 
 both upon man and beast, for this reason. Further, it 
 is said, that God *' breathed into man's nostrils, the 
 breath of life" ; phraseology that marks man's natural 
 
100 
 
 MODERN UNIVEKSALISM 
 
 
 nearness to the Deity in a special way. It is not said 
 of any other part of His creation. It is fatal, as a fact 
 of inspired truth, to the theory of evolution, as are 
 indeed all positive facts relating thereto, derived from 
 science ; and on going therefrom to the discussion of 
 this subject from the stand-point of Holy Scri-pture; 
 we must fairly be credited with all the advantage 
 derivable from science, in favour of our premiss in such 
 argument, that the soul of man is^ in its nature, and by 
 the decree and appointment of its Almighty Maker, 
 immortal : that is destined by Him for an endless life : 
 the character of that life to bo determined by " deeds 
 done in the body." There is yet another flaw in the 
 argument of Mr. White for the material and perishable 
 nature of the human soul ; that is, his argument is 
 counter to one of the intuitions of the human mind. 
 By an intuition of the mind, man apprehends as 
 a fact of his consciousness, as conscious to him as his 
 present existence, that he has a future life to look for- 
 ward to, and that for the character of that future, he is 
 himself responsible. This expectation, it would appear, 
 man has ever had, although philosophy cannot demon- 
 strate it to be true ; yet the voice of the Creator speak- 
 ing in his moral nature, however that may be debased 
 or darkened by sin, tells him that it is true. The 
 moral argument for survival is unanswerable; and if 
 this does not necessarily include immortality, it yet 
 favours it; and when this is coupled with the deductions 
 of science, it not only does not make for the soul's 
 materiality, but it is in favour of the belief in its im- 
 mortality. 
 
 I 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 101 
 
 Chap. II. 
 
 e: 
 
 ds 
 
 he 
 
 Die 
 is 
 
 id. 
 
 as 
 is 
 r- 
 is 
 ar, 
 li- 
 k- 
 ed 
 he 
 if 
 et 
 ns 
 I's 
 m- 
 
 Immortality of the Soul, and Philosophy. 
 
 A great objection is made to the received belief of 
 the immortality of the soul, because that philosophic 
 theories have been framed concering it. Mr. Constable 
 and Mr. White, both argue as if it had no other founda- 
 tion. Therefore, before we enter upon the argument 
 from the Holy Scripture, here will be the proper place 
 to consider this objection. 
 
 Mr. White says, p. 208, "The assertion of man's 
 natural immortality is the direct cause of a God-dis- 
 honouring theology, carrying with it generally the 
 dogma of eternal misery, which has done more than 
 any other notion to hinder men from coming to the 
 living God for life eternal." They complain that the 
 idea of an immortal nature "exalts man too much." 
 
 Mr. Constable says, p. 16, according to it, i.e. (Grecian 
 Philosophy,) " The soul was possessed of inherent im- 
 mortality, it had no beginning and could have no end." 
 But surely he does not intend to say that Orthodox 
 Christian Theology asserts the same ? Were it so, we 
 should indeed be open to more than Mr. White's charge 
 of "a God-dishonouring Theology." 
 
 They comment on the evil that Philosophy has 
 
 wrought in the Church ; and argue as if the truth, here 
 
 held, of the soul's natural immortality were absolutely 
 
 dependent upon Philosophy, and asserted by it alone. 
 
 15 
 
102 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 i 
 
 
 k!, 
 
 Here, however, are two errors, yea, we may say three. 
 First, I will remark that a thing may be trtie that is 
 not so demonstrable; the same is true of many things 
 relating to God and His ways. In fact it is impossible 
 to eliminate supernatural truth from religious faith ; 
 it is that which distinguishes it. Not, indeed, that 
 religious faith is contrary to reason, but it is in many 
 things above it. Is it not notably true, that even 
 Theism must have Faith for its foundation, and not 
 science pure and simple ? " He that cometh to God 
 must believe that He is" : i.e., that He exists. 
 
 It is assuredly true that every argument by which 
 the Divine existence, as a living Personality, is sought 
 to be proved by Philosophy, runs into Pantheism. Is 
 it therefore not true that God exists, and that He so 
 exists ? The same is true of the doctrine of the Trinity. 
 Who can demonstrate to us the Philosophy of the 
 Incarnation ? His sinless conception when He became 
 flesh ? Who can demonstrate the fact of the Hypo- 
 statical union of the two natures in Him, who can only 
 be properly described as to His nature, by His title of 
 Messiah ? 
 
 Who can sound the depths of that unfathomable mys- 
 tery, the atonement ; the pHce paid by our Surety, to 
 Divine Holiness, for our ransoml It would appear 
 that it is the ambition of the advocates of Conditional 
 Immortality to do the latter, as they tell us that He 
 died for us as a man, and the Godhead suffered ! No 
 wonder that Mr. Greg, in the Contemporary Review, 
 proposed to dismiss all these sublime mysteries into 
 silence, " as the most respectful, (and to them, most 
 convenient) course !" 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 103 
 
 Therefore, all the arguments against the soul's 
 immortality, from this source, is fallacy. But it is not 
 only fallacy to argue against its truth because it cannot 
 be philosophically demonstrated, but it is, (2,) also a 
 fallacy to assert that ive build our arguments upon 
 Philosophy in this place, any more than in any other 
 part of our doctrine. See ch. 13 " Pos. Results." 
 
 We distinctly repudiate such a premiss; we do 
 indeed consider it necessary to show that we are 
 supported by very good probable reasons, both from 
 Natural Theology, from Natural Religion, and from 
 God's Holy Word ; and from this latter, we hope that 
 we are able to bring more than iJrohahle reason, yea, 
 as a fact of Divine Testimony, even demonstration, 
 that it is the Divine will, that the souls of men shall 
 continue to live after death without a declared limit ; 
 and from the terms employed in such connection, we 
 are left almost without possibility of belief, as based 
 upon any Revelation of the Deity ; that the life, or 
 existence of the wicked, will ever come to an end. 
 
 But, (3), the fact, as to the use of Philosophy in this 
 controversy, is altogether against the advocates of 
 Conditional Immortality. They it is, who use Philoso- 
 phy as the basis of their system ; they vainly seek to 
 interpret Scripture, so as to come within reach of 
 human ken in this matter. Mr. White's book is very 
 clear evidence of this. Although he is reluctantly com- 
 pelled to admit, that Science cannot solve the difficulty 
 which he feels ; still, he does, nevertheless, build his 
 system of Scripture interpretation upon the inferences 
 which Materialists have drawn from their "Philosophy," 
 falsely so called. 
 
104 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 III 
 
 I 
 
 ft^, 
 
 w 
 
 Mr. White, I believe, feels that it is but an hypothesis 
 that he is arguing for, and that it is not demonstrable 
 as true, either by science or by Holy Scripture. This 
 appears to be evident in several places in his book. 
 He has made the subject, as he tells us, a matter of 
 special study, and brings to support his opinion, an 
 amount of erudition and research, that the writer does 
 not at all assume to do, in reviewing his arguments. 
 Nevertheless, I hope to shew grounds, in reason, and 
 from Holy Scripture, to justify me in adhering to the 
 doctrine so long held by the universal Church of God, 
 .in New Testament times. 
 
 It gives me great pleasure, to be able to give the 
 following paragraph from Mr. White's book, with the 
 expression of entire approval ; and it is upon this basis, 
 as fortified both by Natural Religion ; so much, I see, 
 disliked by the advocates of Conditional Immortality; 
 see "Tri. Part. Nature of Man," pp. 38 & 95 ;) and by 
 God's Holy Word, that we build our belief of, a natural 
 unlimited existence of the soul after death. I prefer 
 this, to the term " innnortality," as it more fully agrees 
 with the evidence. 
 
 I have said that it gives me pleasure to quote the 
 following passages from Mr. White's book; but I am 
 in doubt whether they express his own sentiments, or 
 whether they are a quotation from another, although 
 unacknowledged as such: "Men in all ages, and in all 
 lands, have looked with more or less confidence for a 
 life to come. The tombs of the ancient Egyptians testify 
 to the established belief in a future state of blessed- 
 ness, or of misery. It was not simply a speculation 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 105 
 
 bhe 
 im 
 or 
 
 laU 
 a 
 
 |ify 
 id- 
 ion 
 
 of the priesthood, but ft fixed persuasion of the people. 
 In every burial scroll, and every mummy-case, there is 
 a picture of the balance of justice, in which the soul 
 is weighed against the image of truth in the presence 
 of Osiris, the lord of the under-world. The ancient 
 literature of India and China, attest on every page the 
 prevalence of similar faith in the soul's survival. In 
 Greece, Socrates expressed in death, "the common hope 
 of good men, that they had an iiiheritance beyond the 
 present life. Before Germany was Christianized, the 
 faith in the soul's immortality was widel}' diffused over 
 barbaric Europe. In modern ages the irrepressible 
 instinct of arvival, practically triumphs, in every 
 country over the opposition of scientific materialism. 
 No stress of physiological evidence on the structure, 
 and development of the brain, on the relation of the 
 human brain to that of animals, on the dependence of 
 thought on cerebral machinery, avails completely to 
 silence the " oracle of God " within the heart, which 
 tells us that "it is appointed unto men once to die, but 
 after this the judgment." He acknowledges that no 
 valid argument can be hroufjlit against the above, " if 
 taken for what it is worth ;" but he says, survival does 
 not necessarily carry with it, eternal survival. The 
 soul may " change its form, and then die." 
 
 We do not enter into any such speculations. We go 
 from the lesser light to the greater, and there seek 
 solution of the problem. But we do not carry with us 
 the inferences arising from the hypothesis of Evolution. 
 
 We will neither go beyond the evidence, nor cZc- 
 'preciate it, but that evidence shall not be Science, but 
 
a 
 .1 
 
 lOG 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 Revelation. Moreover, we shall give "the upper room," 
 not to Philosophy, but to Moral Intuitions; and in 
 interpreting Holy Scripture, shall give them that place 
 and precedence, which justly belongs to them, as " the 
 voice of God within the heart." I have before quoted 
 Mr. White's objection to the doctrine of man's natural 
 immortality as injurious to the Creator, and making him 
 to partake of a quality, claimed in Scripture for God 
 alone. 
 
 Although this objection is not identical with that 
 urged against man's natural immortality from Philoso- 
 phy, it is kindred to it, and may here be refuted. God 
 alone, it is true, has inherent, or unimjMvted immor- 
 tality ; but it may not necessarily derogate from God's 
 honour, to suppose that He does imixirt it to His 
 creatures. So in fact, Mr. White does suppose that He 
 imparts it to saved souls, but to them only, and by 
 faith in Christ. Why may it necessarily detract from 
 God's glory, to suppose that the race were endowed 
 with such a quality at creation ; and tha ' such a 
 quality is not taken away by Adam's fall ; ariy more 
 than to suppose that God gives it to some at a later 
 period, and by which gift they are elevated to the 
 position which he considered injurious to the Deity to 
 be possessed by n creature at a i?eriod anterior ? 
 
 He will sa> , "Christ is magnified as the giver, and 
 also, consequences are obviated which we consider in- 
 jurious to the Deity, as inconsistent with His character.'* 
 Still, the objection urged against natural immortality 
 remains valid against Mr. White's Theology : as the 
 result is the same, though at a later period. 
 
 
 Ill 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 107 
 
 
 We do not hold inherent immortality ; but a God 
 given immortalit3% at creation. Mr. White holds the 
 same; but only to the elect, at the time of believing. 
 Man is no more exalted in one case than the other; it 
 is the time alone that entera into the consideration. 
 
 Moreover, our Lord asserts that the saints " cannot 
 die any more," and so are equal to the Angels. We 
 suppose that here our Lord refers to the Holy Angels. 
 Yet, they may have been endowed at creation with 
 Natural Immortality ; and the question remains of 
 them, as of man, was it character, or nature of heingy 
 that the fallen Angels lost by sin ? We believe, the 
 latter ; and we are fortified in that belief, by the fact 
 that man is by the Prophet David said to be made, (as 
 lord of creation,) "a little Jov^-er than the Angels." 
 
 This, undoubtedly, must refer to his nature and 
 destiny, both: and also it must include the race: man 
 generally, considered as a class of God's creatures. It 
 is equally evident that it is first intended of the race 
 of mankind, and it only applies to the Messiah as one 
 of that race ; a man whom God has determined ulti- 
 mately and fully to subject this world unto, as a reward 
 for His vicarious obedience. So we understand, "All 
 power is given to me, (Jesus of Nazareth,) in heaven 
 and in earth." 
 
 Now, if this be true of man generally, that he was 
 made, and is now, or was then regarded by David, as a 
 litUe lower than the Angels, (for, were it not so, David 
 would not so speak of a glory departed ;) how does this 
 appl}' to the doctrine under consideration : man's natural 
 mortality, or immortality ? 
 
108 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 If man is naturally mortal, (as a sinner,) with respect 
 both to his soul, and to his body, so that unless he 
 believes in Christ, he will necessarily and naturally 
 perish for ever, or cease to be ; he surely must not only 
 be, "a little lower than the Angels," but incomparably 
 below them, both with respect to his ontological, as 
 as well as his moral nature. 
 
 It could not indeed apply to his moral quality or 
 character, for as a sinner he must indeed be very far 
 below the Holy Angels: it must therefore refer to his 
 ontological qualities and characteristics, as an intelli- 
 gent being. With respect to his TYiind : (although Evo- 
 lutionists say that it is of the same nature as that of 
 animals;) which in its nature, as also its combination 
 with moral facidties, marks him, as like them, created 
 for an unlimited or endless life. 
 
 He is, therefore, "a little lower than the Angels" in 
 this; that his capacity oi knowledge, and hence of the 
 enjoyment of God, is less than theirs. 
 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 109 
 
 Chap. III. 
 " Fall of Man and Terms of the Curse." 
 
 I now proceed to consider the argument from Holy 
 Scripture : from whence we derive our chief informa- 
 tion concerning this and kindred subjects. It cannot, 
 however, be said that we do so unaided by Natural 
 Religion, or Natural Theology. If we have not philoso- 
 phical demonstration of an endless life for the race, by 
 consequence of our constitution at creation, by our 
 Almighty Maker ; we have at least, what is most 
 weighty, a deep and intuitive moral persuasion, of a 
 future life of rewards or punishments, according to 
 deeds done in the body. So far for our positive evi- 
 dence from Natural Religion. This tells us all, of a life, 
 after death of the body. For solution of the problem 
 as to the duration of that life, we may properly go to 
 Holy Writ, as giving us fuller information. So also 
 with respect to Natural Theology. Here, at least, we 
 can discover nothing from the most careful study of 
 the God of Nature, to demonstrate that those intuitions 
 of our moral nature, which beyond controversy, dis- 
 tinguish us from that animal world of which he has 
 constituted us masters ; are denied to be true, by facts 
 displayed to us therein : i.e., by the works of God in 
 Nature. Rather, from what we learn therein, although 
 the amount of our positive knowledge may be meagre, 
 we are ratified in our moral persuasion, that as there 
 is a destiny for us different from that of the brute 
 creation, because of our moral faculties ; so there is 
 
 16 
 
 t 
 
110 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 fer) 
 
 also a radical difference between our intelligence, or 
 powers of knowledge, and that instinct which belongs 
 to them. 
 
 So far then, from admitting that natural science 
 gives any evidence contrary to the teaching of Ortho- 
 dox Theology upon this subject ; we affirm that its 
 testimony, as far as it goes, is decidedly in our favour ; 
 and if from the source of knowledge of the mind and 
 will of the Deity, which is confessedly inferior in 
 degree, we can find such evidence ; we may confidently 
 expect, that it shall not be ratified only, but augmented 
 from that source of knowledge which is more full, and 
 which is given to us for that express purpose. 
 
 We may here compare Mr, White's view, and that of 
 Mr. Constable, as to the question of the mortality of 
 Adam, as created. 
 
 Mr. White says : " We suppose, then, that from the 
 simple account furnished in Genesis, we are to under- 
 stand that Adam was not created in possession of 
 immortality either in his soul or body; yet also that he 
 was not created under sentence of death, as was the 
 rest of the creation around him [?], since the prospect 
 of * living for ever,' by the help of the tree of life, was 
 open to him upon the condition of obedience during 
 his trial ; in other words, the first man was not created 
 immortal, but was placed in probation in order to 
 become so." Life in Christ, p. 109. 
 
 Mr. Constable says : " Immortality was given to man 
 at his creation. This priceless gift was one of the 
 gifts which a bountiful Creator bestowed upon a 
 favoured creature. But it was alienable. It might be 
 
 Pl! 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 Ill 
 
 parted with ; it might be thrown away ; it might he 
 lost. So He, the Law-giver, said when, in giving 
 immortality, He also adds the warning, * In the day 
 thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.' What is 
 more, this immortality tvas alienated ; this priceless 
 gift was lost. Man sinned, and lobt his immortality." 
 Nat. and Dur. of F. P., p. 21. 
 
 The argument of Mr. White appears to me to be open 
 to more objection than that of Mr. Constable, in these 
 respects: 1. That it favours the theory of Develop- 
 ment, so that man is put absolutely, as to his destiny, 
 because of his nature, in the same category as the 
 brute creation, without a resuiTection ; the more so, 
 because that his immortality is supposed to be derived 
 through a material cause. 2. Because by a literal 
 interpretation of Gen. 2: 17, 19, it falsifies the Divine 
 Word. Facts are entirely against Mr. White's literal 
 interpretation : but more than this. Mr. Constable's 
 theory is reconcilable with facts, just as he interprets 
 what is meant by " Thou shalt surely die ;" that is, does 
 the threat refer to the body, or to the soul of Adam ? 
 But as he says that this refers to literal death, that is, 
 death of the body of man, in a similar way to the death 
 of that of the animals; such literal interpretation cannot 
 agree with the fact of the narrative in Genesis 2 and 3. 
 The threat to Adam was : " In the day that thou eatest 
 thereof thou shalt surely die." 
 
 Death is held by Mr. White and his friends, to mean 
 the dissolution of life, both of soul and body : destruc- 
 tion. This, they say, was the nature of the penalty 
 pronounced at the Fall. The language of the Creator,. 
 
J). 
 
 112 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 EH 
 
 however, couples time and character together : " In the 
 day that thou eatest thereof thou shall surely die." If 
 the literal interpretation is to hold, it must do so, not 
 only as to the character of the penalty, but also as to 
 the time. So, also, if the death spoken of was such 
 a death as the animals suffer; it must include the 
 destruction of the soul as a living organism, at the same 
 time as the body ceases to live. I see not how this can 
 be avoided. Mr. White admits that the penalty threat- 
 ened was indeed loss of life, at the time of transgres- 
 sion ; but that in consequence of the provision of 
 Christ's Redemption, it was suspended, though not 
 rescinded. 
 
 But what does this involve ? Nothing less than God 
 falsifying His oiun Word ! Mutability in the Immv • 
 table ! 
 
 We know that nought could change the word or 
 purpose of the Most High, under a covenant which 
 spoke not of mercy, but of justice. The difficulty is 
 utterly insuperable, that God could nullify His own 
 Word, when the command was absolute. Could such 
 be the case, well might sinners promise to themselves 
 that God does not mean all He srjb ! This is fatal to 
 the whole theory. 
 
 The threatenings of God under a declared Gospel, 
 and after the Fall, when there was a promise made of 
 a Deliverer who should break the power which Satan 
 had acquired by sin; was with an ascertained and 
 declared provision for pardon upon repentance. With- 
 out Repentance, looking to covenanted and promised 
 V t*rcy through a Deliverer, there could be no change 
 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 US 
 
 or 
 
 IS 
 
 ich 
 
 to 
 
 >el, 
 
 of 
 
 Itan 
 
 md 
 |th- 
 Ised 
 
 ige 
 
 in Him, " with whom there is no variableness neither 
 shadow of turning." To Adam, it spoke only as a ray 
 of hope amidst darkness and sorrow ; but it was suffi- 
 cient to tell of its existence. It is inconceivable that 
 God had made provision to stultify His own Word, 
 and while He threatened Death, He intended to give 
 Life, which He had not promised under such condi- 
 tions. The point at issue, here, is this : What is the 
 primary meaning of Death, in the penalty declared 
 against disobedience ? This being understood, it is 
 also evident that the ivhole passage must be treated 
 in accordance therewith. This does not exclude con- 
 comitant results ; these, however, are the accidents, 
 rather than the elements of punishment. What, then, 
 we will now ask, was the main feature of the punish- 
 ment threatened ? In answering this, we have to con- 
 sider man's relation as a moral agent to his Creator. 
 This, evidently, must be a prime consideration ; and not 
 his animal character as a corporeal being. This would 
 give an entirely new aspect to the matter, to be con- 
 sidered hereafter. 
 
 This being premised, we may now compare the 
 received and Orthodox interpretation, and consider 
 what difficulties does this present when compared with 
 the former. We hold that the primaiy meaning of 
 death, as threatened to man as the lord of the visible 
 world, although it included concomitant results ; had 
 reference to a state of his moral nature, Objective and 
 Subjective, in relation to his Creator, entirely difterent 
 from the one he then occupied ; and so was fitly and 
 powerfully described by the word Death. The threat 
 
114 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 '1 
 
 m 
 
 i \i\ 
 
 Ml 
 
 
 was directed primarily against his spiritual nature — his 
 soul. This, as the animating principle, is regarded as 
 the man — Adam. So, also, we must give prominence 
 to that act of the moral nature, in reference to a known 
 command, of a Being also well known as to His char- 
 acter ; and not to the physical effect, of the act of eating 
 of a certain tree, upon his physical frame. So, we inter- 
 pret death to mean, primarily and chiefly, a perverted 
 and corrupted moral constitution in reference to his 
 Oreator — exactly parallel with what the New Testa- 
 ment describes as " dead in trespasses and sins" — or, 
 being " without God in the World." This, the great 
 evil of the fall, was to take place in the day that he 
 disobeyed; and it did so. God's word was strictly 
 verified. There is no difficulty here: God does not 
 stultify Himself. So also remember, we are told that 
 "by one man sin entered into the world, and death by 
 sin." He does not say, as well he might, if the gentle- 
 men referred to, were correct ; " death entered into the 
 world ;" but sin — the evil in its spiritical aspect; and 
 in its effects upon a spiritual substance; and death, as 
 it respects the body, following after as a concomitant 
 result. Surely this is the most reasonable, and the 
 only exegesis consistent with all the facts. 
 
 The spiritual evil, entailed by Adam's transgression, 
 and transmitted by him as an infection of their moral 
 nature, to his posterity, is not only clearly separable 
 from the physical evil which was only a concomitant 
 result ; but it must also take precedence, and be indeed 
 the evil of the curse, as it was addressed to i being 
 endowed with such moral faculties as man possesses. 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 115 
 
 — ^his 
 ed as 
 nenco 
 :nowii 
 J char- 
 eating 
 5 inter- 
 r verted 
 
 ; to his 
 
 Testa- 
 as"— or, 
 le great 
 that he 
 
 strictly 
 does not 
 bold that 
 death by 
 le gentle- 
 
 into the 
 pect; and 
 
 death, as 
 ncomitant 
 and the 
 
 nsgression, 
 .heir moral 
 separable 
 oncomitant 
 1 be indeed 
 to a being 
 a possesses. 
 
 I 
 
 So, the act and habit of sin against God, necessarily 
 following from such an infection, as a quality and 
 character, separates man from God. The spiritual evil, 
 and tlie pliysicai evil, are conjoined in the penalty as 
 pronounced in Eden. Still, we hold that the first is 
 the primary one, and that chiefly intended. 
 
 Also, it must be remembered that it is upon such a 
 basis, that Scriptural Theology requires a regeneration 
 of our nature. However it is taught, it rests upon 
 this basis. Our Lord distinctly says, " except a man 
 be born again, or from above, he cannot enter the king- 
 dom of heaven." What part of his nature is so to be 
 regenerated? Not his body, but his soul: Further, this 
 regeneration is said to be a new creation : kuivtj /cr/crt?. 
 Now, to create, is to call into existence; therefore, the 
 soul of man has, by the sin of Adam, inherited the curse 
 from him, in this: not that it has become corruptible, 
 or lost its existence as a spiritual entity; but that it 
 has lost the Divine image, in the moral qualities not 
 being agreeable to His will. So, only, in consistency 
 with all the facts, can we interpret the threat as to be 
 fulfilled " in the day" of transgression. So, also, is this 
 agreeable to the account of the serpent's temptation. 
 In knowledge of the actual meaning, in its highest and 
 primary character, he said, "Ye shall not surely die: 
 your bodies will not perish. To them it may have 
 meant, God will not do as He threatens; but the con- 
 cealed fact was, God does not intend this by " death." 
 Here we may admit, not that Adam knew what death 
 meant, by the knowledge of animal death, either as 
 witness of the fact, or by "fossil evidences ;" but by the 
 
ii; 
 
 ill 
 
 r1 
 
 fi 
 
 H M 
 
 IIG 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 t ! 
 
 lii 
 
 death of vegetable nature, or suspension of its energy. 
 So, he may have had an idea of what was therein con- 
 veyed. It is not necessary, in order to justify to our 
 sense of right, the action of the Creator and Judge of 
 His creatures, in formulating such a threat, and also 
 in executing it ; to suppose that the full meaning of 
 the penalty was understood by Adam. We have but 
 to consider the condition of Adam as created : a sinless 
 being, endued with a high degree of knowledge of God, 
 and living in holy fellowship with Him. He was in a 
 position to estimate duly the benefits enjoyed, and 
 the obligation of obedience. I think we may say that 
 it was no more necessary that a knowledge of the full 
 extent of the punishment to be inflicted, should be con- 
 veyed to him ; than it is necessary that parents should 
 tell little children the reason for giving them a certain 
 command, because they punish them for its infraction. 
 We may be justified in saying, that if a proximate 
 knowledge was conveyed, of the consequences of dis- 
 obedience — this were sufticient. We can but argue 
 from analogy, here, of man's idea of the claims and 
 obligations of right and wrong. It is true that such 
 moral intuitions our Creator has given us ; and there- 
 fore, as reflections of Himself, and His Law of proce- 
 dure, they can form no absolute rule or criterion : much 
 less a rule to judge His actions. We may say that it 
 is still less admissible to argue from human juris- 
 prudence, to that which is Divine ; as the latter must 
 be the criterion of the equity of the former ; not vice 
 versa. This remark, however, may be made ; that even 
 when a penalty is understood with clearness of its 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 117 
 
 mergy. 
 in con- 
 to our 
 idge of 
 nd also 
 fling of 
 ive but 
 , sinless 
 of God, 
 iras in a 
 ed, and 
 lay that 
 the full 
 . be con- 
 5 should 
 , certain 
 Taction, 
 loximate 
 of dis- 
 IT argue 
 lims and 
 lat such 
 Id there- 
 If proce- 
 : much 
 that it 
 Ln juris- 
 <,r must 
 Inot vice 
 lat even 
 IS of its 
 
 theoretic meaning, it is not apprehended as to its actual 
 character by the culprit, until he actually bears and 
 suffers that penalty. Something similar it was, no 
 doubt, in the case of Adam. It is a part of sin's charac- 
 ter that it is deceitful, and as it enters, blinds the mind, 
 as it corrupts the affections, and the will. 
 
 Lastly, I have to notice a very grave fact in connec- 
 tion with Mr. White's translation of Psalm 104. And 
 here I am obliged to regard it as a wilful corruption 
 of the original text, in order to support a hypothesis. 
 He says that the Mosaic narrative of God's " breathing 
 into man's nostrils the breath of life," no more favours 
 his immortality, than that of the animals. In proof 
 of this, he quotes Psalm 104 : " Thou sendest forth 
 Thy Spirit, they are created ; Thou takest away 
 Thy Spirit, they die, and are turned again to their 
 dust." 
 
 Now, such a rendering is utterly unjustifiable. The 
 text is dn^"l» " their breath," not "sn^l, " Thy 
 
 breath," or Spirit. But, here is both a false exegesis 
 and a false translation. The scope of the Psalm tells 
 us that David is speaking of God's all pervading Pro- 
 vidence in the care of His Creation, and not of the 
 inceptive act of its first production. Here David asserts, 
 that the preservation and propagation of the various 
 animals, is due to the direct interposition and agency 
 of the Almighty: Biblical Theism, as opposed to 
 Rationalistic, Pantheistic, Evolution in Nature. This is 
 an important fact, and points to a great error, as the 
 Psalm is quoted by Mr. White. His alteration of the 
 
 inspired text, is a much more serious matter, as it is 
 17 
 
, I 
 
 Is 
 
 I i ' 
 j I 
 
 118 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 utterly unjustifiable. I now refer to some passages of 
 Holy Scripture, which we may fitl}' connect with the 
 Mosaic narrative of the Fall, inasmuch as they are 
 logically related thereto. It is from Gen. 2 : 17-19, that 
 the definition of the terms in the argument is to be 
 declared ; and on that definition our premiss must be 
 grounded. Mr. Minton says truly, " all admit that the 
 words ' death ' and * life ' are the crucial words of the 
 whole controversy." The passages to be considered, are 
 Acts 1 : 25, and Rev. 22: 11, 12. Other passages might 
 be mentioned, but these are sufficient. Taken in con- 
 nection with an intuition of man's moral nature, to the 
 same effect ; they tell us this at least, viz., that he is 
 more than mortal. He is not one in character, or in 
 destiny, with the brutes that perish. Here is positive 
 evidence from Scripture, as there is from Nature, 
 against the theory of Development ; and negative argu- 
 ment, at least, in favour of natural immortality. This 
 leads me to a brief consideration of the Psychological 
 theories of the advocates of Conditional Immortality. 
 Mr. White admits, that " the Geological record is in 
 favour of the creation of groups by successive acts of 
 the plastic power of nature, whatever that may be." 
 (Pantheism). To the like effect, is the physiological 
 evidence, which tells us of a clear distinction, between 
 genus and genus in the animals. In fact, an impas- 
 sable barrier between them this Mr. White acknow- 
 ledges. Page 30 and 31. Mr. Heard says, " the dis- 
 tinction between reason and instinct, was the starting 
 point of the Cartesian philosophy. On the assumed 
 validity of this distinction, modern psychology has 
 
 i 
 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 119 
 
 sages of 
 srith the 
 hey are 
 -19, that 
 is to be 
 must be 
 that the 
 Is of the 
 ered, are 
 ^es might 
 n in con- 
 re, to the 
 that he is 
 iter, or in 
 s positive 
 1 Nature, 
 iive argu- 
 This 
 jhological 
 Bortality. 
 ord is in 
 ve acts of 
 may be." 
 rsiological 
 between 
 an impas- 
 acknow- 
 " the dis- 
 e starting 
 assumed 
 logy has 
 
 I 
 
 built its house, on what, we fear, must turn out to bo 
 a foundation of sand." Tri -partite Nature of man, 
 p. 148. He abandons the distinction between the 
 intelligence of animals, and the mind of man, as a 
 ground of difference ; and supports his theory of the 
 Tri-partite nature of man, by the assertion that the 
 faculty of conscience, or God-consciousness, is the dis- 
 tinctive faculty ; and that man has body, soul and spirit. 
 The difference of intelligence between man and the 
 animals, he leaves us to infer, is but a difference in 
 degree, not in hind. I am of opinion, however, that there 
 is a difference, not only of degree, but also of kind. If 
 the physiological evidence or •^ barrier between genus 
 and genus, in the animals, is ununpaired, and this mili- 
 tates against the theory of development ; it is decidedly 
 against the inference arising from that theory, of either 
 a physical, or psychical identity of nature or being, or 
 even a similarity. Mr. Heard says, that " man is the 
 true monad " : and vet, this God-conscioitsness of which 
 he ispeaks, distinguishes him from the animal race; 
 but if an absolute separation can be traced, between 
 genus and genus in the animals, and there is indis- 
 putable argument for an essential difference between 
 them and man, because of this God-consciousness, or 
 conscience, be it pneuma or psyche ; what is there to 
 forbid the belief, upon such evidence, that the differ- 
 ence between man's intelligence and the instinct of 
 the brutes, is just as absolute, as the superiority of 
 the moral faculty of conscience, is to animal intelli- 
 gence, and by which it is distinguished from it ? The 
 doctrine of a Tri-Partite Nature in man, is but a theory ; 
 
.--«" 
 
 1 1 
 
 120 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 
 and the affinities which it discloses, render it a very 
 questionable one, for a Scriptural Theist to receive or 
 endorse. 
 
 There is a real contradiction in Mr. White's 9th 
 chap, book 2, of what he had previously admitted. It 
 is essential to their purpose, to make out that there is 
 an absolute fusion between the two (or three) parts of 
 man's nature, so that, as the animal organism is broken 
 up, or destroyed in death, it is likewise true of the 
 man. There appears to be an equal inconsistency in 
 the doctrine of Mr. Heard, as there is in that of Mr. 
 White, with wdiat I regard as Biblical teaching upon 
 this subject. 
 
 Both are agreed as to the theory of a Tri-Partite 
 nature in man ; although they differ as to whether it is 
 psyche, or pneuma, that is quickened in regeneration, 
 and is the God-consciousness, or distinguishing faculty. 
 That there is such a distinguishing faculty, seems to 
 me a sufficient evidence, taken in conjunction with the 
 teaching of Scripture; not only in favour of a survival 
 of man, and so against the argument for his natural 
 mortality; but also a positive evidence in favour of 
 his natural immortality. I can but say, that I do not 
 agi'ee with Mr. White when he says, p. 42, "we hover 
 in doubt, after all our pains, between two conclusions, 
 and know not certainly whether our ancestry is from 
 the perishable life of the globe, or directly from the 
 hand of Heaven; whether our destiny is to return 
 wholly to the dust, or to spend eternity with God. 
 
 Our nature bears traces of a double alliance, with 
 earth and with heaven, and " we know not what we 
 
I i 
 
 AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 121 
 
 i a very 
 ceive or 
 
 te's 9th 
 ,ted. It 
 
 there is 
 
 parts of 
 s broken 
 e of the 
 itency in 
 it of Mr. 
 ing upon 
 
 ri-Partite 
 3ther it is 
 eneration, 
 g faculty. 
 
 seems to 
 
 with the 
 L survival 
 IS natural 
 favour of 
 I do not 
 
 'we hover 
 onclusions, 
 ry is from 
 from the 
 
 to return 
 
 hGod. 
 
 Lance, with 
 
 t what we 
 
 shall be," till we enquire at the oracle of Him that made 
 us. 
 
 Still less do I assent to the alternative which he 
 proposes, " Either man is non-mortal because he is im- 
 mortal; or he is non-mortal because the hour is coming 
 when all that are in the graves shall hear the voice of 
 the Son of God, and they that hear shall live." — p 90. 
 
 I do not agree with it, because it is an alternative 
 which is based upon a false quotation. The passage is, 
 not they shall "live," but they shall "come forth." The 
 question is not of a resurrection, but of a survival of 
 the soul, and that, whether by natural immortality, or 
 by the impartation of tlic same by the act of Christ. 
 
 This garbled quotation, would tell also against such 
 impartation of immortality by Christ ; as they pro- 
 pound it, since it is affirmed of "all that are in the 
 graves." I know he does not intend this, but the alter- 
 native which he so imposes, requires this interpretation. 
 
 The passage with which the latter part of Mr. White's 
 quotation stands connected, is as follows: — "Verily, 
 verily I say unto you, he that heareth my word, and 
 believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, 
 and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed 
 from death unto life. Verily, verily I say unto you, 
 the hour is coming and no.j is, when the dead shall 
 hear the voice of the S<;ii uf God, and they that hear 
 shall live." — John 5 : 24-25. I here quote from Van 
 Oosterze on Luke : (p. 1G3.) " It is ofcour.se understood 
 that the Saviour here by the first mentioned vcKpoi. 
 means the spiritually dead, uud it at once appears how 
 much b^ vae double sense in which the word "vcKpoi" is 
 

 ,1 i I s 
 
 I ^ ! 
 
 l| 
 
 Ml i 
 
 J 
 
 122 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 here used, the expression gains in beauty and in power. 
 Here, also, in the use of language by the Synoptic, and 
 the Johannean Christ, there is discernible an admirable 
 agreement." Comp. John 5: 24-25. 
 
 I also quote from Stier on the above passage (vol. v. 
 p. 107): "Yea verily, I am He whom you wait for, the 
 Son of God, the raiser of the dead. Thus begins the 
 Lord anew with His third Amen, Amen. But I have 
 told you before, and now tell you again, that this 
 quickening of the dead by the voice of my Word, 
 begins now already in the souls of believers ; and that 
 is the true Resurrection of life, w^ithout which there 
 can be none in any future time." 
 
 Also on Matt. 8: 22-23: (vol I. p. 358;) Who then are 
 the dead? Kot those who are, heing only mortals and 
 soon to die, reckoned as heing dead, for then the con- 
 trast here luould he lost. Tlie disciple to whom it is 
 forbidden is himself one of such. No, the Lord speaks 
 here, as in St. John 5 : 24!-25, of spiritual death, accord- 
 ing to the Spirit's usage throughout the whole New 
 Testament. (I have italicized the second sentence.) 
 
 This quotation, singularly enough, directs us to the 
 words, which Mr. Miuton says, ("The Wa}'- Everlasting," 
 p. 25,) are " the crucial words of the whole controversy." 
 Who are "the dead" here spoken of? What the char- 
 acter of such death ? The answer of a sound exegesis 
 will not favour the theory of Conditional Immortality. 
 
 We may here make a few additional remarks 
 respecting those passages before referred to : that is — 
 Rev. 22: 11-12, and Acts 1 : 25; as giving evidence to the 
 fact that man is placed here on trial for a future life. 
 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 123 
 
 m power, 
 ptic, and 
 dmirable 
 
 ;e (vol. V. 
 t for, the 
 jjxins the 
 it I have 
 that this 
 ly Word, 
 and that 
 ich there 
 
 ) then are 
 rtals and 
 . the con- 
 honi it is 
 rd speaks 
 h, accord- 
 lole New 
 tence.) 
 ns to the 
 rlasting," 
 troversy. 
 the char- 
 i exegesis 
 mortality, 
 remarks 
 that is — 
 nee to the 
 uture life. 
 
 i> 
 
 These passages also place the future life, both of the 
 righteous and of the wicked, upon the same basis, ivith 
 respect to duration. Of Judas it is said, "that he might 
 go to his own place." In Rev. 22: 11-12, it is said that 
 the reiuard of the righteous and the lounishineyit of 
 the wicked, consists in measure at least, in their con- 
 tinuing in the possession of a righteous and of a 
 wicked cliaracter. 
 
 The obvious inference is, that such duration, as is 
 there spoken of, is at least indefinite, as it is continu- 
 ous. This agrees with a deep moral persuasion that 
 juc'gment, or punishment, follows the mortal death of 
 ^Iie wicked ; aud both go to fortify the conclusion, 
 (Ic, ived from the works and Word of God, in refer- 
 ence to the sin of our first parents ; that the " death " 
 spoken of, had reference primarily to their moral 
 nature, and not to their ^yhysical frame. The ani- 
 mating principle, or moral nature, is in Scripture 
 regarded as the man, — the bias of the governing faculty, 
 — the luill, whether it be for good or evil ; is the man 
 himself ; but, taken in connection with the afiections ; 
 which, apfain, govern the will, as the will does the habit 
 of the lift.. That course of life, in relation to God and 
 to Et^rniL^ , which, upon knowledge and trial, is chosen 
 and f(jllov:ed here ; has all the probability, derived from 
 our inteJ'5ge'it moral persuasion, of being continuous 
 p.nd perpetuated: — and such conviction is ratified in 
 the strongest way by the testimony of Inspiration. 
 Moreover, take away this truth, and you take away 
 one of the very strongest practical arguments to deter 
 fron -"wickedness aud to encourage in a righteous course. 
 
.--ril 
 
 '! 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 124 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 I will add, that we may here compare Rev. 22: 11-12, 
 and St. Matt. 25: 4C. The former teaches that the 
 naticral punishment of sin, is a continuance of an evil 
 character. 
 
 The latter speaks of a j^ositive penal infliction awar- 
 ded by the Most High. This is described by KoXaaiv 
 alwvLov. That both speak of conscious suffering or 
 'punishment, and not privation of physical life, there can 
 be no doubt. The former passage assures us of a con- 
 tinuance both of life and of character, in the case of the 
 wicked. The extcvt of such continuance, as a fact of 
 Biblical testimon}' ' •■ upyn the meaning, in this 
 
 place, of the word o. <o?. If, in such connection, 
 that woi'd may mean aught less than eternal, then may 
 the punishment of the wicked not be eternal. 
 
 In concluding the consideration of this passage, as to 
 the primary meaning of death, I will but add a few 
 words, concerning the tree of knowledge of good and 
 evil, and the tree of life. The two are connected with 
 each other. 
 
 Mr. White seems to favour the idea that a medicinal 
 virtue was attached to the tree of life, by which the 
 decay of nature was continually repaired. This, of 
 course, had reference only to the body. Therefore, as 
 the one poisoned the system, so the other was of an 
 opposite character; but both were corporeal in their 
 effects. 
 
 This "would give another aspect to the temptation 
 altogether, inasmuch as it would give a primary con- 
 sequence to the corporeal results, either for good or 
 evil. We may rather suppose, that a test of obedience 
 
 'i 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 125 
 
 in apparently so trivial a matter, was designedly given, 
 in order to prove whether they would be absolutely 
 obedient to, and trustful of, the Divine will. 
 
 Mr. White says, that the quality of the tree of life 
 was such as to repair the decay of nature. The 
 Mosaic narrative may, or may not, favour such a hypo- 
 thesis; according to what is regarded as the radical 
 idea of "life," or "death." If the perpetuation of 
 animal life be regarded as the radical idea, and not 
 the moral qualities of a responsible being in his 
 relation to God; for from the words, " Thou shalt 
 surely die," we must so regard either the one or the 
 other ; then and only then, may such a hj-pothesis be 
 admissible. But there is another aspect of the matter. 
 The Prophet Ezekiel and St. John, in the Apocalypse, 
 both speak of the " tree of life." Such narrative is con- 
 nected with the Millenial reign, or the final glory of 
 the saints. Mr. White's hypothesis is, that Chi-ist gives 
 immortality to those who believe in Him. Their system 
 of psychology (although there is a difference between 
 Mr. White and his friends as to whether it is i^syche or 
 pneuma that is quickened in regeneration and so made 
 immortal ;) is, that immortality is obtained as a gift 
 from Christ, to believers in Him, luhile in this life. 
 
 Now, this being the case, either such a state of im- 
 mortality is so conveyed at such time by Christ, or it 
 is not. If it is so conveyed, then what need after- 
 wards to have access to the tree of life, to perpetuate 
 an existence already immortal? If it is not so conveyed 
 at such time, the effect of regeneration as stated by 
 them is not correct, and they have to account for the 
 18 
 
I 
 
 i 
 
 J 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 
 12G 
 
 MODERN UN I VERBALISM 
 
 \ II 
 
 existence of the saints after death, as they do for that 
 of the wicked; that is, that they do so by a special 
 decree of God ; the one to be first punished and then 
 annihilated, and the other to be continued and kept 
 in a condition of physical immortality by means of the 
 tree of life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of 
 God; and which St. John says, the saints alone have 
 privilege of, as well as entrance into the New Jerusa- 
 lem. If such be the case, their immortality comes to 
 them, nut as a gift of Christ, and a consequence of 
 union with Him by Faith; but as a consequence of 
 the medicinal benefits of a certain tree. Whatever 
 relation the tree of life may have in that world, to 
 believers, (but tLtre is every reason to suppose it is 
 only used by St. John in a figurative way to depict 
 the happiness of the saints: Canticles 2: 3-4,) the whole 
 tenor of Scripture, in this connection, is fatal to their 
 theory of ]iyschology, and of the bestowment of im- 
 mortalit}- uj^on believers, exclusively, and through union 
 with Christ by Faith. 
 
 I have said it is probable that St. John is making 
 figurative use, of " the tree of life," to depict the happi- 
 ness of the saints; but Mr. White can derive no 
 advantage for his hypothesis from this consideration, 
 until his interpretation of the death spoken of in Gen. 
 2: 17-19, is sustained by sufficient argument, both as 
 to chaiacter and time. The literal interpretation, as we 
 have seen, cannot hold as to time; neither can it hold as 
 to character ; for it is requisite that either a literal, or 
 a figurative sense be given to the whole passage; and 
 not that it refer literally to the body, and figuratively 
 
 i 
 
 :* 
 
 :| 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 127 
 
 to the soul ; else they must confine their ideas of 
 regeneration, to the giving of immortality, and not to 
 the recovery of it in God's moral image. Thus, any 
 inference from Ezekiel, or St. John, in their favour, 
 must be a begging the question ; as their premiss is 
 not granted. If " death," and " life," have not the 
 meanings their exegesis assigns them, no allegory can 
 be based upon such meanings; but if the salient idea 
 of "death," be want of conformity to God's moral image, 
 and "life," be the converse of this; then the allegory is 
 quite in keeping with our exegesis, and also with the 
 entrance into the New Jerusalem, and presence of 
 Christ. 
 
 It may yet be adr'^d, that the allegorical interpreta- 
 tion of the passage before referred to, there, as else- 
 where, would do violence to their premiss, the literal 
 sense : on this their hypothesis rests. 
 
 Mr. Heard (Tri. Part. Nat. of Man, p. 43) here differs 
 from Mr. White, and has some very just remarks in 
 relation to this subject. I quote but the following: 
 "The spirit "of man is not a mere act of creation, but 
 rather an act of pro-creation. 'For we are also His 
 offspring.' It is not, as in the Chaldean myth, that a 
 drop of the Divine blood is mixed with the clay of the 
 ground; but the breath of God breathes into man that 
 rational and moral nature which makes us, in a sense, 
 partakers of the very nature of God Himself." 
 
' 1 1 
 
 128 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 R i 
 
 m 
 
 
 1 1 1 
 
 t'l 
 
 \A 1 
 
 Chap. IV. 
 Jjife and Death, the " Crucial Words." 
 
 As it is asserted by the advocates of Conditional 
 Immortality, that the above words are the crucial 
 words of the whole controversy, it is desirable to con- 
 sider the meaning of them in other places of Holy 
 Scripture, where they are used in connection with 
 future punishment. 
 
 I shall first examine Mr. White's interpretation of 
 passages selected by him as setting forth his views as 
 to the meaning of life and death. In so doing, I shall 
 confine myself to those words, and to the passages in 
 which they are used. Their synonyms may be con- 
 sidered afterwards. 
 
 Matt. G : 25. Take no thought for your life. 
 
 ifavxv) 
 
 "Is not the life, {■^crvxh) niore than meat ?" Why 
 does Mr. White translate '^Ira-v^r] as life in one place, 
 and in the other as soul ? The reason, I think, is evi- 
 dent. He interprets the passage thus: "If you respect 
 the Kingdom of God for meat and drink, you will lose 
 your lives, body and soul." This is a false exegesis, 
 as the context shews. The whole scope goes to shew 
 that the Saviour inculcates upon His disciples a peace- 
 ful trust in God for all good things ; and by this con- 
 sideration, — that He who gave the greater gift of life, 
 will also give the lesser one oi food and raiment. 
 
 Matt. 10: 28. "Fear not them which kill the body, 
 but are not able to kill the soul." The contrast here 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 129' 
 
 u 
 
 life. 
 
 is first, and chiefly between the 'power of God and the 
 power of man ; and only in a secondary way between 
 the body and the soul. Further, it is noticeable that 
 in speaking, in the last clause, of God's power, the verb 
 aTToXia-ai is used, which is less specific, and, is frequently 
 used with reference to great evils, and does not always 
 include death, or killing. (Matt. 18.* 11; Luke 15: 6.) 
 So also, although it may be afhrmed of God that He is 
 able to annihilate the soul, it by no means requires 
 the inference that he will do so. 
 
 Matt. IG : 25. "Whosoever will save his life, shall 
 lose it." And "For what is a man profited, if he shall 
 gain the whole world, and lose his o-\vn soul ?" Here 
 Mr. White translates yjravxv t)y life. Compare this 
 with his former translation in Matt. G : 25. 
 
 Here he argues for a similar meaning of "^crv^r) in 
 the first and last clause of Matt. IG: 25, and between 
 the last clause of verse 25 and verse 26, because he says 
 that it involves confusion in the sense — to translate it 
 differently. But what of Mark 8: 20-22, "Let the dead 
 bury their dead?" And His words to Martha, John 11: 
 25-26: "He that helieveth in Me, though he were dead 
 yet shall he live, and whosoever liveth, and believeth 
 in Me, shall never die?" 
 
 The passage under consideration is parallel. There 
 is an antithesis between the bodily life, and the life of 
 the soul, and also between the loss or losing of one, 
 and between the loss or losing of the other. The same 
 may be said of John 12: 15 
 
 Luke 13: 1-5. "Except ye repent, ye shall all like- 
 wise perish." 
 
r^ 
 
 130 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 llil 
 
 ' i|i 
 
 
 The similarity here is, not to be found in the word 
 perish, but, in the suddenness and irretrlevahleness of 
 the calamity in both cases. 
 
 Luke 20: 35. " They which shall be accounted worthy 
 to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the 
 dead" — "neither can they die any more." The resur- 
 rection is here only affirmed of the righteous. Why? 
 Mr. White says, because the wicked are only raised to 
 <iie the second death; but what is here pointed to? Is 
 it not the hcqjpiness of the righteous ? 
 
 For, it cannot be said that, to the wicked, a resurrection 
 is desirable, or a blessing, but rather it is an aggravated 
 evil. 
 
 John 8: 34, 36. " Whosoever committeth sin is the 
 slave of sin, and the slave abideth not in the house for 
 ever, but the Son abideth ever." 
 
 Here the leading idea is the relative position of a 
 slrive, and of a son in the house of God, or in God's 
 ])resence, here or hereafter : good enjoyed as from God. 
 The son has a property in the love of his father, and so 
 fi fitting place in his house. The slave has no leg.al nor 
 moral I'ight of a similar hind. 1 he leading idea is 
 not existence, or non-existence, but love and happiness, 
 or otherwise. 
 
 John 8:51. ** If a man keep my saying, he shall 
 never see death." 
 
 Mr. White says, that the literal interpretation of the 
 Pharisees was confirmed by our Lord's subsequent 
 affirmation of His own pre-existence. The Pharisees, 
 however, understood it of the body also. Mr. White 
 does not, of course, but of subsequent Conditional 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 131 
 
 Immortality. This is not ca literal but a figurative 
 interpretation. Our interpretation is equally legitimate, 
 and is sustained by the analogy of Scripture teaching. 
 
 Moreover, the verb dewpio), has here the Hebraistic 
 sense of to suffer, as it is followed by ddvarov, so that 
 it here asserts, fully, the peculiar privilege of tho 
 righteous, to whom even mortal death is disarmed of 
 its sting. " Death is yours." We are delivered from 
 the fear of Death. 
 
 John 10: 10, 27. "The thief cometh not," &c. The 
 action of the thief is to damaje and to distress ; that 
 of Jesus, the benefactor, is to confer good, not to take 
 good aivay. Not merely to give existence, even per- 
 petual existence ; this is not the main idea, if it has 
 any place here. The contrast is between good and 
 evil, ha'ppiness and distress. The verb airoXeari, (from 
 aTToWvfiL), means, here, to damage or cause loss, not to 
 annihilate. 
 
 John 11: 49, 50. It is expedient for us that one 
 man die, {airodavrj), and that the whole nation perish 
 not, (a7r6\»?Tat). Here, too, the comparison is not 
 between the extinction of the one man and the extinc- 
 tion of the nation, but between the suffering of one 
 man and the suffering of the whole nation, as a nation. 
 
 Acts 3: 22, 23. " It shall come to pass that whosoever 
 will not hear the voice of that Prophet shall be destroyed 
 from among the people." The reference here is, to c' v'l 
 penalty inflicted upon those who broke the constituted 
 law of the Supreme Governor — like as was Moses. 
 Under the Old Testament economy, those who despised 
 his law " perished without mercy." The New Testa- 
 
 V\ 
 
132 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 M I 
 
 a1 ! 
 
 ' I 
 
 -i; I 
 
 I ;! 
 
 it!l 
 
 I 
 
 'i 
 
 ■ ' n 
 
 > i 
 
 mi 1 
 
 ' =ii ! 
 
 ment speaks about a much sorer punishment for those 
 who break the law of Christ. The salient feature, is 
 the irretrievahle character of future punishment, 
 whether under the Old Testament or under the New 
 Testament, as it here applies to presumptuous sinners, 
 and especially against the Gospel. 
 
 Acts 8: 20. " Thy money perish with thee, or, with 
 thee to destruction," (et? dirdkeiav.) I suppose that 
 money can scarcely be annihilated, although it may 
 be made unproductive of good to its possessor. So St. 
 James says, " Your gold and silver is cankered.'* 
 You hoard it up, and it does neither you nor others 
 any good. The money of wicked rich men, as their 
 cherished good, can never in the future world, though 
 they had it, at all mitigate their wretchedness. 
 
 Rom. 1: 32. "Who knowing the judgment of God, 
 that they that do such things are worthy of death," &;c. 
 
 Mr. White says, that the heathen knew they must 
 die, and he leaves us to infer, contrary to facts, and to 
 his own testimony that they had no idea of resurrection, 
 or of suffering in a fatarz ivorld. The latter they 
 certainly had. 
 
 The appeal is not to knowledge of physical facts, 
 but to the moral intuition which God gave to the 
 heathen of a future judgment. 
 
 Rom. 2 : G, 7. " To those who, by patient continuance 
 in well doing, seek for glory, honour and immortality, 
 eternal life;" "' but to those who are contentious," &;c. 
 Here, " eternal life " is contrasted with " indignation 
 and wrath, tribulation and anguish;" not with extinction. 
 
 In Rom. 6 : 23. " Death " is contrasted with " eternal 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 133 
 
 life." The one we liold to mean miseiy, the other, 
 happiness. 
 
 Rom. 8: 13. " If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die, 
 (ye are about to die), but if ye, through the Spirit, do 
 mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live." 
 
 The necessity of mortifying the deeds of the body 
 through the indwelling and operation of the Holy 
 Spirit, is here urged upon believers as conducive to the 
 prosperity of their new life, and thus the terms "death" 
 and " life," have here that tropical sense which they 
 often bear in Holy Scripture. 
 
 1 Pet. 2: 11, is a parallel passage : — " Dearly beloved I 
 beseech you, as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from 
 fleshly lusts which war against the soul." 
 
 So also, 1 Tim. 6: 10, "The love of money is the 
 root of all evil, which, while some coveted after, they 
 have erred from faith and pierced themselves through 
 with many sorrows." 
 
 Gal. 6:8, " He that soweth to the flesh, shall of the 
 flesh reap corruption." 
 
 Mr. White admits that <f>dopav means moral corrup- 
 tion, as well as physical, but says it cannot mean the 
 former here ; but I ask why not ? Certainly it is true 
 that to follow "the devices and desires of our own 
 hearts " will result in reaping the fruits of a corrupt 
 character, because sowing to a corrupt nature. This 
 character is its own punishment, as the sowing to the 
 Spirit is, in a spiritual character, its own reward, 
 expressed by " life." 
 
 Heb. 10: 26, 31. — There judgment and fiery indigna- 
 tion are said to eat up the adversary, and a much 
 
! ^IIM.'I 
 
 ' 
 
 134 
 
 MCDERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 I 
 
 ii ■' 
 
 :'l! II 
 
 I ' ;;! 
 
 ill 
 II 
 
 : !! 
 
 I 41 
 
 sorer punishment than death, is threatened to those who 
 disobey the Gospel. 
 
 The punishment spoken of was for 'presumptuous 
 sinners, for whom there was no atonement under the 
 Law. Presumptuous sinners, under the Gospel, have a 
 much sorer punishment, not in duration, but in degree^ 
 as it is against degree of light and Tnercy. So chap. 
 2 : 2, 3, is parallel, and says that there is no escape for 
 such sinners, but a certain and fearful doom ; that is 
 all we are specially directed to in both passages. 
 
 2 Pet. 2:12, " These as natural brute beasts," &c. 
 Here Mr. White makes much of the idea of the slaughter 
 of beasts ; and as they perish and go to nothing, so of 
 wicked men. Here we see that he does indeed carry 
 with him the inferences arising from evolution, although 
 he admits it, as a theory, to be untenable. But let us 
 look at page 10, whore St. Peter speaks of such hardened 
 sinners living sensually, and so corrupting their charac- 
 ter, or confirming themselves in a cori'upt character 
 by immoral practices. The two, perhaps, are parallel ; 
 and as the corruption is tropical, so is the punishment 
 described in a similar way : — Remediless punishment 
 described by death. As notorious offenders against the 
 public weal are, by God's law,condemned to suffer capital 
 punishment ; so, irreclaimable sinners are to be " cut 
 off," or " cast out " of God's presence " into outer dark- 
 ness," as not fit for His Kingdom. 
 
 1 John 2 : 17, " The world passeth away, and the 
 lust thereof, but," &c. 
 
 The contrast here is, not between extinction and life, 
 but, between a perishing universe, and also the dyvng 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 135 
 
 out of the fires of the lust of this world — and the 
 perpetuity of a blessed character, and the satisfaction 
 that it gives to its possessor. 
 
 Rev. 3: 5, speaks of "not blotting out the name" 
 of the overcoming Christian from the book of life. 
 
 Mr. White concludes it must mean, by inference, 
 that sinners now living, or then living, will be " blotted 
 out " in the sense of ceasing to he. 
 
 This, however, is hypothetical altogether, as it may 
 certainly refer to privation of certain blessings connected 
 with those so entered in such a book. Also, we must 
 connect the booh of life with the water of life and the 
 tree of life, and I have before shewed that the language 
 there is metaphorical, and has, most probably, reference 
 to the happiness of the godly, and not primarily to 
 their existence. * 
 
 Rev. 21: 8. The portion of liars is the lake that 
 burnetii with fire and brimstone : "the second death." 
 
 Mr. White argues that it must be like the first, or it 
 could not with propriety be termed the second. This, 
 however, does but beg the qustion, because the meaning 
 of death, as descriptive of the nature of future punish- 
 ment is the very matter under discussion. 
 
 The notion of extinction, after mortal death, arises 
 from unsupported premiss. Death of the body is the 
 end of good to the body, so this second death may be 
 the absolute end of all possibility of good to the soulf 
 and not the extinction of the soul. 
 
 It now remains to notice some passages in which 
 certain expressions are regarded by Mr. White as 
 synonymous with death. Matt. 3: 12, and 1 Cor. 3: 14«. 
 
■"»• 
 
 1 
 
 ISC 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 In both these passages, the severe and destnictive 
 character of fire is used to signify the irretrievable 
 character of God's judgment in the future. In the 
 latter, however, the reference is to the destruction, not 
 of persons, but of works, which makes it altogether 
 inapposite to the question. 
 
 Luke 20 : 18. " On whomsoever it shall fall, it will 
 grind him to powder." 
 
 Mr. White takes this to mean, he shall be annihilated, 
 or suffer extinction of being. Such an idea, howeve 
 is less worthy of consideration when the text is viewed 
 by itself, than that of remediUss punishment. When 
 taken in connection with the general teaching of Scrip- 
 ture as to future punishment, it is utterly untenable. 
 I will add that a prime fallacy underlies all Mr. White's 
 exegesis of Scripture upon this topic, in that he requires 
 a full description of the nature of future punishment 
 in every quotation. 
 
 Thr Mature of the subject is such, that we may justly 
 expect to find it described from different points of 
 view ; and so indeed it is in most of the places where 
 spoken of in Holy Scripture. I may now proceed from 
 the Negative to the Positive, and give my exegesis of 
 the meaning of the terms Life and Death. 
 
 The words, of course, are to be regarded in the 
 connection in which they are found, and with relation 
 1. To matter, 2. To mind. 
 
 Mr. White admits that they are tropically used, 
 and that they have sometimes a moral signification. 
 P. 403. 
 
 In considering the Biblical meaning of these 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 137 
 
 will 
 
 used, 
 lation. 
 
 these 
 
 words, as applied to man, in distinction from the 
 animal race, the question naturally and necessarily 
 arises, what is the first or leading idea attached to 
 them ? Is it first and chiefly, existence, as in the case 
 of irrational creatures ; or is it with reference to good 
 and evil t To man's relation to the Deity, and to 
 his moral qualities, and to the consequences arising 
 therefrom ? 
 
 In fact, is existence a necessary jood ? or is it so, only 
 mediately and instrumentally ? As it applies to Future 
 Happiness, does its first principle consist in an onto- 
 logical quality, or in a moral quality ? 
 
 I hold that the words Life and Death, as applied to 
 future rewards and punishments, are synonymous of 
 pain and joy, and that such is the normal meaning of 
 these words in relation to man as a moral agent and 
 responsible being. 2 Cor. 4: 11, and Psalm 23, may 
 here be quoted in evidence. It is, of course, a well 
 known fact to every Hebrew scholar, that, ij^'?^^! 
 ri1^b!|> does not mean literally, " the valley of the 
 
 shadow of death," but great trouble or sorrows ; being 
 parallel here with Psalm 43: 2. and with Psalm 130., 
 where, tD^'p^aS'^a* " depths," or "deep places," are sym- 
 bolical of distress. Mr. White (p. 400) does not fairly 
 represent the orthodox view, when he says that we, in 
 the use of these words, " elude the idea which they 
 most properly denote." 
 
 Not only is it necessary to recognize which is the first 
 or leading idea, in the use of these words, in sitcA 
 relation ; but, also, we must give to such words, eitlier 
 
w 
 
 'I III 
 
 [ p 
 
 138 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 a literal, or figurative meaning, as used in particular 
 passages. They cannot have both a literal, and a figura- 
 tive meaning, in the same passage : i. e., they must 
 refer to the body, or to the soul particularly. Further, 
 we have not only these important general principles, as 
 the basis of our argument ; but we have a particular 
 evidence in confirmation thereof. Acts 5 : 20, " Go, 
 stand and speak in the Temple to the people all the 
 words of this life." 
 
 This evidently includes two things. First — That as 
 the life of the Christian, so described, includes a present 
 and continuous condition in another world, so also this 
 is contra-distinguished from life of another kind. It 
 is clearly against materialism, and by just inference, 
 also adverse to conditional immortality, as propounded 
 by Mr. White. Secondly — It evidently makes the 
 present and future condition of the righteous, to be 
 distinguished by the character of the life sj)oken of, 
 and not by its perpetuity merely. It is not only 
 " words of life," present and future, but also of " this 
 life." 
 
 Mr. White, while he professes to admit that the 
 words have a tropical meaning in some cases ; First — 
 seeks to blend the literal and the figurative in the same 
 passage. Second — While admitting the figurative sense, 
 neutralizes it, by saying that it is used " proleptically " 
 of death ; not in a spiritual, but in a corporeal sense. 
 Third — He applies the forensic sense of the term, to 
 passages where the subjective and spiHtual, and not 
 the objective and forensic sense, obtains. Fourth — 
 His argument as to anoKriivto and aTrodvija-KOj, being 
 
 ^(i 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 139 
 
 convertible terms, is illegitimate ; as the sense of each 
 of these words must be determined by the connection 
 in which it is found. In the passages, Rom. 7: 11, 
 and 2 Cor. 3 : 6, Man's impotence by the Law, and his 
 strength by the Gospel, are declared. So St. Paul says, 
 " When we were yet without strength!* &c. His 
 attempt to fasten an absurd meaning upon Eph. 2: 1, 
 by the tropical or spiritual sense, which we there attach 
 to it is, in like manner, a sophistical procedure. 
 
 The Apostle in using d-TroKTiivco in Rom. 7: 11, did 
 so to express a transition from one state to another ; 
 viz., from a sense of security and confidence of strength, 
 to a sense of weakness and insecurity. In Eph, 2:1, 
 he contemplates the state of spiritual death, as a state, 
 without its realization, or the capability of its realiza- 
 tion by those who are the subjects of it. In Rom. 7:11, 
 he describes an experiiueatal acquaintance with it, by 
 reason of a passage out of it — from the one state to the 
 other. 
 
 The following definition covers the whole ground as 
 to the Biblical meaning of Life and Death, as applied 
 to man. 
 
 I.* A literal and objective signification, (a) Present. 
 (6) Future. These senses have reference to man's 
 corporal life, or what he has in common with irrational 
 creatures, and include the idea of sentient enjoyment, 
 or suffering. 
 
 II. These words are descriptive of the condition of 
 the animating spirit and reasonable soul, in relation to 
 God, who made and gave it. 
 
 This includes the idea (a) of the moral and subjective 
 
r^' "^ 
 
 140 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 ! 
 } i 
 
 ii 
 
 i'l: 
 
 ill; 
 
 cJiAxrader of the soul as in aflSnity either with God or 
 with sin ; (b) the description of its legal or forensic 
 state before God ; (c) the description of a happy or 
 unhappy condition^ by reason of that relation, moral 
 and legal, towards God, that it so occupies : 1. In the 
 present ; 2. In prospect of the eternal future. 
 
 This I believe covers the whole ground, and is 
 supported by the facts of science, and by the facts of 
 Scripture teaching. 
 
 Mr. White takes it for granted that life always in- 
 cludes happiness ; and death, misery. Obviously, and 
 practically, a most false assumption. The love of life 
 is explained by the natural desire for happiness. Life 
 is but a tneans to that end, yet means and end are 
 often identified because of such association ; so also 
 in the J use of language. Some texts may here be 
 given in illustration : Job 7 : 7, " remember that my 
 life is wind ; mine eye shall no more see good." 1 
 Peter 3: 10, 11, "He that will love life and see good 
 days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips, 
 that they, speak no guile." Psalm 27: 13, "I had 
 fainted unless I had believed to see the goodness of the 
 Lord in the land of the living." Eccles. 1 1 : 7, 8, " Truly 
 light is sweet, and a inleasant thing it is for the eyes to 
 behold the sun ; but if a man live many days and 
 rejoice in tJieni all, yet let him remember the days of 
 darkness, for they shall be many." Thus far, of our 
 natural life, as distinguished from spiritual, or that 
 which appertains distinctively to man's moral nature. 
 Of the latter, our Lord says, " A man's life consisteth 
 not in the abundans^^of the things which he possesseth." 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 141 
 
 St. Paul : " The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, 
 but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." 
 So 1 Thes. 3:8," Now we live if ye stand fast in the 
 Lord." 2 Cor. 4: 12, " Death worketh in us, but life 
 in you." So Psalm 16: 11, as quoted by St. Peter, Acts 
 2: 28, "Thou hast made known to me the ways of life : 
 Thou shalt make me full of joy with Thy countenance." 
 
 Mr. White thinks that perpetuity of existence is^/'S^, 
 if not all. We think that the primary and chief sense 
 is, of good and evil. 
 
 Concerning the manna it was, briefly, as follows : 
 Not living for a little ivhile, or living forever ; but the 
 truth taught by the manna, as realized only in Him. 
 Corporeal bread is from Heaven; much more that which 
 is to bless and cheer and satisfy the soul. So of the 
 well of water and the Samaritan woman. It was a 
 question of temporary, or eternal refreshment md 
 enjoyment. Also, corporeal enjoyment, contrasted with 
 S2)h^tual enjoyment. 
 
 On page 253, Mr. White explains forensic justifica- 
 tion to be, not legal acquittal from guilt, and imputation 
 of righteousness ; but, the being " saved alive." 
 
 It may now be added that while **life," and "death," 
 as applied to future punishment, describe the natural 
 reward, and the natural punishment hereafter to be 
 enjoyed or suffered ; so, from the connection between 
 Natural and Positive rewards and punishments, those 
 words do frequently comprehend both ; and also, 
 sometimes, describe the Positive side of such rewards 
 and punishments. 
 
 In view of what has been advanced, it may now be 
 20 
 
142 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 @ I 
 
 i^i 
 
 r 
 
 confidently said that, as the ap')(7j of lite is the good 
 enjoyable therefrom; so, whether as descriptive of 
 natural and corporeal, or of moral and spiritual good, 
 the terms life and death may be regarded as literally 
 descriptive of an actual fact. " In God we live and 
 move and have our being." So of natural or bodily 
 life and good. The death of the soul, is the result of 
 its moral affinity to God being taken away by sin. This 
 is its own punishment, and may be justly considered 
 to be the 'prime part of its punishment ; although it be 
 the natural punishment of sin, as chosen and followed 
 in 'preference to God. The Positive punishment awarded 
 of God hereafter; whatever it be, may well be regarded 
 as a subordinate, inferior and concomitant result, fitting 
 to such a character. 
 
 It is even more palpably evident as true, concerning 
 the death of the body. Thus, it is evident that the 
 words Life and Death are justly applicable,upon grounds 
 of reason and of fitness, to the two parts of man's nature, 
 as literally descriptive in their several places of actual 
 good or actual evil, to the body, or to the soul of man ; 
 of that enjoyment which he has in common with animal 
 nature ; or of that which he is, as a moral agent, pecu- 
 liarly capable. If it is true of the former aspect of its 
 nature, it is no less true of the latter. If we start from 
 the premisses of a sound Theism, that " There is one 
 living and true God Everlasting, without body, parts, 
 or passions, of infinite power, wisdom and goodness, the 
 maker and preserver of all things, whether visible or 
 invisible ;" and that man as the product of this all 
 perfect intelligence, was created by Him with mental 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 143 
 
 and moral faculties dependent wpon Him for satisfaction 
 and happiness, as the lower or animal part of his nature 
 is dependent upon His all-sustaining care for continued 
 existence, and created good. Further, when we consider 
 the division that confessedly and indisputably, (unless 
 by Materialists), exists between man and the brutes, 
 by reason of this God-consciousness, or moral quality 
 with which he is endowed ; and also as we trace a 
 similar distinction between the animal nature of man, 
 and his spiritual nature ; the operations of the soul as 
 the animating principle, in relation to the body which 
 it animates, and its operation with respect to extraneous 
 entities, and especially with reference to God, and truths 
 relating to Him ; so, w^e may properly consider that the 
 words Life and Death, in view of the premisses asserted 
 and established by the Divine wrilers, are also usedhy 
 them, in a sense corresponding to the nature of the 
 soul, as well as of that Being to whom it stands so 
 naturally and nearly related, not merely for existence, 
 but also for happiness. 
 
144 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 1 
 
 It 
 
 ^ \ I 
 
 Chap. V. 
 
 Tlie Death of Christ, as related to the Death the Curse 
 
 of Sin. 
 
 It remains now to consider the teaching of Mr. White 
 upon, this subject, and although it involves one of the 
 doctrinal issues arising out of " this theodicy," as it is 
 so connected with the meaning of the terms Life and 
 Death as used in Holy Scripture in relation to Future 
 Punishment; I have thought it well to consider the 
 subject in this place. The difficulty which the old 
 divines have felt us to the nature of our Saviour's expi- 
 atory sufferings, or rather their relation to the curse 
 denounced upon Adam's sin, is met by Mr. White in a 
 very unique, if not in a very scriptural way. The great 
 Doctor John Owen, considered that the sufferings of 
 Christ were identical in their nature with those due to 
 sin under the Law, but not as to their extent; the 
 dignity of His Person entering into the consideration 
 in the award of Divine Justice. (Vol. 10., p. 448.) 
 Baxter, in his aphorisms on Justification (p. 23) is 
 quoted by Mr. White, as declaring his belief that Christ 
 suffered " a pain and misery of the same sort and of 
 equal weight with that threatened to Adam." The 
 point of difference between these two great divines 
 appears to be this ; Baxter considered that there was 
 no commutation, because he imagined that the suffer- 
 ings of Eternity were comprehended in the Death of 
 Christ. How this could be, I see not. 
 
 r 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 14.> 
 
 Owen's idea that the pains of Hell constituted the 
 essence of His death, while eternity and the attendant 
 circumstances were but the accidents ; the dignity of 
 His Person being accepted, as an equivalent for such 
 "accidents," seems more compehensible. There is^ 
 however, I conceive, a difficulty which we cannot 
 elucidate.* Mr. White cuts the knot of the difficulty 
 with his philosophy, and tells us that " it was a blow 
 falling on the Godhead itself." How Deity itself could 
 suffer ; (remember it is not the human nature in the 
 Divine Person ;) how, I say, the Deiti/ itself could 
 suffer, and at the same time inflict that suffering, / 
 cannot understand, neither with respect to the essence 
 of the Deity, nor with respect to his Tri-une Person- 
 ality. Such teaching is utterly destructive of Scriptural 
 Theism. We cannot well here eliminate the doctrine 
 of the nature of God, or of the Saviour, from the specific 
 doctrine under consideration ; but I only notice the 
 fact that as Mr. White repudiates the doctrine of a 
 vicarious atonement, the innocent Jesus willingly 
 suffering for guilty man, so, he says that the Divine 
 Attributes are here not in harmony, but in conflict, 
 (p. 264.-275.) 
 
 " However startling the statement, the finite will 
 erring and rebelling is represented as setting in eternal 
 opposition to each other the attributes of God, &c., &;c." 
 Yet with strange inconsistency he say also (p. 261), that 
 " the man Christ Jesus endured the curse ;" but he tells 
 us that his human nature died, and the Godhead 
 
 *See note on this subject in Appendix. 
 
^^■iJm 
 
 14G 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 suffered. " The whole Godhead sacrifices itself in the 
 agonies of a human death, that man though a sinner 
 may live for ever." (p. 281.) He quotes Hooker as 
 saying (but ivhere he does not tell us) that " man hath 
 sinned and God hath suffered." So far, I have yet to 
 learn that the "judicious Hooker" has supported so 
 heterodox and unscriptural a statement. I quote the 
 following, as affording the fullest evidence of Mr. 
 White's meaning concerning Christ's suffering, and that 
 said suffering he supposes was in His Divine, as distin- 
 guished from His human nature. 
 
 " It does not, however, appear to be anywhere stated 
 that the indwelling of the Divinity changed the char- 
 acter of the curse of the Law, in the case of our Lord, 
 from everlasting misery into literal death. It will, 
 therefore, be sufficient to receive the simpler represen- 
 tation that, the * man Christ Jesus ' endured the curse. 
 If it be asserted that it was the presence of the God- 
 head within, which dispensed with the infliction of 
 endless pains through the substitution of an Infinite 
 Majesty for the infinitely extended misery of a finite 
 being, we reply that, on the same principle, the Divine 
 nature of Jesus might have imparted an infinite value 
 to any one of the stripes which He bore, &;c., &;c." 
 
 '* We thtis derive support to our argument that the 
 death threatened to Adam was literal dissolution." 
 
 ** The fact that Christ bore this death, laid down ^^is 
 life as a man, shed his blood for our redemption, w 
 suffering in hell beyond, is proof that death i> he 
 Bible signifies literal death, and that life signifies litei al 
 life. (p. 261.) I do not deal here with the character 
 of the argument. 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 147 
 
 He says : (p. 276,) " There is but one way then, say 
 these God-taught men, that sinners, death doomed may 
 obtain life eternal. No innocent creature must sufier, 
 however willing. Ood himself must suffer, in one 
 exceptional sacrifice, if sinners are to be saved." 
 
 " It is not a blow falling on an innocent creature 
 outside the Godhead. It is a blow falling from the 
 sinful creature on the Godhead itself" (The italics 
 are his.) 
 
 With relation to the death of Christ as our substitute, 
 and so bearing for us the curse of sin, I have to remark 
 in the first place, that there can be no analogy between 
 His Person and ours. Secondly, that the suffering 
 preceding the death of the body — the dissolution of 
 the connection between body and soul — can form no fit 
 analogy to what Scripture speaks of, as the " death" of 
 the soul ; Of the former we have some knowledge ; but 
 of the latter we have none. Thus Mr. White's appli- 
 cation of the abstract doctrine concei-ning " death " as 
 it applies to man, in the Bible ; and " death" as related 
 to the death of Christ, and endeavouring to demon- 
 strate the latter to be expletive of the former, is 
 utterly without logical force. More than this. If Mr. 
 White cannot substantiate his premisses as to the literal 
 meaning of death, viewed in the abstract, as I think I 
 have conclusively shown ; it is yet more emphatically 
 denied, in the concrete matter here dealt with, from the 
 simple fact of the character of His Person, who is the 
 God-man. 
 
 I may also add, that the argument of Dr. Angus in 
 this connection, is still unrefuted, and Mr, White has 
 
.pS"^ 
 
 148 
 
 MODEBN UNIVEP >ALISM 
 
 I »i 
 
 yet to escape from the dilemma which he says (p. 121) 
 that he has " unlocked." Dr. Angus is but arguing 
 respecting the abstract idea of "life" and "death," and 
 pointing to the fact that Mr. White and his friends, 
 hold destruction in connection with a long period of 
 suffering. He says: "Either these ages of suffering 
 are the destruction, or they are not. If they are, 
 then clearly destruction is consistent with continued 
 life. If they are not the destmction, but precede it, 
 then the destruction is not inflicted when Christ 
 comes, as it is said to be, and the threatened destruc- 
 tion, which is always spoken of as a punishment is a 
 blessing and not a curse. It is either suflfering, or a 
 most welcome release. From one or other of these 
 conclusions we see no escape." (Dr. Angus on Future 
 Punishment, p. 25.) Dr. Angus's argument turns upon 
 the radical idea of life and death, and is parallel with 
 my own. Mr. White's application of the abstract 
 doctrine to the death of Christ is at least illogical ; it 
 may truly, also, be said to be irreverent. 
 
 The analogy between bodily death, and future punish- 
 ment, is actually begging the question, being the very 
 poir*^ at issue. M either can it be urged that as future 
 Punishment is spoken of as the " Second Death," it must 
 therefore be similar in character; because it depends 
 upon the nature of the idea associated with the fact, as 
 it applies to a moral agent, as well as to the fact itself] 
 We say that mortal death is an evil, as it cuts off all 
 possibility of temporal enjoyment ; so that negatively 
 it is an evil as related to corporal enjoyment. The same 
 is the radical idea contained in the moral aspect of the 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 149 
 
 same term a? it applies to man's moral relation to the 
 Deity : by sin he is cut off from God, and so from hap- 
 piness. The great distinction, from our point of view, 
 between the first or present death of the body, and the 
 future punishment of the wicked, described as the 
 " second death," lies in this; that it is both Negative, 
 or Natural, and Positive, or Penal Suffering. Also, that 
 the latter relates to corporeal and present, as distin- 
 guished from spiritual and future good. 
 
 The term Death, as descriptive of Future Punishment, 
 does not fully describe all that punishment. I consider 
 that the natural punishment of sin, may well be looked 
 upon as its most severe punishment, whether in this 
 world or the world to come, and it consists in its own 
 necessary character, and its natural and necessary 
 results, in respect to moral relation to the Deity. So 
 of holiness, its chief reward is of a similar kind. Place 
 and circumstance are but the accidents, not the elements. 
 So, I consider that in the original curse, this was the 
 cardinal idea. The natural punishment, expressed by 
 "death," includes the Positive and Penal aspect of 
 Future Punishment. Judas's character was his chief 
 punishment, but it entailed also his going to " his own 
 place." 
 
 Ml 
 
 the 
 
 21 
 
Ty 
 
 150 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 Chap. VI. 
 
 Uaua Loquendi of the Sacred Writers and the 
 Hebraism of the Neiv Testament. 
 
 I think that the way is now sufficiently prepared for 
 the consideration of this very important subject. It 
 might be sufficient to ascertain the fact that words 
 were used by writers of this or that period or nation 
 in such a sense, in order to base an argument for their 
 interpretation by us, in relation to subjects treated of 
 in the sacred volume ; — and there is no doubt that there 
 is perfect unity, and continuity of idea, in the language 
 used by believers upon "one living and true God," and 
 the great and supreme fact of relationship to Him, here 
 and hereafter; — but, if we can give reason, not scientific 
 or philosophical, (for this we do not aim at, nor consider 
 essential) but rational, in view of the facts revealed 
 by inspiration, for such a sense being attached to certain 
 words in view of God-given and revealed evidence, 
 concerning Him as our Creator, and ourselves as His 
 creatures; we have, I conceive, something further to 
 consolidate our argument from the usus loqtiendi of 
 the sacred writers. 
 
 This is the more necessary, because our Premiss must 
 be taken from a period when we may say that the usus 
 loquendi, as a fact in evidence, cannot avail for deter- 
 mination of the sense. But, having given sufficient 
 evidence to support our rendering of the meaning of 
 the words Life and Death, as connected with the Fall 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 151 
 
 of Man ; the usua loquendi of the sacred writers must 
 be very important, as corroborative evidence. 
 
 I cannot but consider that all the arguments adduced 
 by Mr. White and others to support their interpretation, 
 are entirely hypotfietical, and not supported by sound 
 logic, the logic o{ facts: whether viewed from the stand- 
 point of Natural Theology, or of Revealed Religion. 
 
 Mr. White puts forth a certain remark of Hooker 
 (valuable in its place and measure, but not as an absolute 
 rule,) as a cogent argument for the literal intei-pretation 
 of the language of Scripture as to the nature of future 
 punishment; but surely he does not contend that there 
 is no figurative sense to be attached here, or elsewhere, 
 to the language of Scripture! And if ?io^, his argument as 
 to the literal sense, is .-i mere iKtltio-pi'incipii Hooker's 
 rule, "that when a literal sense will stand, the furthest 
 from the literal is commonly the worst," is relatively 
 true ; but over-against that, we may put the following 
 canon laid down by Home. First, however, I will 
 remark that, how the words of the curse may have a 
 literal rendering, I have already shewn; and, I believe, 
 from manifestly sound premisses. Home says : Introd. 
 Part 2, Book 1, sect. 2-4: "Ascertain the iisus loquendi, 
 or notion affixed to a word by the persons in general, 
 by whom the language is now, or was formerly, spoken, 
 and especially in the connection in which such notion is 
 affixed." And again, sect. 2-4, "Although the force of 
 particular words can only be derived from etymology, 
 yet too much confidence must not be placed in that 
 frequently uncertain science, "because the primary 
 signification of a word is frequently very different 
 
152 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSAUSM 
 
 w 
 
 i 
 
 from its covimon meaning." I do not hold that there 
 is any contradiction, in the use of the word " death" by 
 the sacred writers, from the beginning to the end of 
 llevelation ; but that a duplex reference is found in the 
 words of the curse, each bearing a sense corresponding 
 to the nature, and to the good, both of the body and of 
 the soul. There can be no good to the body when the 
 animating principle is withdrawn from it ; no good to 
 the soul when it loses its moral affinity to Ood. "Woe 
 unto them also when / depart from them." Having 
 established this truth as the simplest exhibition of a 
 subjective Theism, I proceed to enquire " What is the 
 relation of the lisus loqucndi of the sacred writers 
 thereunto." 
 
 Does the scope of their testimony ratify this fact, as 
 a fact ? 
 
 Mr. White and ^\\\ Constable, most vehemently 
 inveigh against those who would give to Greek words 
 any other sense than that which they bore to Greeks, 2iTiA 
 than that in which they were used by them. The Greeks 
 were Poly the ists. and their language,as to its use hythem, 
 was guided by that fact. The Jews and the Apostles 
 were not so, and consequently their character stamped 
 their use of the language, and so it was moulded to 
 their wants, not tlicy to it. So it was not alone their 
 nationality^ but their view of the Deity, that in its 
 relation to this fact, modified or changed its meaning as 
 it was used hy them. The Hebraistic character of the 
 Greek New Testament is a fact so well known, that it 
 may well be wondered how such an argument can be 
 brought forward by scholars, as practically ignores this 
 fact. 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 153 
 
 il 
 
 2eks 
 
 I to 
 heir 
 its 
 
 It is indisputable that such a difference does exist, 
 and that not only in idiom, but of a more radical 
 character, so as actually to change the former meaning 
 of words and divert them to new uses and significations. 
 A gi'eat \vork by a German scholar, classifies the 
 Hebraisms of the New Testament, and enumerates no 
 less than 31 cLisscs ; while of words under " Class 1. 
 New significations, i. c, words of pure Greek origin, 
 but taken in a sense unknown in Classical Greek," he 
 enumerates no less than 47. 
 
 Yet Mr. White and Mr. Constable, with others, are 
 indignant that any other than the Classical use should 
 be acknowledged in Scripture interpretation ! 
 
 I will but give a few words, as instances of such 
 marked difference, or superaddition of senses nowliere 
 else obtaining, in connection with said words. 
 
 Of the latter we m.ay take elBivai, to see, and 
 yivaxTKeiv, to know ; as used in 1 Thes. C: 12, and 1 Cor. 
 16: 18, To " care for," " kindly regard ;" an.1, applied to 
 God, to " acknowledge," " adore." 
 
 So also OTTjiadaL ^oyrji/, and Odvarov Oeoipetv and IBelv : 
 viz.. To " see death," for " to die," and to " see life," for 
 "to live." The superadded idea, here, is that of suffering, 
 or that of enjoyment, as connected with life and death. 
 
 It is also an established fact tliat the words, " death " 
 and "life," Odvaro^ and ^w?) do, in the sense in which 
 they are used by the Inspired Writers, include the ideas 
 of happiness and misery, as well as those of existence, 
 and cessation of life. 
 
 Of the former, i. e., wor<ls used in a completely 
 different sense in the Now Testament, to that which 
 

 154 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 II 
 
 I'- 
 
 belongs to them in classical writers, the following may 
 be mentioned : ^Eip^vrj, peace, for "happiness" in 
 general; a-rrXayxva, heart, mind, for "pity," "com- 
 passion ;" SiKaio*;, just, for " pious," " good ;" so trap^, 
 flesh, for the " natural man ;" and irpevfia, spirit, for the 
 renewed or " spiritual man ;" i. e., partaker of the Holy 
 Spirit. So also, o^eiXrjfia, debt, for " sin ;" 6<f>€i\eTi]<i, 
 debtor, for "sinner;" a-irepfia, seed, grain, for "offspring," 
 "descendants;" fiiaelv, to hate, for "to love less;" 
 TrepnraTeiv, to walk, for " to live." Many others might 
 be given, but these, as instances, are sufficient. 
 
 These facts are indeed evident to the readers of our 
 translation : and to those familiar with the language of 
 Scripture, and particularly to possessors of experi- 
 mental acquaintance with Divine Truth ; it will need 
 no argument that the phraseology of Scripture has a 
 meaning peculiarly its own. The basis of this meaning 
 is the objective truth of the Divine existence; the 
 statements of Scripture concerning His character, and 
 concerning sin ; and also, the actual relation of the 
 believer to God. 
 
 Notably it is evident, that the degree of experimental 
 knowledge of God derived from Nature, must be less 
 marked than that possessed from Revelation. But the 
 issue before us, is ivider than this. Allowing the writers 
 of the sacred volume to be godly and renewed men ; as 
 Theists in the proper sense of the word, there must be 
 present, in the character of their writings as they deal 
 with man's relation to God ; all that difference from 
 classical Greek, which exists between Theism and 
 Polytheism. 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 155 
 
 > 
 
 Chap. VII. 
 
 Figurative Description of Future Punishment. 
 
 Under this head, I shall first consider several expres- 
 sions found in Holy Scripture, which are much relied 
 upon by Mr. White, in liis plea for the hypothesis of 
 conditional immortality. The measure of information 
 that the Most High has seen fit to give to us, is limited 
 in extent ; and mostly, in the description given to us, 
 drawn from facts with which we are, more or less, 
 familiar. 
 
 Such expressions, as " to consume," " to devour," " to 
 destroy," " to root out," " to kill," " to perish," " outer 
 darkness," "blackness of darkness," "silent in darkness," 
 and some others of similar import, are to be looked upon, 
 not as complete, still less, as literal descriptions of the 
 destiny of the wicked. Such language is frequently 
 used with respect to temporal judgments inflicted by the 
 Almighty upon wicked men, and so from the relation of 
 a known unhappiness, to an unhappincss that is beyond 
 the reach of human knowledge and experience, yet both 
 inflicted by the same sovereign hand ; the one that is 
 known, is used by Him to delineate that which is 
 unknown. Most of the quotations made by Mr. White 
 from the Psalms, and elsewhere, refer to temporal 
 inflictions ; but when similar language is used in the 
 New Testament, it is, when applied to future punish- 
 ment, but as relatively descriptive thereof; as, in the 
 Prophetic Scriptures, a local judgment is often used by 
 
150 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 I If « 
 
 i! i 
 
 ■A 
 
 H'l 
 
 tlie Holy Ghost, to represent or partially describe the 
 universal judgment and calamity spoken of as " the 
 Lord's controversy," "the day of the Lord," or His 
 judgment of the Nations when He will gather them to 
 battle in the Valley of Megiddo. So, the destiniction, 
 of Jerusalem was used by our Lord to intimate, rather 
 than to describe the judgment connected with His last 
 advent. So of Isaiah 33: 14, referred to by Mr. Con- 
 stable : "Who among us shall dwell with the devouring 
 fire?" He endeavours to show that Poole contradicts 
 himself when he refers this, both to a destruction by 
 the Assyrians in this life, and also to a punishment 
 inflicted by the Most High in another world. But 
 nothing is more common in the Prophetic Scriptures : 
 even as the treachery of Ahithophel, and that of Judas, 
 is described in the same passage of the Psalms. (Ps. 
 41 : 9.) The more remote sense is the more weighty 
 matter and meaning of the prophecy. This consider- 
 ation, too, will be of the gi-eatest weight and importance 
 when we consider that description which our Blessed 
 Lord has seen fit to adopt, as a delineation of future 
 punishment. Tophet and the Valley of the Son of 
 Hinnom, not only was regarded by the Jews as emble- 
 matical of the place of punishment in another world, 
 but was so used by the Prophets. Thus, " Tophet is 
 ordained of old. For the King, it is prepared : He 
 hath made it deep and large : the pile thereof is fire 
 and much wood ; the breath of the Lord as a stream of 
 brimstone doth kindle it." (Is. 30: 33.) Bishop Lowth 
 says : " It is therefore used for a place of punishment 
 by fire ; and by our Blessed Saviour in the Gospel, for 
 
 I 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 157 
 
 He 
 
 fire 
 naof 
 wth 
 lent 
 
 for 
 
 hell-fire, as the Jews themselves had applied it." Scott 
 says : " It is also said expressly to be prepared for the 
 King ; yet Sennacherib was not slain with his army, 
 although his power and glory then vanished. The 
 certainty and dreadfulness of the destruction, rather 
 than the place of it, seem intended. The large and deep 
 valley, prepared long before for the purpose, supplied 
 with a vast pile of wood and other combustibles, and 
 kindled by the breath of God, as by a stream of burning 
 sulphur, when the blaspheming monarch and his most 
 formidable army were brought down into it, forms an 
 awful emblem of the * everlasting fire ' prepared for the 
 Devil and his angels, and for all the enemies of God 
 and the triumph of Christ over his party, the King and 
 his subjects."* With this passage may be conjoined ch. 
 33: 14, before referred to. Bishop Lowth says, that the 
 Chaldee Paraphrast, in this place, i.e., ch. 30 : 33 ; renders 
 I'^jp^^ Qbl? — by " the gehcnna of everlasting fire :" and 
 
 of both these passages, it is undoubtedly true, that under 
 the image of a local and terrible judgment in time, the 
 Holy Ghost does also prefigure, and points to a yet 
 more awful judgment, and one that is to be general, in 
 a future world. The fact that both future happiness 
 and future misery are so prejigured, is by Mr. White 
 and his friends utterly ignored. In their special pleading 
 for their favourite theory, they would deprive us of 
 the most precious and important truths given to us in 
 
 * While the above is the near meaning, there is, no doubt, a more 
 remote and more weighty reference. " The King " referred to in the 
 passage, is Jehovah Jesus : to Him, as King of Kings, is given all 
 power for future judgment, and punishment of His enemies. 
 
 ki 
 
PF 
 
 ii |f! 
 
 158 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 V . 
 
 I m 
 
 
 the piophecies of Holy Scripture, as they also violate 
 the received Canons for their interpretation. In the 
 same manner, also, might they wipe out all those 
 prophecies of the Saviour's advent which are the great 
 hope of the Church, since they are usually given to us 
 under similar figures. 
 
 Isaiah ch. 6G : 24, is another instance of figurative 
 description of everlasting and future punishment. Mr. 
 White, in referring to the received interpretation of the 
 language here used, styles it the "venerable fable" of 
 the fire and the worm. In this chapter, as in others, 
 the Holy Spirit appears to pass from the local and 
 particular judgment upon the ungodly nation referred 
 to, to that great and general judgment which, as it were, 
 swallows up all others. I cannot forbear here, from 
 quoting Lowth's note upon this place, in full: "These 
 words of the Prophet are applied by our blessed Saviour 
 (St. Mark 9: 44«) to express the everlasting punishment 
 of the wicked in Gehenna, or in Hell. Gehenna, or the 
 Valley of Hinnom, was very near to Jerusalem, to the 
 S. E. : it was the place where the idolatrous Jews 
 celebiated that horrible rite of making their children 
 pass through the fire — that is of burning them in 
 sacrifice — to Molech. 
 
 "To put a stop to this abominable practice, Josiah 
 defiled, or desecrated, the place, by filling it with human 
 bones (2 Kings, 33: 10, 14); and it was the custom 
 afterwards to throw out the carcases of animals there, 
 and it became the common buiying place for the poorer 
 people of Jerusalem." 
 
 Our Saviour expresses the state of the blessed by 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 150 
 
 sensible images; such as Paradise, Abraham's bosom, 
 or, which is the same thing, a place to recline next to 
 Abraham at table in the Kingdom of Heaven (St. Matt. 
 8: 11) — for we could not possibly have any conception 
 of it, but by analogy from worldly objects. In like 
 manner he expresses the place of torment, under the 
 image of Gehenna, and the punishment of the wicked, 
 by the worm which there preyed on the carcasos, and 
 the fire which there consumed the wretched victims : — 
 marking, however, in the strongest manner, the differ- 
 ence between Gehenna and the invisible place of 
 torment ; namely, that in the former the suffering is 
 transient — the worm itself that preys on the body, 
 dies; and the fire, which totally consumes it, is soon 
 extingnished — whereas in the figurative Gehenna, the 
 instrument of punishment shall be everlasting, and 
 the suffering without end ; for there " the worm dieth 
 not, and the fire is not quenched." These eniljlem- 
 atical images, expressing heaven and hell, were in 
 use among the Jews before our Saviour's time, and 
 in u«sing them He complied with their notion. " Blessed 
 is he that shall eat bread in the Kingdom of God," says 
 the Jews to our Saviour, St. Luke 14: 15. And in 
 regard to Gehenna, the Chaldee paraphrast, as I obsei-ved 
 before in chap. 30: 33, renders everlasting or continued 
 burnings, by the Gehenna of everlasting fire. And 
 before his time, the Son of Sirach (7: 17) had said "the 
 vengeance of the ungodly is fire and worms." So 
 likewise the author of the Book of Judith : " Woe to 
 the nations rising up against my kindred; the Lord 
 Almighty will take vengeance of them on the Day of 
 
i 
 
 4\ 
 
 \ il 
 
 ' H 
 
 
 1 
 
 ICO 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 Judgment in putting fire and worms in their flesh," 
 ch. IG : 17 ; manifestly referring to the same emblem. 
 The point that I specially wish to controvert is this: 
 namely, that tlic punishment of the future is fully 
 contained in the language used, and that it ends there : 
 That it is literally descriptive, instead of ayrnholical 
 thereof. Tiie one would make it a yhyaical, though 
 a dreadful death; the other, a spiritual punishment. It 
 involves, also, more than this ; for when our Saviour's 
 language concerning it — thrice repeated — is considered, 
 it acquires additional force — and when He says "it 
 dies not: it is not quenched ;" — the language is ominous 
 and aivful beyond degree. It remains to consider one 
 more metaphorical description of future punisment 
 contained in the history of the Old Testament. St. 
 Jude refers to Sodom and Gomorrha, and St. Peter 
 couples with the overthrow of the cities of the plain, 
 the flood in the days of Noah. Mr. White and Mr. 
 Constable, in reference to this, say that the destruction 
 was completed when the two cities were burnt. So of 
 Idumea, spoken of in Isaiah (ch. 34), the smoke "does 
 910^ go up for ever and ever ;" in other words they 
 interpret it literally. But St. Peter and St. Jude both 
 cite the two great judgments of the old world, as 
 warnings, or '* examples to them that after would live 
 ungodly." They were mere intitnations of a future 
 judgment; not fidl descriptions of it, however awful. 
 They were intended to give evidence to the fact ; not 
 fully to describe all that fact. 
 
 With regard to the passages in the Book of St. John's 
 Kevelation, which they say form our chief argument 
 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 IGl 
 
 for the Catholic doctrine of future punishment, as to 
 its character and continuance ; I will here make little 
 argument from them. I am ready to allow that much 
 of the language used in the Apocalypse is to be under- 
 stood tropically; but not all. The "fire" and the "lake'* 
 iniay may be so understood; but when "torment" is 
 spoken of, and when it is said, " they have no rest, day 
 nor night," and for "ages of ages," the meaning cannot 
 be tropical. 
 
 In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, if our 
 Lord's langucigo was tropical in its character, it was 
 descriptive of an actual fact. If it had reference to the 
 intermediate state of the soul, it clearly spoke of sensible 
 'punisKinent. More than this, there is no intimation, 
 not even the most remote, of a future deliverance. In 
 fact quite the oi)posite, and the hope of reformation or 
 redemption not only appears to be confined by the 
 language of our Saviour to this life ; but also to those 
 means of grace, by His Revealed Word, which he has 
 here and now given to us. 
 
1C2 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 Chap. VIII. 
 
 Literal Terms. 
 
 Having considered the figurative and allegorical 
 descriptions of Future Punishment, I now come to the 
 consideration of those terms used in Holy Scripture, 
 as literal li/ describing the same. 
 
 These are comparatively few, but I think they are 
 quite unmistakable, both with respect to the fact and 
 character of punishment, and also with respect to its 
 continuance. A few words first, with reference to the 
 former. As the New Testament plainly speaks of 
 jmiiishment, Mr. White and his friends are necessitated 
 to describe this term. They do so, by declaring that 
 as it is synonymous with " death," so, it covers no 
 more than is contained in cessation of life, or, in other 
 words, animal death: — destruction, as they define it. 
 
 This, they say, is punishment, because continued life 
 is neccfisariiy a good. It requires little consideration 
 to dispel this fallacy. Let us remember that 2^^''s<sf- 
 entli/ wicked characters am the subjects of this punish- 
 ment ; and then ask the (question whether continued 
 or eternal existence, in such a character, would, under 
 any circumstances, be to them a good; and whether 
 annihilation of such beings, would be to them a 
 punishment ? 
 
 Evidently, the surnynum honum of "life," as it is 
 regarded subjectively and inherently, must be character. 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 163 
 
 Y are 
 t and 
 to its 
 to the 
 ks ot 
 litated 
 that 
 s no 
 other 
 it. 
 
 I life 
 ation 
 s'lst- 
 mish- 
 iiuied 
 under 
 lother 
 on a 
 
 it is 
 •actor. 
 
 True is the adage, " Virtue is its own reward " ; true^ 
 also, that vice is its own punishment. Ohjcctlvely 
 considered, God Himself, in His favour and love, is the 
 summwni b(ynum of "life" ; but this the wicked cannot 
 enjoy because of their character. His creatures also, 
 they will be deprived of hereafter. How then can the 
 annihilation of such beings, be literally an<l properly 
 a jmnishment ? Literally, however, rationally, and 
 properly, it must be so, if Mr. White's theory is to 
 stand. We understand " punishment " Htcidbj to 
 mean punishment, because we have no authority 
 whatever, either from the etymology of the word 
 itself, or from the usus loquendl of the sacrod writers, 
 to give it any other meanincj. Neither can wo, from 
 rational or philosophical considerations, do so. More- 
 over, we understand it to comprehend a positive and 
 punitive infliction, awarded of God, outsi<le of, and 
 super-added to, the ntatural result of an evil character. 
 " Death," we hold, propeil}'' and naturally, to describe 
 the latter, although sometimes associated witli the 
 former in Holy Scripture ; but while the Old 'JVsta- 
 ment commonly defines Future Punishment by words 
 connected with " death " jind natural life ; the terms 
 used by our Saviour, are more specific aii<l with 
 reference to a positive, punitive, and awful infliction. 
 
 Their own rule, the literal sense, here condemns and 
 confounds the theory of Mr. White and his friends. 
 Thus far with respect to "punishment." The literal 
 sense of this term is intensified, by our Saviour's 
 associating with it the word "fire," not (as Mr. 'hite 
 says) to utterly destroy or obliterate the wretched 
 
PTT 
 
 ti« 
 
 Mi 
 
 1G4< 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 subjects of punishment, for the context /orMcis it; bufc 
 literally to puniah th^m. It is immaterial whether we 
 understand the " fire " to be literal fire or not ; our 
 Lord uses " everlasting fire " and " everlasting punish- 
 ment" as convertible terms, and terms synonymous 
 with each other in this connection. 
 
 The idea of" punishment," however, forbids entirely 
 the idea of consumption or destruction. Did we need 
 anything further to explain this matter, the language 
 of St. John in the Apocalypse is conclusive. He speaks 
 of " torment," fiaaavioy.o^ : and this torment is not 
 alone the portion of the devils, but of wicked men. 
 (Ch. 21: 8; St. Matt. 25: 41.) Moreover, it is .said 
 that the adherents of Antichrist " have no rest day nor 
 night," " they .shall drink of the wine of the wrath of 
 God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup 
 of His indignation ; aud shall bo toiinented with fire 
 and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and 
 m the presence of the Lamb.'' (Ch. 14: 10.) No plea 
 can possibly do away with the obvious meaning of 
 of the oUscurity and figurative character of this Book, 
 Buch language. The one word, ^acravia-fxb^, is quite 
 Bufficient to bauLsh such folly. However awful it may 
 be, as believers in Divine Revelation, it becomes us to 
 bow to the evidence of the Divine will. 
 
 It remains now to consider the duration of such 
 "punishment;" as described by certain terms in the 
 New Testament. 
 
 Dr. Littledale, in his recent comment upon Dr. 
 Farrar's volume, speaks of atcowo? as the " crucial word ;" 
 and while he admits that it often, unquestionably, has 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 1G5 
 
 )lea 
 of 
 Jot>k, 
 
 iiite 
 may 
 IS to 
 
 the meaning of endless, yet says that other Greek words 
 undoubtedly meaning "eternal" or "endless," might have 
 been used by the Apostles, and no doubt ivould have 
 been used, had such a meaning been intended. He does 
 not, however, notice the fact that the Hebrew word 
 db^. having a precisely similar meaning, viz., that of 
 
 obscurity, or indeBniteness, is generally used in the 
 Old Testament, not only to describe "eternity" in tho 
 proper and metaphysical sense of that word ; but it is 
 also used in i;ro''ence to Jehovah Himself. Thus wo 
 arrive at a satisfactory solution of this c^uestion. The 
 word ata\-'to9 was used by the Hebrew writers of the 
 Greek New Testament, because it followed the analogy 
 of the Hebrev/ Scriptures ; and if Cb^ ^^''"^^ suflicient 
 to ilo cribe the character of God, it was also sulhcient 
 and ritting to describe "eternity" in the proper sense 
 of that word. But the idea conveyed in aiu)vic<i is 
 intensified ])y tlie word aiwya? TWf altouoyu ; this is used 
 in Rev. 20: 10, when speaking of the punishment of 
 the Devil. With such punishment the language of 
 our Saviour, as also that of St. John in the Apocalypse, 
 connects that of the wicked men of this world, as well 
 as the angels connected with Satan in his rebellion ; 
 and if the language used in such places requires any 
 further explanation, as tho punishment of the one is 
 identified with that of the other, both as to the time 
 of sentence and the place of such punishment ; any 
 place of Holy Scripture describing the punishment of 
 the devils, will likewise describe the punishment of 
 
 wicked men. 
 23 
 
If 
 
 1C6 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 This argument, wliich I have applied in my review 
 of Mr. Oxenhani's pamphlet, I will again adduce here. 
 The Apostle Peter, in his Second Epistle, speaks of 
 the punishment of devils : so also Jude in his General 
 Epistle. St. Jude speaks of " everlasting chains," 
 where the word ai'iStot? is used, which, without any 
 doubt whatever, means " everlasting" in the strictest 
 sense of that word. Here then we have what Dr. 
 Littledale conceives to lie ivantiiuj. Tlie only possi- 
 bility of escape from this conclusism lies in the idea 
 that the future judgment of the Great Day may be 
 retrogressive in its character with relation to the devils; 
 that whereas their chains of darkness, or bonds 
 of misery, are no}c eternal ; at that period, because 
 al(iivio<s is sometimes used to express a limited though 
 indefinite period, there fore it may be so in the case 
 before us. Dr. Littledale, however, rejects this possi- 
 bility, as he says, that such supposed retrograde action 
 of the Deity, ;vs reversivcj tlie ])rocess of creation, is 
 the chief objection to annihilation. 
 
 Comment is unnecessary. I shall only ad<l a few 
 words ns to the <n-ammatical construction in St. Jude 
 0. Mr. Oxenham would have e/«f Kpiaiv fxeydXa ij/xepa^ 
 to mean, until the judgment of the Great Day ; but 
 the construction will not stand. Winer, in his Gram- 
 mar of the New Testament dialect, (4$ 53, c), says, "et?, 
 transferred to infernal relations, (or in a tropical 
 sen.se), is used of every object, aim, (a) of the measure 
 (Bernhard}', p. 218) to which somethir»g rises, 2 Cor. 
 19 : 13, etV ra afierpa 4 : 17, {h) of the state into which 
 something pa.sses, Acts 2 : 20 ; Heb. G : G, (" renew 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 1G7 
 
 ill 
 
 few 
 fudc 
 
 •am- 
 
 pical 
 
 Cor. 
 hich 
 ■ now 
 
 them again unto repentance,) (c) of the result : Rom. 
 10 : 10, (with the heart man believetli icnto rifrhteous- 
 ne^s.") The two last clauses in brackets are my own, 
 and given to suggest a parallel. 
 
 Thus, if we regard the natural consequences of s/n, 
 we may interpret this as referring to the result of their 
 sin, and if we regard the punitive imrposc of the Most 
 High, we shall connect it with the aim of their being 
 so bound. " The Lord hath made all things for Himself, 
 yea even the wicked for the day of evil." Prov. 10 : 4. 
 
 Viewing this subject from the only legitimate stand- 
 point, the teaching of the Holy Scripture, that teaching 
 is, I conceive, quite clear and explicit. It is simply a 
 matter of Scripture evidence, which fairly and candidly 
 taken, can point to but one conclusion. The literal 
 descriptions of Future Punishment aiibrded us in the 
 Holy Scriptures — literal because they cannot be other- 
 -it'/de interpreted ; are descriptive of punishment, pro- 
 perly so-called, and not of annihilation, nor do tliey 
 atford, as does not the whole tenor of Scripture afford 
 ground for the assumption, that such punishment is 
 described by the analogy of the death throes of this 
 mortal and corruptible body. It is not a compouud of 
 destruction and punishment : Holy Scri[)turo^n()where 
 so describes it. It is not destruction or annihilation, 
 as, I think, I have pro veil ; but the just exegesis of 
 Holy Scripture goes to shew that it is punishment) 
 and so far as we can see, or have any positive Revelation 
 from the Deity with regard to the measure of its con- 
 tinuance ; and I think it is ecjually clear that we luive 
 such positive evidence ; that punishment has no end. 
 
rw' 
 
 1G8 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 It remains to be noticed, that Mr. Jukc3, Mr. Cox, 
 and Canon Farrar, as well as the advocates of 
 Conditional Innnortality, make much of the supposed 
 exaggerations of our translators, because they liave 
 very frequently ti-anslated aBr}<i and yeeva as synono- 
 mous terms, Kpiai^ as damnation, and aL(ovio<i as 
 everlasting. 
 
 I think, that to any candid and intelligent person, 
 and to any Theologian that is not, as such, inca- 
 pable of admitting the force and value of evidence; 
 the leonial theory has been sutliciently disposed of; 
 not only in view of the ^isiis loqaendl of the New 
 Testament, but also of that of the Old Testament 
 writers, whether of the Hebrew and inspired text, or 
 of the Septuagiiit translation ; and also from the use 
 of the Talmudic and Classical writers. See Aj)pendix 
 (a). I shall theref(jre do no moi-e here, than briefly 
 consider Mr, CVdx's very imlignant language concerning 
 the use made by our translators of the other wonls 
 referred to. That ji<- and aS?;? are identical in their 
 general meaning, is, I believe, admitted by all. That 
 bi<'J5 does sometimes mean the <nave is true ; but cer- 
 tainly not always. Prov. 23: 14, and Tsa. 28: 15, 18, are 
 places, where the grave, most certainly, cannot be in- 
 tended; and it is very (piestioiiable, whether they refer to 
 the intermediate condition o^' departed sinners. In like 
 manner the synonomous iise ot aS?;? and yeepa is not 
 witiiout justification. In the parable of Dives and Laza- 
 rus, it is in aZr}<i or the intermediate state, that he (Dives) 
 is described as being in torments, {^aadvoifi.) Although 
 the sacred writers certainly give us to understand that 
 
 !^ ' 
 
 1^ 
 ill* 
 
AND MATKRIALISM. 
 
 1C9 
 
 such inflictions upon the wicked, are not that ultimate 
 and final infliction sul)se<iucntly awarded at the Last 
 Day ; yet does both the Old and New Tcstaniont, give 
 us to understand, that such inflictions are reserved for 
 the wicked hereafter : the Old Testament, — generally, 
 by the word bi^tp ; the New Testament more j)(i^'ticii- 
 larly, — sometimes by aZr)<t, sometimes by 7eeVa. This is 
 the case with the literal terms descri])iu;^ such punish- 
 ment, albeit that both Tophet and Ge-}linnom, were 
 used as figarcti thereof. Now, considering that the 
 object and duty of translators is, to give the sense of 
 the original, to the great body of readers ; what have 
 Mr, Cox and his friends to complain of the action of 
 our translators, save tliat facts of scripture, do not 
 agree with their favourite hypothesis / Uid they not 
 hold a theory of proVmtion in Hades, they would have 
 no object to serve, and no ground for objection. 
 
 With regard to the word KpicL^, no doubt that a 
 milder term than the word "dan» nation" would often 
 agree better with the context, since the weiglity signifi- 
 cation attached to it, in the present day, nuikes the 
 Avord, in such cases, to exagg(Mate the nieaning conveyed 
 in the original, and so intended, we may say, by the 
 inspired writers; but may not such defect of o\ir present 
 translation, in some cases, in tliis connection, bo 
 accounted for by those constant chan' s in the use and 
 value of terms, which in every age are taking place. 
 In all cases the weight of the word must be determined 
 by the context : this is the case with the original, why 
 not with the translation ? This, however, is quite a 
 different thing from saying that the lowest etymological 
 
r^m 
 
 ? 
 
 ^Ti^SSwES 
 
 wsamm 
 
 !! 
 
 170 
 
 MODEllN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 
 .a 
 
 111 
 
 ! - 
 
 rendering, is always to be taken. Yet this is the 
 special pleading of, and this the foundation for the 
 indignation with which those who have a theory of 
 universal salvation, or of materialism, attack the fidelity, 
 (or shall we say the ability ?) of the translators of our 
 authorized version. This, I think, may be quite suffi- 
 cient; if it be but noticed, lastly, that such words as 
 TrepiaaoTepov Kpi/xa, (Matt. 23: 14,) and, (in that awful 
 denunciation contained in verse 33 of the same chapter) 
 Kpi(Teoj<i tPj<; y€iifr)<;, do by no means relieve the word 
 Kpl<n^, from the weighty and awful signification, which 
 the moral sense of mankind, and present usage, attaches 
 
 to the English word- 
 
 damnation." 
 
 Chap. IX. 
 Of Probation in Hades. 
 
 
 Restorationists, and the majority of those holding 
 Conditional Immortality, hold that there is probation 
 in Hades ; it is therefore fitting that we consider upon 
 what grounds. It must be acknowledged by them- 
 selves that it is upon very uncertain and limited evi- 
 dence. Mr. Oxenham would appear to cherish such a 
 hope in connection with 1 Cor. xv., which speaks of 
 Christ's universal conquest and the destruction of 
 
 if 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 171 
 
 "death." This subject Is, however, entirely without 
 the range of revealed truth, as a part of the economy 
 of redemption, and with that alone we have to do. It 
 forms one of " the secret things which belong unto the 
 Lord our God." We have no authority in a matter of 
 fundamental truth, wliere one of the " elements " 
 {aTOL)(€'ia) enumerated by the Apostle, Ileb, v., 1 2, are 
 mentioned, to hazard even a *' probable conjecture," 
 much less a mere chimerical notion, directly contrary 
 to all the positive teaching oi Christ Himself. 
 
 What shall take place after Satan's rebellion shall 
 have been put down, and the saints' deliverance from 
 sin made complete, we are not told. The loth ch. 1 
 Cor., deals with the resurrection and f.tate of the 
 righteous, and not with that of the wicked; therefore 
 any inference concerning them is utterly groundless. 
 
 Yet, the plausible plea put forth on the grounds of 
 reason, apart from Scripture, that if the wicked perish 
 for ever, and are not " restored," Satan is made the 
 richer, and not Christ, is connnon to the advocates of 
 Restoration and of Destruction. Mr. Oxenham, Mr. Con- 
 stable, Mr. White, and Dr. Littledale all are in favour of 
 it ; so also Mr. Heard, (Trij)art. Nat. of Man, p. 283). 
 They associate the continued existence of evil with the 
 Manichaean heresy, and would appear by their judg- 
 ment to "shut up" the Deity to final salvation not 
 only of men, but (by inference) of the devils also. It 
 is sufficient to notice the fact, not refjuisite to argue 
 against it, since our only argument is from God's 
 revealed will. Sound Theism will conclude that God 
 the Lord will take every care of His honor. Restora- 
 
^W' 
 
 172 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 tion, however, is but another name for Universal Salva- 
 tion after certain degrees of punishment. 
 
 Thus the Divine goodness (according to man's concep- 
 tion of it) is made to appear in the absolute cure of evil 
 in all men, at the last; and what is peculiar to the saints, 
 is, according to this theology, made ultimately to be 
 the ])ortion of all. Universalism, however, is based 
 upon the immortality of the soul, so evil is to be cured. 
 Destructionism is based upon man's natural mortality, 
 therefore evil must finally be destroyed and perish with 
 evil men, and devils also, since ii is assumed that they 
 too are mortal. None are immortal save He who 
 possesses inherent immortality, and the saints to whom 
 He gives it, (when we can scarcely conclude from Mr. 
 White's teaching), and also the holy angels. "Why these 
 should have immortality given to them exclusively ; at 
 what time ; and upon what authority it is held, we are 
 not told: here, however, the two systems diverge. Both 
 hold to probation, in the sense oiinmjication, in Hades. 
 Universalists, that the wicked will be "tiied," or 
 2>urificd, and after this saved at last; Destructionists, 
 that the wicked will be further " tried," more particu- 
 larly those who died under imperfect knowledge, and 
 another ofler of salvation made to them, and also (as 
 Mr. Heard holds), the righteous, specially those who 
 are imperfectly sanctified; the}' will be further "tried" 
 in the sense of being further sanctified and made holy : 
 not however by purgatorial fires, but by other influences 
 whereby the ewcito motor part of their nature will be 
 made more subservient to a sanctified will. Thus he 
 utilizes the theory of the Trichotomy. 
 
 l'^ 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 173 
 
 t/ I do not here follow Mr. White in his reasons for 
 receiving as true, the survival of souls in Hades. Suffice 
 it to say that he does so receive it, and herein he 
 separates himself from the general and consistent 
 theories of Materialists. Here Mr. Constable (p. 315) 
 is consistent, Mr. White inconsistent. Mr. VVliite agrees 
 that the antediluvians, and the uninstructod generally 
 in gospel truth, will be evangelized in Hades. So, such 
 consideration may ease their concern, who receive it, 
 respecting the nations who have not yet heard the 
 gospel. 
 
 Havinjj noticed these various man-made theori»'S for 
 the moral government of mankind, it will be most 
 profitable now to turn to the enquiry, as to what is the 
 doctrine of Holy Scripture, concerning the intermediate 
 state between death and tiie general judgment, when 
 and where such a prol)ation is supposed to take jtlace. 
 The Orthodox Catholic Church has long held that there 
 is such a state after death — an intermediate state — so 
 called because the soul, separated from the body, has 
 not yet reached the climax of its happiness or of its 
 woe. Believers in such a state are happy. Thoy are 
 said to be " with Christ," to be " in Abraham's bosom," 
 to be " with the Lord." So also in the parable of 
 Lazarus and Dives, the latter is said to be " in Hell," 
 and also " in torments." Here it will be well to con- 
 sider what this parable — if indeed we may not say 
 history — teaches as to Probation. It is given by the 
 Saviour and Judge of men. It is weighty truth as 
 it comes from Him. Not only is the rich sinner said 
 
 to be " in torment," punishment, but it is highly 
 24 
 
IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 V 
 
 ■^ 
 
 {•/ 
 
 / 
 
 <^' c^ 
 
 
 s 
 
 % % 
 
 i^ % 
 
 Ux 
 
 V. 
 
 < 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 'WHIM 12.5 
 
 12.2 
 
 IM III 
 ... J- J 2.0 
 
 1.8 
 
 
 1.25 1.4 
 
 1.6 
 
 
 ^ 6-v 
 
 
 ► 
 
 .^. 
 
 "n 
 
 & 
 
 "m 
 
 W 
 
 % 
 
 «^# 
 
 W Pi 
 
 cm 
 
 o 
 
 ^l 
 
 o 
 
 7 
 
 ///. 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBiSTER,N V. 14580 
 
 ( ,M6) 872-4503 
 
 V 
 
 ^v 
 
 "% 
 
 v^ 
 
 ■1>' 
 
 \\ 
 
 #? 
 
 a^ 
 
 ^^ 
 
 6^ 
 
 % 
 
 V 
 
 -<j,. 
 
 Pl^ 
 
 i 
 
<" WJ" 
 
 #. 
 
 X? 
 
 ,< /%• MP, 
 
 Ux 
 
 I 
 
r"=mTr: 
 
 irr 
 
 wmmmmm 
 
 174 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 I'' 
 
 11^ 
 
 I' ' 
 
 significant that as he himself had no hope of deliver- 
 ance therefrom, so also the Lord (awful thought) gave 
 him none. Not the faintest intimation here of a 
 proffered Saviour, or of Fatherly chastisement; but 
 there is the assertion of the existence of a " great gulf," 
 between saints and sinners. Further, there is a distinct 
 reference to a past choice, a chosen good, for so we must 
 understand, " thj*" good things," or else we must con- 
 clude that all who are rich and prosperous here, will 
 suffer hereafter, and that all who suffer here, will be 
 happy there. So much then for the prospect of Proba- 
 tion in Hades, given to us in this part of Holy 
 Scripture. 
 
 We will now turn to 1 St. Pet. 3: 18-20, one of two 
 famous passages which are thought clearly to teach 
 this doctrine ; and upon the second, 1 St. Pet. 4 : 6, 
 which is similar, although more obscure, Mr. Heard 
 quotes Lange, and notices the approval of Dean Alford. 
 " Holy Scripture nowhere asserts the eternal condem- 
 nation of those who have died either as heathen, or as 
 not having heard the gospel. It rather implies, in 
 many passages, that repentance is possible, even 
 beyond the grave, and distinctly declares that the final 
 decision is made, not at the moment of death, but at 
 the last day." Acts 17: 31. 2 Tim. 1: 11-18,1 St. 
 John, 4 : 17 are quoted, but I see nothing, there or 
 elsewhere, to support such an assertion, and I do not 
 hesitate to declare my unqualified dissent from such 
 a proposition, notwithstanding the great names of 
 those who maintain it. With regard to the exegesis 
 of these passages, as the second is the most obscure. 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 lt9 
 
 eliver- 
 b) gave 
 3 of a 
 it; but 
 t gulf," 
 lisiinct 
 '^e must 
 st con- 
 re, will 
 will be 
 Proba- 
 f Holy 
 
 3 of two 
 
 teach 
 t. 4: 6, 
 . Heard 
 Alford. 
 ondem- 
 n, or as 
 )lies, in 
 }, even 
 he final 
 , but at 
 8, 1 St. 
 here or 
 do not 
 Dm such 
 mes of 
 jxegesis 
 )bscure. 
 
 and both are with relation to the same subject, I 
 shall first examine 1 St. Pet. 3 : 18-20. Mr. Heard 
 notices that various interpretations have been given, of 
 both passages. It is not necessary to examine them 
 all, but only as they stand related to the idea of pro- 
 bation of the impenitent. Archbishop Leighton refers 
 the passage in ch. 3, to Noah's preaching by the Holy 
 Spirit. Bishop Horsley, Bengel, Luther, and others, 
 refer it to those who repented upon Noah's preaching,, 
 but who, although they were not saved in the ark, 
 were yet subjects of grace, and to them, as to the large 
 multitude of those who had perished under circum- 
 stances of doubt, our Lord delivered, or mention is 
 made of his delivering to them, the tidings of his grace. 
 The former refers to the Spirit's action by Noah, and 
 does but indirectly refer to our Saviour, not with 
 regard to his Messianic life, but with regard to His 
 Divine Personality. When we consider the fact which 
 Bishop Pearson has pointed out, we may well be sur- 
 prised at the conflicting opinions of really great and 
 good men upon this subject. That most sound Theolo- 
 gian has remarked that Christ's descent into Hades as 
 held in the creed, and as it formed part of the Catholic 
 faith, was in His human soul, in accomplishment of a 
 part of the Covenant of Redemption, in this respect, 
 that He might undergo the condition of a dead man, 
 as well as that of a living one. But it was as a right- 
 eous man that He did so ; as a perfectly holy man ; so 
 as the grave could not retain His body, neither could 
 Hades retain His soul. It is manifest that the " Spirit" 
 referred to in St Pet. 3, must mean the Holy Spirit,. 
 
176 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 m 
 
 I > 
 11^ 
 
 [ii 
 
 I 
 
 ill 
 
 IP^ 
 
 i|H 
 
 f I 
 
 since St. Peter affirms by the same He was " quick- 
 ened." Hence it is, I think, apparent, as Bishop 
 Pearson says (art. 2, p. 170) : that this passage does 
 not treat of the descent of Christ in His human soul 
 into hell ; and if it is held by any that He descended 
 us to His Deity peculiarly, it must be something extra- 
 neous, and in addition, to the creed of the Catholic 
 Church, and not as a part of the Covenant of 
 Redemption, since, not the work of His human 
 nature, not sustained by the general tenor of 
 Holy Writ, nor by the doctrine of the Catholic 
 and Primitive Church. As Bishop Pearson shows 
 (art. 5, p. 36), the early Fathers used this argu- 
 ment against Apollinaris, (who held that Christ had 
 no intellectual soul, but His Divinity was to Him in 
 place thereof,) that it was in His human nature that 
 He descended into hell. As to the j^urpose or end of 
 His descent, there was no strictly Catholic doctrine 
 held in the primitive Church. The various conjectures 
 framed by individuals, without authority of Holy 
 Scripture, were fruitful of evil, then, as they are now. 
 It is, I think, apparent that this text does not teach 
 that Christ preached in person, either to the righteous, 
 or to the wicked dead, in Hades. It remains but to 
 notice ch. 4: 6, which I interpret, with Archbishop 
 Leighton, as referring to the believing dead, who, 
 although they appear to the eye of carnal men to be 
 in no better a condition than others, inasmuch as they 
 suffer the same universal penalty, of natural death, and 
 connected with this, also the cardinal idea of earthly 
 sorrow; yet are they approved of God, and as such 
 
 iw» 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 iir 
 
 ^uick- 
 5ishop 
 e does 
 ,n aoul 
 jended 
 extra- 
 atholic 
 ant of 
 human 
 lor of 
 atholic 
 shows 
 3 argu- 
 •isfc had 
 Him in 
 re that 
 end of 
 octrine 
 \ectures 
 Holy 
 e now. 
 t teach 
 [hteous, 
 but to 
 ibishop 
 who, 
 to be 
 s they 
 |th, and 
 larthly 
 such 
 
 their souls live and are happy before Him. 1 have 
 paraphrased it thus, and in so doing, express not only 
 my own view, but also that of the great and good 
 Archbishop referred to. This rendering, too, is quite 
 in keeping with the context. These are the only two 
 passages of Holy Writ, having any real semblance of 
 favouring the idea of probation after death, or of 
 Christ's preaching either to the righteous or to the 
 wicked, after His suffering and death upon the cross. 
 It may here be added that our Lord, in the parable of 
 the rich man and Lazarus, denies the utility of any 
 one from the dead preaching to men living here upon 
 earth ; and of the converse, (i. e. of the living Christ 
 preaching to men departed,) the objection that this 
 would make God's dealings in the course of creation to 
 be retrogressive, (which is contrary to all known facts) 
 is both pertinent and valid. Thus, I consider that 
 enough evidence has been brought to show that Holy 
 Scripture does not countenance the theory of a proba- 
 tion in Hades. The doctrinal issue arising out of suck 
 a theory I shall discuss hereafter. 
 
 { 
 
'Wr 
 
 HiMnBHIMIHI 
 
 178 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 I 
 
 m 
 
 [■ i^ 
 
 '*■ 
 
 I- 
 
 JN^ 
 
 COLLATERAL ISSUES 
 
 Involved in Mr. White's Teachings, as to Conditional 
 
 Immortality. 
 
 (a.) — NATURE OF GOD. 
 
 Having now, as I consider, fully and sufficiently met, 
 examined, and confuted the direct arguments of Mr. 
 White and his friends as to the doctrine of Holy 
 Scripture concerning Future Punishment; I now pro- 
 ceed to consider those doctrinal issues which he has 
 raised in the assertion of the theory of Conditional 
 Immortality. 
 
 They are of great moment, and such as to affect the 
 very foundations of Biblical religion. They afford a 
 proof that there is an indestructible unity between the 
 great fundamental principles of the Bible, and its 
 practical teaching. 
 
 The first matter I shall notice is, that the character 
 of the ever blessed Jehovah is affected by the teaching 
 of Mr. White. As the conception we have of the nature 
 of God must be the corner-stone of our Theological 
 system, so the same truth, as it is really received into 
 the heart, must regulate and mould the quality of our 
 religion. Thus it is a first requisite, as it is a necesssary 
 effect of faith in God, and a biblical knowledge of 
 Him, that we regard Him as, although far beyond our 
 full comprehension, yet, entirely worthy of all our 
 trust, and all our love. 
 
 All the teaching ot Holy Scripture goes to enforce 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 179 
 
 itional 
 
 ly met, 
 of Mr. 
 r Holy 
 )\v pro- 
 he has 
 litional 
 
 feet the 
 fford a 
 een the 
 and its 
 
 laracter 
 eaching 
 
 nature 
 ological 
 ed into 
 T of our 
 
 esssary 
 
 dge of 
 >nd our 
 
 all our 
 
 enforce 
 
 this. So also, all the disciplinary and experimental 
 knowledge which His grace conveys to us, personally 
 and individuall}'. A few passages may here be given : 
 " Canst thou by searching find out God ? Canst thou 
 find out the Almighty to perfection ? It is higher than 
 Heaven, what canst thou do ? deeper than Hell, what 
 canst thou know ?" (Job 11:8.) Though " Clouds and 
 darkness are round about Him (yet) righteousness and 
 judgment are the habitation of His seat." (Ps. 97 : 2.) 
 " Although thou sayest thou shalt not see Him, yet 
 judgment is before Him, therefore trust thou in Him." 
 (Job 35 : 14). 
 
 Job exemplified this : "Although He slay me, yet will 
 I trust in Him." So, as God teaches by His Word that 
 we are to "wait" for Him; in like manner does He teach 
 us by His grace : and both assure us that it shall not 
 be in vain. Mr. White's theology, however, changes all 
 this. It weighs God in man's balances. It compares 
 the Almighty to ourselves, and what it cannot so 
 fathom or interpret, it rejects with philosophic scorn. 
 It is rationalistic in its character. It rejects the 
 Scripture statements of the nature of Deity. It scouts 
 the idea of a passionless God. 
 
 Thus (p. 277) : " How uninteresting a process the 
 worship of such a God must be ; of One to whom you 
 bring thought, anxiety, emotion, passion, praise, affec- 
 tion, gratitude, prayer, heart-sacrifice, and w ho in return 
 looks upon you with a calm eternal gaze of impassive 
 omniscience, without the faintest approach to fatherly 
 love." So he caricatures the descriptions given to us 
 of the Eternal and Unchangeable one. Of Him who 
 
\n 
 
 180 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 I 
 
 
 ■1* 
 
 is so distinguished from us that He is not " of like 
 passions as we are." 
 
 Holy Scripture nowhere says that God is impassive 
 in this sense : i. e., that He does not recognize good or 
 bad, right or wrong, and also all the qualities, wants 
 and feelings of His creatures : that He does not dis- 
 tinguish between them duly, and perfectly appreciate 
 them all, and provide accordingly for those who look 
 to Him and seek Him ; but it denies to Him the imper- 
 fection of change. 
 
 A man changes his mood, from anger to pleasure, 
 from dissatisfaction to content, from selfishness to 
 benevolence ; so he is imperfect, but God changes not. 
 Hence our great ground of confidence in Him, who is 
 always the sarae, while, " with a perfect man, He will 
 be perfect, but with the froward He will shew Himself 
 unsavory," and so reward every man according to his 
 works." 
 
 All this results from the refusal to recognize the 
 incomprehensibility of God, — i.e., that He is in any 
 fiill degree comprehensible. So does Mr. White (p. 280). 
 
 His " Excursus on the sensibility of God," is all 
 illustrative of the same principle. But if Mr. White's 
 teaching impeaches a very foundation truth of Biblical 
 Theism, by denying the immutability of God — which 
 he does, by his teaching as to His nature — he also 
 impeaches His actionSy and by the same rule ; that is, 
 because he cannot understand some of his dealings, 
 as they are not all formed upon his model. 
 
 Thus, he says (p. 513) : " consider the proposition, 
 that the Fall of Adam, brought upon himself, ' for one 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 181 
 
 f like 
 
 assive 
 )od or 
 wants 
 ot dis- 
 reciate 
 lO look 
 imper- 
 
 easure, 
 I ess to 
 [es not. 
 who is 
 ile will 
 limself 
 to his 
 
 ze the 
 
 in any 
 
 . 280). 
 
 is all 
 kite's 
 biblical 
 -which 
 le also 
 ;hat is, 
 
 alings, 
 
 Dsition, 
 for one 
 
 offence,' an eternity of sufferings — and brought this 
 same penalty upon liis posterity — whether by gratui- 
 tous imputation of guilt in which we had no share — 
 or by the inevitable consequence and operation of a 
 corrupt nature, transmitted to us — or by the unasked 
 possession of immortality, either in the half or the 
 whole of our nature — and then say whether the provi- 
 sion of some such method as the gospel, does not 
 appear to be demanded by rigid equity." This is his 
 special pleading to support his own theory of man's 
 natural mortality acquired by Adam's sin ; and in so 
 doing he does not scruple to "assail," as he says ; — but 
 it is not man merely; it is the claims and acts of Deity. 
 His special pleading for his premisses cannot save him 
 from this ; for, allow that man, by the sin of Adam, 
 lost immortality, for himself and his descendants ; the 
 cuTse does not end here. If man, as a sinner, does not 
 ultimately meet with eternal punishment, yet, caccord- 
 ing to Mr. White, he is "punished" not only with anni- 
 hilation at last ; but he receives pain by fire, so Mr. 
 White thinks, for a greater or lesser period, for " ages 
 of ages " if not for Eternity — in sor)ie cases at least ; 
 and all this, (unless we reject the Bible story of the 
 Fall, altogether, and the doctrine therein ot man's cor- 
 ruption ;) he inherits, by the sin of Adam, in the first 
 place, — yea by his one sin. More than this, thci'e 
 are the immeasurable temporal and material, as well 
 as mental ills, which all suffer under, and which the 
 Bible traces to the same source. If this be so, is not 
 the Almighty equally chargeable with injustice, accord- 
 ing to Mr. White, for punishing men, in this measure, 
 25 
 
182 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 pUi 
 
 \tl 
 
 I 
 
 and universally, the righteous as well as the wicked, 
 for guilt in which (he says) they had no share, or, of 
 which they were not the first, or immediate cause ? 
 But Mr. White seems entirely to leave man's own free 
 will out of the account, in this charge against the 
 Deity. Neither is the Bible scheme of Redemp- 
 tion, as described by the Orthodox and Evangelical 
 Churches, who do not hold to what is termed "Calvin- 
 istie principles," exempt from the condemnation with 
 which he visits such principles. Mr. White would 
 urge that man's native corriqHion, as the doctrine is 
 now received and held, takes away, or bears down the 
 power of his will, so that it is the guilt of Adam's sin, 
 alone, for which he is punished, and not for his oivn 
 chosen and persistent wickedness. According to his 
 teaching, even if man is so provided for by God's 
 grace in tlie Gospel, yet God is his debtor. He is not 
 yet even just, for the man who suffers the concomi- 
 tant ills, even in this life superinduced by Adam's sin, 
 has himself done nothing to deserve those ills. How, 
 therefore, does Mr. White account for them ? His 
 theory would lead him farther than he has yet gone. 
 If God's moral government can be vindicated, and His 
 character as God be held up to our supreme adoration, 
 while He, in the course of that government, has allowed 
 so prodigious and long-continued ills to follow one act 
 of sin ; — inevitably suffered from, both by the righteous, 
 and by the wicked, in this life ; — if Mr. White deems 
 it consistent with God's character, to do this, — and 
 moreover to punish persistently wicked men, for lite- 
 rally, ages and ages, though it be not literally for 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 183 
 
 ever ; — if Mr. White will allow that, while he cannot 
 account for or explain this, he does yet believe it to be 
 reconcileable with God's character so to do : from the 
 very same premiss, we may legitimately argue, as well 
 as believe, that He can, with justice and with goodness, 
 do more than this ; even punish sinners for ever and 
 ever, although the details of such procedure we cannot 
 yet estimate, because we cannot understand. Our only 
 alternative — (logically) — is positive Atheism. 
 
 There is yet one more fact that I muse notice. He 
 says (p. 513) : "If anyone of us had the power of 
 framing a race of immortal creatures, whom we should 
 deliberately bring into being under a law of damnation 
 to eternal mist.y, without redemption, we should know 
 what to think and to say of such a fiend in human 
 form." Mr. Constable uses similar language. 
 
 Here again we trace the same Rationalistic principle, 
 and the same fallacy of argument. "To whom then will 
 ye liken me, or shall I be equal ? saith the Holy One." 
 (Is. 40 : 25). If our conceptions of what is good, in this 
 case, (requiring us to be in possession of all the facts 
 and attendant circumstances and relations,) must mani- 
 festly be defective and inadequate ; much more must we 
 be unable to estimate Him who is the absolute loevsoni' 
 fication of good. God charges man, as a sinner, with 
 putting "darkness for light and light for darkness, 
 bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter ;" and not only is 
 this the inseparable effect of sin, but His angels are by 
 Him " charged with folly." It was by the exhibition 
 of God's inestimable and absolute perfections that Job 
 was convinced and supported in his faith, when his 
 
184 
 
 MODERN UNI VERBALISM 
 
 Hit 
 
 
 reason failed to help him under his trials. Such is the 
 instinctive teaching of faith, with respect to God and 
 His ways. Our arguments concerning God, what He 
 is, and what He will do, cannot be based upon our 
 imperfect apprehensions of good, for that were to make 
 ourselves to be God, and not Him. 
 
 They can, therefore, only be based upon the facta of 
 His creation and government in the present, and upon 
 the explicit statements of His Revealed will. 
 
 (b.) — NATURE OF SIN. 
 
 This is the second great fundamental doctrine of 
 Holy Scripture that is contravened by Mr. White and 
 his friends. 
 
 Undoubtedly it is a " stone of foundation ;" and " this 
 theodicy" has the distinction, which they esteem to be 
 enviable, of removing, or at least of endeavouring to 
 shake such a foundation, laid in the plain teaching of 
 Holy Scripture. 
 
 Let us first notice the position taken by our Church, 
 upon this subject in her 9th Article. Here, she expressly 
 affirms that " it is the fault and corruption of the 
 nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of 
 the offspring of Adam." TL^u such position is fully 
 sustained by facts and Bible-teaching, is certain. Mr. 
 White, however, tells us. " There is some poison in the 
 blood, running through all generations, and alienating 
 man from the life of God." 
 
 Here let us notice, that the source of native corruption 
 is, not in the moral nature, but in the hlood, so that the 
 
 i 
 
AND MATKRIALISM. 
 
 185 
 
 to 
 
 
 great evil of the curse was prlmavihj a ])liysical and 
 ontological one. "A poison in the blood, alienating man 
 from the life of God:" 
 
 Here at least, he is consistent -with himself. Yet, as 
 to the extent of native degeneracy, he is not explicit. 
 lie leaves us to infer tho extent; in accordance with 
 the fact that the lyvimary evil of the curse, is a poison 
 in the blood, and the loss of immortalit3^ He tells us, 
 however that, "This natural ruin, consists in the 
 paralysis of the irvevjia or s[)iritual faculty, which no 
 longer sees, or wills, as is necessary for a life in union 
 with God." — p. 303-4. But, as he hcvein adopts the 
 theory of Mr. Heard, wdiat is lacking in clearness in 
 the one, may be explained by the r-dier. 
 
 AT). Heard says : (Tri. Pai-t Nat. of Mcin. page 1G7,) 
 *'Thus the defect of good in every man, as naturally 
 born into the world, turns the char-icter into evil. 
 Original or birth-sin is thus not so much our fault, 
 crimen; it is rather our misfortune, culpa." 
 
 So again : (p. 181,) " It is a matter of fact, that as 
 men come into the world by mediate descent from 
 Adam, not by an immediate act of God's creative will, 
 so they come into the world with infirmities, and 
 under disabilities, which, if it does not remove respon- 
 sibility, restricts it." "To our mind the negative or 
 ^privative idea of birth-sin is quite sufficient to explain 
 the facts of the case." p. 184. So also, he objects to 
 the statement of our Article, where we say "the Apostle 
 doth confess that concupisence and lust hath of itself 
 the nature of sin." 
 
 I will but mention, in addition, that as he says that 
 
n 
 
 r 
 
 186 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 
 ?■ 
 
 4- 
 
 " imputed sin, and imputed righteousness, stand or fall 
 together ;" he does " not see ground in the New Testa- 
 ment, for the distinction between imputed and inherent 
 righteousness, on which the Reformers laid such stress ; 
 and so the distinction between original and actual 
 guilt, tool's like a scholasticism. He himself declares 
 such a distinction upon this very page (182). * The 
 actual distinction, however, is this : the hud as related 
 to the//'ui^. From his point of view, he would not 
 only mitigate the character of original guilt, that it 
 is negative or lyrivativey and not positive; but also 
 of actual guilt, or deeds of sin, — "impregnated 
 (as he says, p. 182,) by the will." The far reach- 
 ing consequences of such a theology, I can here but 
 notice. 
 
 Our Reformers let us be thankful, saw farther than 
 Mr. Heard, into God's law of Truth, and were better 
 logicians and better theologians than he. Another 
 very false theological principle, as to Regeneration, or 
 quickening of the Trvevfia, is asserted upon p. 185 ; 
 viz., were the trvevixa quickened from infancy, such 
 person could not sin at all. This of course asserts that 
 the moral virus of Original Sin, either is taken aiuay 
 by such Regeneration ; or else, that no moral virus is 
 transmitted. All this is conceived, (it might be said 
 fancifully construed,) thus, as it appears to favour the 
 
 * " It i3 only when desire has been impregnated by the will, that 
 sin properly so called, i. e., as the transgression ot the law, is pro- 
 duced. Here, I remark that the avovia referred to by St. John, 
 ( 1 John 3 : 4) is absolute, as such ; and, by all analogy of Holy Writ, 
 Js so regarded before any overt ad of sin has been committed. 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 187 
 
 theory of the Trichotomy, and is contrary not alone to 
 our 9th article, but to Holy Scripture. 
 
 But, leaving the Negative view of Original Sin, let 
 us now look at it from the Positive side. First, in 
 view of historical facts of the world we live in, facts 
 of the past and of the present ; let us ask whether this 
 privative view of Original Sin is sufficient to account 
 for the enormous crimes, the revolting cruelty, the 
 rapacity and wickedness, in every form, therein mani- 
 fested, individually, socially and nationally ? 
 
 Let us also not forget, that this sin, which is traced 
 back to its original source, and derived from our first 
 parents, is the cause of evil, great and enormous, not 
 only Civilly, but Religiously. It is not only in the 
 world of those who believe not, but in the Church of 
 those whodo profess to believe, that this evil is operating. 
 Religion is wounded in the house of its friends. The 
 world is hurt by that very body, that is set for 
 its evangelization and blessing. The words of the 
 Apostle are true now, as then, " The Name of God is 
 blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is 
 written." 
 
 Look at the bloody record of that Church, whose 
 deeds of cruelty have never been exceeded, if paralleled, 
 by any body of men ! Look at the hon-id Inquisition 
 and bloody Bartholomew's day, for instance ! But we 
 need not suppose that it is limited to that Church. See 
 the Primitive Church, not merely as persecuted, but as 
 persecutors of its own members ! I doubt whether the 
 character of Original Sin, ever was manifested more 
 sorrowf'iUy, than in the days of religion's truest pros- 
 
9 
 
 188 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 ^tJ 
 
 i.?. 
 
 !'( I I 
 
 4 ill 
 
 perity, and greatest glory. Look at the history of 
 Ancient Israel, in Egypt, in the wilderness, in Canaan, 
 under the greatest advantages, and under diversified 
 trials, by the hand of Jehovah, and what does it tell of 
 Original Sin? for here is the solution of the problem, 
 and here is the corrupt source of such obdurate wicked- 
 ness ! 
 
 So also, may it be remarked of the obduracy and 
 blindness of Pharaoh and the plagues of Egypt : for it 
 is said of Jehovah, "for this cause have I raised thee 
 up, to shew in thee my power, and that Qiiy name may 
 be declared throughout all the earth." To adduce no 
 more instances, let us ask how will Mr. White or Mr. 
 Heard account for such apalling wickedness ? Is it to 
 education and Providential circumstances, such is to be 
 s-scribed ? If not, whence comes such tangible and 
 awful, though yet unmeasured evil ? Shall we say it is 
 from Satan, and so relieve man ? or, shall we say with 
 the materialists that it is altogether from sin, and that 
 there is no personal devil ? 
 
 If the former, it is indeed man's misfortune, and he 
 is no longer accountable : if the latter, it is altogether 
 his fault, because it is his own act and choice; but 
 neither explanation meets the facts of the Divine record. 
 
 As there is apiritiial help provided for man, in a 
 spiritual conflict with spiritual evil, to cope with which 
 he by his own powers is insufficient; so the law of sin 
 within him, (which cannot be otherwise defined than as 
 a moral or spiritual evil,) i» stimulated by evil spirits 
 led on by their great leader Satan. 
 
 Neither is there any natural difference in men, that, 
 
 M 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 189 
 
 aided by any circumstances of advantage, or, hindered 
 by disadvantage, docs, of itself, account for such enor- 
 mities of evil, to which I have referred; neither may we 
 say that, to God-ward, there is any essential difference 
 in man, without the agency of the Holy Spirit, whatever 
 may be the degi-ees of difference in the development 
 of his nature to man-iuard. 
 
 The true solution of any radical difi'erence between 
 man and man, is found in the words of John Bunyan, 
 when, seeing a murderer pass to execution, he said, 
 *' There goes John Bun^'an, but for the (jntce of 
 God." 
 
 That maturity, or development of evil, which men 
 attain to here, is under circumstances of moral trial 
 which render them justli/ responsible. 
 
 The climax of Original Sin, is but in strict oneness 
 with its character and original. No man goes unwil- 
 lingly to Hell, in those steps by which his moral nature 
 ripens him for it. Although it be from lust to sin, and 
 sin to death ; or from earthliness to sensuality, and 
 thence to devilry. There is after all, entire homogeneity ; 
 and the stone of the apex, is of the same material as 
 the stone of foundation. The seed produces fruit, after 
 its own kind ; and that by a law of its own character 
 and conformation. 
 
 The language of our article (9) is strictly coiTcct. 
 Man is very far gone {quam loiiglssinid distet,) from 
 original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined 
 to evil. 
 
 Having lost God's moral image, not in part, but 
 entirely, in his moral tastes and predilections, he is 
 26 
 
190 
 
 MODEir UNIVERSALISM 
 
 subject to another law, radical and inherent. For this 
 reason he needs to be born from above, avcoOev. 
 
 In confirmation of the above, and of the fact that 
 Original Sin is not Negative or Privative, but Positive 
 in its character, I point to a fact that is patent and 
 clear : viz., that man's moral nature is attracted from 
 God, and not to Him. The testimony of Scripture 
 is thus fully borne out, " M}^ people have committed 
 two evils. They have forsaken rne, the fountain of 
 living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken 
 cisterns, that can hold no water." Jer. 2:13. So also 
 Job : " they say unto God, depart from us for we desire 
 not the knowledge of thy ways." Job 21: 14. The 
 fact and the testimony refers also, not merely to an act 
 or series of acts, but to a laiu inherent, and a hahit 
 covjirmed. 
 
 I have said more than I intended upon this head. I 
 will now briefly notice, that such a view of Original 
 Sin, as is held by Mr. White and Mr. Heard, is contra- 
 dicted by all the experience of those who are born of 
 God and are led by His Spirit. Here is a science of 
 spiritual things that is trustworthy, because of the 
 teacher. That teacher is the Holy Ghost. It is a teach- 
 ing, too, that is accompanied with tangible results, and 
 can be corroborated by testimony of " many witnesses." 
 
 Those witnesses Mr. White or Mr. Heard will doubtless 
 admit, are credihle witnesses. I make bold to say, and 
 herein I appeal to the instinct of the Christian mind, 
 that the deceitful n ess, the malignity, the undying 
 antagonism of sin, in the experience of the Christian, 
 cannot be too much magnified. Let it be stated never 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 191 
 
 SO strongly, the Christian believer will not say that it 
 is too much. Still less will he say that it is negative, 
 and not positive. Such may be said by him who has 
 not experimental acquaintance of its working upon his 
 own heart, or who is, herein, unaccountably led astray 
 by the spirit of evil. 
 
 Here too, we may most properly look for a correct 
 knowledge of facts, as to Original Sin. The sinner 
 knows little about it, as he is befooled by it. The 
 Christian man, who is really engaged in a war with it,^ 
 knows what an obstinate and subtle principle he has 
 to contend with. Further, the greater the advance he 
 makes in Divine knowledge and Divine grace, the 
 more does he groan over his own sinfulness and moral 
 corruption. *'My leanness, my leanness, woe unto me 1" 
 
 With such, too, it is realized that it is not merely a 
 defect, but a positive enmity that he has to watch 
 against. This is ever "lusting against the spirit." 
 
 Our Article (9) truly says, " this infection of nature 
 doth remain yea in them that are regenerated," and 
 though it be not charged against them because of their 
 being in Christ, — their Divine renewal does not abolish 
 it: — it is only when, by reason of a confirmed habit, 
 choice, love and prevailing practice, and life according 
 to a new nature; they lay down conflict with life, they 
 shall be free from it. Then they shall " awake after 
 God's likeness, and be satisfied with it." 
 
 I will not here make quotations in proof, from the 
 writings of those who are acknowledged as just authori- 
 ties. I may, however, mention the names of Beveridge, 
 Hall, Baxter, Owen, and Leighton. 
 
192 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 I will but add, that those who are justly entitled to 
 rank as great and competent Doctrinal Theologians* 
 have been, and are, men who have " sounded the depths" 
 of practical and experimental religion. 
 
 My last appeal from the teaching of Mr. White's 
 theodicy, shall be to the manifold and weighty testi- 
 monies of Holy Scripture as to the nature of sin. 
 
 Some few of these, only, will I quote. Jei'emiah's 
 words as to the heart of man, may come first. 
 
 " The heart is deceitful above all things, and despe- 
 rately wicked: who can know it ?" Jer. 17: 9. 
 
 Prov. 4: 23. "Keep thy heart M-^ith all diligence, 
 (Margin, 'above all keeping') for out of it are the issues 
 of life." 
 
 " He that trusteth in his own heart, is a fool." 
 Prov. 28: 26. 
 
 Our Lord says, " Out of the heart of man proceed 
 evil thoughts," &c. Mark 7: 21. So He says, " Watch 
 and pray that ye enter not into temptation." Mark 
 13: 33. " Blessed is he that watcheth and keepeth his 
 garments." Rev. 1G:15. 
 
 St. Paul warns us lest we bo " hardened through the 
 deceitfulness of sin." Heb. 2: 13. 
 
 St. Peter tells us to beware " lest being led away by 
 the error of the wicked we fall from our own stedfast- 
 ness." 2 Pet. 3: 17. 
 
 I will not accumulate testimony. I will but say, 
 what says Holy Scripture : " Grace, (but grace only), 
 shall reign, through justification unto eternal life." 
 
 The Apostle's great hope was, that God was " able to 
 keep what he had committed to Him against that day." 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 193. 
 
 There is the widest contrast possible, between Philo- 
 sophical Morality, and the Religion of Jesus Christ, as 
 there is diversity in their original ; and there can be 
 no fusion of them, nor admixture between them. 
 
 (C.) — NATURE OF REGENERATION. 
 
 Next in order, I proceed to consider how Mr. White's 
 theodicy, affects the established doctrine of the Ortho- 
 dox and Catholic Church concerning Regeneration. 
 This also is a most grave and important matter. I 
 shall therefore first quote his own teaching as to its 
 nature and eflects. At page 303 of his book, he 
 propounds the question, "What is the spiritual change 
 effected in this life by Regeneration?" He answers : 
 
 (1) " Transformation into the moral likeness of Christ," 
 
 (2) Partaking of an immortal nature; or to use his own 
 words, " passing from death into life, entering into that 
 life of Christ, tlie second man, which is eternal — 
 obtaining 'a hope full of immortality' through union 
 with the Eternal Spirit." Here let it be noticed, he 
 puts moral transformation first in the list; of which, 
 hereafter. 
 
 After the remarkable statement concerning moral 
 degeneracy, that, " there is some poison in the blood 
 running through all generations, and alienating man 
 from the life of God ; " he proceeds to say, (what we 
 will readily allow) that religion is love; the love of God 
 and man. Upon page 305 he says, " It is, then, a moral 
 change in the character of the soul, and not an ontolo- 
 gical, or physical change in its substance, which is the 
 
^ 
 
 if 
 
 ■ 
 
 194 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 V 
 
 in 
 
 condition of salvation, and the present result of the 
 indwelling of the Spirit. 
 
 "'The Spirit is life because of righteousness' (Rom. 
 S: 10). This is the answer to those who object that 
 regeneration is represented by us as a physical change 
 in the structure of the soul. We are not of those who 
 so represent it. It is a change wholly spiritual." We 
 need go no further, nor enter upon the Arminian view 
 that follows. 
 
 We have ascertained that Mr. White puts first in 
 order, in his definition of Regeneration, a neiv birth of 
 man as to the character of his soul, a moral change, 
 not an ontological one. 
 
 Let us now go back and see how this agrees with his 
 definition, as to the lyrime evil of the Fall, and the 
 ^primary meaning of Death. It is evident that Regen- 
 eration must be the restoring of that which was lost at 
 the Fall, and that the order in value and importance, 
 in estimating the good lost must obtain in estimating 
 the good restored. Here, however, Mr. White again 
 appears with an illogical as well as an unscriptural 
 argument. He is not arguing from his own premisses, 
 but from ours. He will not allow that loss of moral 
 conformity to God, was the prime result of the Fall, or 
 that such is the radical idea of death, — viz., first in order 
 and importance when applied to man's relation to God. 
 
 The order in Mr. White's estimate is seen as follows : 
 p. 225. " For life, signifies life ; and to live for ever, 
 signifies to live for ever ; and to perish, signifies not to 
 live for ever, but to lose organized and conscious being. 
 That is the^irs^, and the natural meaning of the words." 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 195 
 
 Again, p. 400. " In clearing up this preliminary 
 question, so important in its bearings upon the whole 
 controversy, let it be understood that we offer no denial 
 of the self-evident fact that the term life, as used in 
 Scripture to describe the present and future state of 
 regenerate men, does include the associated ideas of 
 holiness and happiness, arising from a new relation to 
 God, a spiritual resurrection resulting from Redemption. 
 (Rom. 6: 4.) No one ought to aflfirm that the bare idea 
 of existence, is all the term includes. No one of any 
 account does affirm it. Our position is, that the idea of 
 existence is included in the meaning, is fundamental 
 to it, the moral ideas associated with it having this 
 conception of eternal sentient being in the complex 
 humanity, (in opposition to death, or destruction), as 
 their basis.'* The italics are mine. 
 
 So also p, 238, still more plainly. " We propose to 
 shew that our Lord's statements in this chapter (John 
 17) indicate that life meant much more than happiness, 
 or misery ; He intended by life and death, also, and 
 primarily, immortality and destruction." I have 
 italicized the word " primarily." 
 
 I think it is quite evident, that Mr. White has 
 declared the^rs^ and chief evil of the primeval curse of 
 *' death," as the result of sin, to be the " loss of immor- 
 tality." It is equally true that in consistency with 
 his ovm premisses, and in view of our Lord's assertion 
 in John 3: "Except a man be born anew, or from 
 above, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven;" 
 in consistency I say with his own premisses and exegesis 
 of " death," he must declare the regeneration referred 
 
196 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 to bj'- our Lord, to have for its first and piime good, 
 the confeiTing of immortality; or, in other words, to 
 mean (what he repudiates) an ontological cfiange. 
 This must, by his reasoning, come first, and be the 
 prime good of Regeneration. 
 
 Equally clear it is also, that his putting the moral 
 renovation, as a secondary or associated good in such 
 a place, must entail the irrational idea, of a moral 
 quality superinduced as an effect, by a physical cause. 
 
 So both Scripture and reason are denied. We place 
 the moral evil, as the fundamental one : so also the 
 moral good, as the fundamental one. 
 
 By reason of the moral evil — physical evil is entailed 
 — not vice versa. 
 
 So the moral good of a renewal in God's moral image, 
 makes the fact of continued and eternal existence to be 
 an eternal good, as it is the preparation, or preliminary 
 step unto it ; while the lack of Buch moral renewal, 
 makes physical existence as a continued and perpetu- 
 ated quality, to be an essential evil; as the persistent 
 choice, aid practice of a contrary character, to be 
 preparative to it. 
 
 I think it is sufficiently and indisputably proved that 
 "this theodicy," is by Mr. White's own shewing, 
 chargeable with holding that Regeneration is an onto- 
 logical change. That such an idea is irrational, is, I 
 think, self-evident, and I shall not enter into that 
 consideration more than I have done. It is with Scrip- 
 ture exegesis that we have to do, and in view of all 
 the statements of Scripture as to the Nature of Regen- 
 eration, and what must lie at the basis of it, viz., the 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 197 
 
 swing, 
 
 onto- 
 
 is, I 
 
 that 
 
 Scrip- 
 
 of all 
 
 Nature of Sin; it is manifest that a comprehensive view 
 of Scripture teaching upon these subjects, will not for 
 a moment justify Mr. White in holding to the literal 
 rendering of the word "death" in such a way as stated 
 by him, contlning it, as he does, primarily and chiefly, 
 if not entirely, to the loss of immortality, or of being 
 as a man. Therefore, upon grounds of Scripture, as 
 upon those of logic, he must alter his premisses, as 
 he is unwilling to accept their conclusion. 
 
 In view of Mr. White's position concerning Regener- 
 ation, I shall now remark how very much his Theology 
 militates against 'practical religion. It is indeed true, 
 that every system of Theology, gives great prominence 
 to the doctrine of Regeneration. Every system, however, 
 except that of Destructionism, holds in prominence in 
 connection therewith, as the great benefit of Regenera- 
 tion, either that it puts the recipient in possession of 
 certain Ecclesiastical and Religious privileges, and so 
 changes his relations to the Deity, — or, that it, by a 
 spiritual and supernatural change, through the agency 
 of the Holy Ghost, imparts to him a moral quality in 
 relation to his Creator, diametrically the opposite to 
 that of which he was, before such change, possessed 
 of. 
 
 Mr. White's definition, in which the material quality 
 and character of the soul obtains the chief and first 
 place, does more militate against practical piety, than 
 does any other opinion. In fact, the material and 
 ontological idea, as it is antagonistic to the spiritual 
 and moral quality which he professes to associate with 
 it, must all but nullify it altogether. But, as reason 
 27 
 
198 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 m 
 
 I 
 
 t( 
 
 'i 
 
 r.f' ^ 
 
 does not, nor does practical utility, join the two together, 
 so neither does Holy Scripture. 
 
 The moral relations of the sinner to God in Regener- 
 ation, are the only relations to be regarded. 
 
 He is " a new creature," or " a new creation," morally, 
 and not ontologically. " Old things are passed away, 
 and all things are become new ;" not as to the character 
 of his soul, ontologically considered, but as to its moral 
 affinities to the Supreme Good. The great need of this 
 change ; the fact of a supernatural agency being requi- 
 site for its accomplishment ; the fact that this great 
 moral and spiritual change is in the face of, and to be 
 accomplished under circumstances of the greatest moral 
 and spiritual difficulty ; that it has to be WTought as 
 a moral victory, by Divine truth and the Divine Spirit, 
 in the mind of a moral and responsible agent, by moral 
 suasion ; and that wdiile it is the duty of man to act, 
 it is the province and powder of grace to help him in so 
 doing ; these are the great truths of the Bible concern- 
 ing Regeneration. The inception of religion, as a 
 living and spiritual entity in the human soul, is a moral 
 tniracle. Before it can become an inherent, because a 
 transmitted principle, there is a process that none but 
 the Deity can trace perfectly ; but the experimental 
 Christian knows somewhat concerning it. He knows 
 sufficient to say that such process is essentially of a 
 moral and spiritual character ; that it has come under 
 his moral cognizance as an actuality, concerning in the 
 deepest and most anxious way, his mind and his heart, 
 as to his moral relations, towards his Creator. This is 
 all of Regeneration, either as a doctHnal truth, or as an 
 
Tether, 
 
 (gener- 
 
 lorally, 
 away, 
 Eii'acter 
 i moral 
 of this 
 requi- 
 5 great 
 d to be 
 t moral 
 Light as 
 Spirit, 
 r moral 
 to act, 
 11 in so 
 Dncem- 
 i, as a 
 moral 
 3ause a 
 )ne but 
 mental 
 knows 
 y of a 
 under 
 in the 
 heart, 
 This is 
 rasan 
 
 AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 199 
 
 experlmeyital fact. The life, so imparted, is well defined 
 by Scougal, as " the life of God in the soul of man." 
 *' Christ in you.'* " Your life is hid with Christ in 
 God." " Christ our life." So, Holy Scripture. With 
 what earnestness this is to be sought, we are distinctly 
 told. Its character, as so depicted, cannot too fully 
 be dwelt upon. 
 
 This life, so given, is to be guarded and cultivated 
 with all diligence. It i '^ed only be added that while 
 a defective view of its character and circumstances 
 must be injurious; who can measure the sad, extensive, 
 and ruinous consequences that must ensue from a 
 Theology that, as it saps the foundation of vital piety 
 by ics doctrine of Original Sin, so it assails it with 
 progressive injury, by its doctrine concerning Regene- 
 ration 
 
 (d.) Atonement of Christ. 
 
 We should not be doing justice to Mr. White, did we 
 fail to notice the fact, that his theory of conditional 
 immortality, contemplates, designedly and with satis- 
 faction, the object of an entire revolution in the 
 Evangelical scheme of Doctrinal Theology. The onto- 
 logical character of man, as affected by the Fall, is the 
 foundation stone of the system. And, as he holds that 
 the prhnary consequence of the Fall, was an ontological 
 consequence, and not a moral one ; so also must the 
 character of the recovery be an ontological one also. 
 Regeneration, however, is but the subjective effect of 
 belief in the atonement. 
 
 The atonement of Christ believed in,in the heart of 
 
200 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 ■I 
 
 man, is the meHtorious cause of such regeneration^ 
 even as the spirit of Christ is the efficacious cause. 
 We have seen how Mr. White's doctrine governs his 
 ideas of regeneration, of the nature of sin, and also of 
 the character of God. We can see also their logical 
 connection with each other, and with the atonement ; 
 and now I purpose to consider in detail, the effect of 
 Mr. White's premiss, upon this most important doctrine. 
 I cannot do so, however, without making the remark 
 that the man who can conceive the idea of takine: to 
 pieces that consistent, grand, and stable fabric of 
 Evangelical and Orthodox Theology, that in all its 
 essential features has been transmitted to us from the 
 earliest ages of the primitive Church ; and which has 
 been further consolidated and enriched by the learning 
 and piety of a noble host of ivorthies, " the excellent of 
 the earth," for their experimental knowledge of Chris- 
 tianity, and for their massive Theological erudition ; 
 must indeed be largely gifted, with the belief in his 
 own individual, and concentrated attainments. But 
 Mr. White thinks he has been lucky enough, in this 
 enlightened 19th Century to find the Philosopher'^ 
 stone. He has found a panacea, for every, or at least, 
 in his opinion, for a great many evils indeed, that the 
 church is afflicted with: — and he has found it in the 
 theory of conditional immortality. 
 
 Let us fii'st understand, what Mr. White tells us, — 
 p. 242: "under the general doctrine of this work, 
 salvation signifies being literally saved alive, saved 
 from the destruction of body and soul in hell, saved 
 from being burned up like chaff in unquenchable fire. 
 
AND MATER FALISM. 
 
 201 
 
 That is to say — literal preservation of being — con- 
 ferring, or restoring lost immortality. Moral qualities 
 come in as accidents; but this is the element The sin 
 of Adam, by its imputation to us, has entailed upon lis 
 death of the body and of the soul ; that is, we have, 
 through Adam, become moi'tal in the fullest sense. 
 Christ's sufferings are imputed to those who believe 
 in Him. They, as a consequence, inherit ontological 
 immortality : all others are extinguished at death, 
 and to them there is no resurrection. But, Mr. 
 White holds that there will be to such, literally, a 
 "second deaih." In undergoing this, they will be 
 punished — some, it may be, for " ages," then they will 
 utterly die. The sin of Adam merited the Jirst death, 
 ;and man's oiv). sins merit the second. Where, how- 
 ever, he gained this information, and upon what autho- 
 rity he delivers such dogma, he does not tell us. We 
 want chapter and verse, and a little more, for such an 
 •oracular statement. That, however, is Mr. White's 
 theory; and because he admits the Divinity of Christ, 
 there must be some further atonement paid by Christ, 
 besides mortal death. This suffering, however, did not 
 ijiU upon Clirist's humanity, but upon His Divinity. Mr 
 White is very zealous for "forensic justification," but the 
 " forensic justification" which Christ has merited for the 
 sinner, does not allow Him as a sinless man to suffer for 
 sinners. Such would not be by any means alloivable, 
 however willing Christ may have been to do so. Conse- 
 •quently such suffering, apart from His bodily death, fell 
 upon His Divinity. So let us notice, it was not only 
 •God punishing God; — (not the God-raan,but God') — God 
 
202 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 , ■ 1 
 
 k;4 
 
 
 T I 
 
 making atonement to God. True it is, Mr. White (page 
 512, note,) says that he considers (in order to explain 
 the cry of our Saviour, " My God, My God, why hast 
 Thou forsaken me " ?) that the Divine Word was 
 sujfficientli/ distinct from the Father to empty Himself 
 and to lay aside tlie form of God ; (Phil, 2 : 9), and 
 therefore was sufficiently distinct to become the sub- 
 ject of suffering by the hiding of the Father's face in 
 the agony of the passion." How this will agree with 
 our Lord's words, " I and my Father are one,'* " He- 
 that hath seen Me hath seen the Father," is beyond 
 Mr. White's ability even, to demonstrate. But in the 
 same note he tells us that, " we ought not to think that 
 the Father suffered less in inflicting the punishment 
 than the Son in beanng it," 
 
 So that we reach the same end at last. God atoning 
 to God. Moreover, we are told on the contrary (Is. 53 - 
 10), " It pleased the Lord to bruise Him," The verb 
 here is ygn ydfatz. Bishop Lowth renders the pas- 
 sage, "Yet it pleased the Lord to crush Him with 
 affliction. The verb requires this construction; namely,. 
 " the Lord was favourable." 
 
 We will now look at another argument of Mr. 
 White's concerning the Atonement, It is a fair speci- 
 men of the language of his friend, Mr, Constable, upon 
 the same subject. " If any of us had the power of 
 forming a race of immortal creatures, whom we should 
 deliberately bring into being under a law of damnation 
 to eternal misery, without redemption, we should know 
 what to think and to say of such an omnipotent fiend 
 in human form. If He who kindled the ' furnace ' of 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 203 
 
 te (page 
 explain 
 by hast 
 )rd was 
 Bimself 
 9), and 
 he sub- 
 face in 
 3e with 
 ," "He 
 beyond 
 . in the 
 nk that 
 shment 
 
 itoning 
 ^Is. 53^ 
 le verb 
 le pas- 
 
 1 with 
 laiiiely^ 
 
 Df Mr. 
 
 speci- 
 
 !, upon 
 
 fver of 
 
 should 
 
 nation 
 
 know 
 
 fiend 
 
 ce' of 
 
 hell-fire, in defence of that law which is fulfilled in 
 love, should have thus deliberately brought an entire 
 race into an immortal existence in which there was no 
 escape from eternal woe either through free will or 
 redemption, unquestionably those voices must have 
 been struck dumb which proclaim that 'the whole 
 earth is full of His glory.'" (pp. 513, 514.) 
 
 This is part of an argument concerning the atone- 
 ment as provided of God; its character as proceeding from 
 Him. Either, says Mr. White, God did or He did not 
 make man, or man so continues after the Fall, an im- 
 mortal being. If He did not so continue immortal, God 
 could properly, as God, take away, or not confer upon 
 him immortality. If He did continue immortal He must, 
 to be God, provide an atonement. Now let us see from 
 what premisses Mr.White starts. He grounds his major 
 premiss thus : " God is : I know perfectly ivhat sin is ; 
 therefore I know perfectly tvhat God is: so, God should 
 do, as /would do: but God has not done what I would 
 have done; therefore He is not God." This may be 
 made to apply to the knowledge of God, the justice of 
 God, or the love of God; and it comes to this — either that 
 the revealed will of God is the absolute and sovereign 
 law, — or else the judgment of Mr. White. 
 
 But let us look at it from another side. Mr. White 
 says (p. 513) : " Let any one consider the proposition 
 that the fall of Adam brought upon himself for * one 
 offence ' an eternity of sufferings — and brought this 
 same penalty upon us, his posterity — Avhether by 
 gratuitous imputation of guilt in which we had no 
 share, or by the inevitable consequence and operation 
 
■:< H 
 
 
 I! 
 
 f^'i 
 
 204 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 n 
 
 of a corrupt nature transmitted to us, or by the unasked 
 possession of immortality either in the half or the 
 whole of our nature, and then say whether the pro- 
 vision of some such method as the Gospel, does not 
 appear to be demanded by rigid equity." This again 
 is only part of Mr. White's argument, which is thus : 
 " Man should not be made, or continued immortal 
 against his luill ; if so, justice requires that an atone- 
 ment should save him from evil : but the atonement is 
 a gift of love ; therefore God has done, as / think that 
 He should have done." He argues in a circle (pp. 
 512-14). We will first shew the fallacy of his argu- 
 ment as to the justice of God. As he first disputed 
 the supreme knowledge of God, so does he dispute His 
 supreme authority, as creator, by making a law for 
 Him who is the source of all law. I meet this demand 
 of Mr. White, in this way ; designedly. The fountain 
 of Law is necessarily just : and, as God, as His know- 
 ledge is perfect; so his authority over His creatures is 
 absolute; and He himself defines that justice, and not 
 Mr. White: unless he, not God, is the source and criterion 
 of both knowledge, and of just and supreme authority. 
 But thirdly, Mr. White says: (a) God is a God of 
 love, ergo, 1. He will not punish sinners for ever. 2. 
 He has provided the Atonement, which is of love: for, 
 (6) the Scriptures so speak of it as God's gift, that He 
 " so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten 
 son that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish 
 but have everlasting life." Mr. White's view of Holy 
 Scripture, as well as his view of the character of God 
 is ex parte and erroneous, for Holy Scripture speaks 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 205 
 
 elsewhere of the atonement as reconcileable with all 
 His attributes. As the manifestation of Divine wis- 
 dom and knowledge: Col. 1: 26-27 ; 2: 1-3. As a pro- 
 vision to satisfy Divine justice: Rom. 3:24-26. As 
 an exertion of Divine power: Eph. 1 : 19, 20 ; 1 Cor. 
 1 : 23, 24. And also as the expression of Divine love: 
 John 3 : 16. But viewed in its entirety, and in its 
 relation, not merely to one, but to all the attributes of 
 Deity; we are told that " Mercy and Truth have met 
 together, Righteousness and Peace have kissed each 
 other." Psalm 85 : 10. 
 
 God was just on Calvary, as well as on Sinai. He is 
 loving at all times, even as Jesus Christ is the same 
 yesterday, to-day and forever. The Atonement, as the 
 Word of God sets it forth, gives to our view the fact 
 of Jesus Christ, as our federal Head, suffering in His 
 sinless humanity for the sins of men ; and so it main- 
 tains the integrity and perfection of Divine justice; 
 but in the same Atonement we behold the love of God 
 displayed. Of the Father in sending, of the Son in 
 willingly going, and giving His Divine Personality to 
 union with humanity, for this purpose ; and when so 
 incarnate, in patiently and devotedly suffering, in His 
 human and sinless nature, for man's sin. Of the Holy 
 Ghost, in co-operating, according to His special office 
 in the covenant of Redemption, with the work of the 
 Messiah ; in succouring Him personally in His man- 
 hood, in the work of obedience which belonged thereto, 
 and in blessing by His influences the truth of His 
 Word, as it testifies in itself, or by His messengers, to 
 the Anointed Saviour. In other words, it is the love 
 28 
 
1^ 
 
 i 
 
 206 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 of God, and not that quality merely as man appre- 
 hends it. 
 
 This, I take, to be a logical and a scriptural view of 
 the atonement of Christ. I do not here discuss the 
 heterodoxy of the principle that the Deity is capable 
 of suffering, as I have done so elsewhere. 
 
 I have before remarked, that Mr. White strongly 
 objects that Christ as an innocent man should suffer 
 to God-ward for human sins ; but it is every where in 
 Scripture so spoken of. St. Peter says : " He died the 
 just for tlie unjust." Mr. White will go so far as to 
 allow of His dying a human death ; but he will not 
 allow that the expiatory sacrifice of Christ was paid 
 in the human nature : in His passion and sufierings, 
 positive and peculiar, when God hid his face from 
 Him. On what authority he endeavours to distinguish 
 1 etween one and the other, {i. e., His death — and His 
 agony in Gethsemane and upon the Cross), he does not 
 say ; but certain it is, that our justification (Heb. 2 : 
 9-14) before God is ascribed to the death of Christ, 
 and our cleansing to His "blood." (1 John 1 : 7. 1 Pet. 
 1 : 18, 1.) Moreover, our justification is directly asso- 
 ciated with His Person as Messiah, and not with His^ 
 Divine personality. (Rom. 3 : 24, 2C : 5 : 15, 20.) 
 The teaching of Holy Scripture is most explicit, that 
 as it was man that sinned so it was man that suffered. 
 On such a representation, alone, could it commend itself 
 to our moral sense: Mr. White to the contrary not- 
 withstanding, and such is the clear teaching of our 
 just and only authority in this matter, even God's 
 Word, that as Adam sinned as our federal head, so the 
 
mm\ 
 
 AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 207 
 
 appre- 
 
 view of 
 
 juss the 
 
 capable 
 
 strongly 
 Id suffer 
 vhere in 
 died the 
 ar as to- 
 will not 
 ^as paid 
 ifferings, 
 ,ce from 
 tinguish 
 and His 
 ioes not 
 Heb. 2 : 
 ' Christ, 
 \ 1 Pet. 
 
 \y asso- 
 v'ith Hi* 
 15, 20.) 
 cit, that 
 suffered, 
 nd itself 
 
 iry not- 
 of our 
 
 1 God's 
 
 , so the 
 
 second Adam suffered, obeyed, atoned, rose, and 
 ascended for us. 
 
 I now desire to impress this fact upon the reader, 
 that the revealed will of God must be read with a 
 deep and prayerful recognition of dependence upon 
 its Divine author. That we are to study that Word 
 with the most sincere and fervent petitition to Him, 
 that He from whom alone comes that knowledge and 
 help which we need as sinners, may teach us to know 
 and incline us to do His will. That while we have a 
 firm persuasion, that each of His attributes, or moral 
 qualities, are inflexible and perfect; that they are — in 
 the Gospel, exhibited and extended to us — set forth in 
 the most perfect harmony. That while God is — as 
 God, — absolute and supreme; He is to be believingly 
 regarded as the "re warder of all such as diligently seek 
 Him." 
 
 (E.) — INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 
 
 " All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable,, 
 for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteous- 
 ness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto- 
 all good works."— ii. Tim. 2 : 16, 17. 
 
 The doctrine thus delivered to us in Holy Scripture, 
 concerning its place and authority in the minds of 
 men, in things pertaining to God, is impeached by Mr. 
 White, and others, his general sympathizo's. It is 
 true that Mr. White professes to ground his argument 
 concerning the doctrine of Future Punishment upon 
 Scripture testimony ; but, as I have already shewn, h& 
 
208 
 
 MODERN IJNIVERSALTSM 
 
 lias carried with him to such exegesis of Holy Scrip- 
 ture ; predilections, manifested in his own survey of 
 the scientific evidence, for the inferences which mate- 
 rialists have drawn therefrom, for their " philosophy, 
 falsely so called." But it is not alone evident by such 
 indirect proof that Mr. White's view of the Inspiration 
 •of the Scriptures is radically defective. 
 
 I shall now adduce certain passages from his book, 
 to manifest this fact more clearly. I shall first, how- 
 ever, premise, that his statement that " a few texts" 
 which he and his friends can dispose of in no other 
 way than by a direct attack upon the plenary Inspira- 
 tion of the Scriptures, in their several parts ; are not 
 the only groundwork of our belief in, and reception of, 
 the Catholic doctrine upon this subject. I have shewn, 
 I think, logically, scripturally, and fairly, beginning 
 with the original curse denounced against sin, and 
 pursuing the historical testimony of Scripture in a 
 general chronological order ; and have even given the 
 " crucial words," as used by St. John in his Gospel, 
 where Mr. White thinks "the fairest battle ground" of 
 the whole controversy may be found, the precedence in 
 such order of consideration ; and if, in such impartial 
 enquiry into the teaching of Holy Scripture, the general 
 scope of such teaching is against him; the "few texts," 
 which present a difficulty, in themselves considered, 
 even to his mind, should carry, — and they tvill, to the 
 minds of those to whom such previous evidence is 
 satisfactory and sufficient ; — a positive and decided con- 
 viction as to the harmony and unity of such Scripture 
 evidence as a whole. 
 
 iU 
 
AND MATERIALISAr. 
 
 200 
 
 '• Scrip- 
 rvey of 
 ti mate- 
 osophy, 
 3y such 
 miration 
 
 s book, 
 
 it, how- 
 
 ' texts" 
 
 o other 
 
 [nspira- 
 
 fire not 
 
 tion of, 
 
 shewn, 
 
 ^inning 
 
 in, and 
 
 in a 
 
 7en the 
 
 Gospel, 
 
 md" of 
 
 ence in 
 
 partial 
 
 general 
 
 texts," 
 
 idered, 
 
 to the 
 
 nee is 
 
 }d con- 
 
 'ipture 
 
 On page 422, he speaks of " an element of human 
 limitation and infirmity in its pages;" and on page 
 423 he says : " So long as men read it with minds 
 that recognize in every writer a mechanical instrument 
 through which ' the Holy Spirit' has written a certain 
 number of equally infallible 'texts,' it is impossible 
 they can allow themselves even to see the discrepancies 
 contradictions, and omissions of the minor sort which 
 have crept into the writings of some of the holy and 
 learned men who have ' taken in hand' to write for us 
 the history of the Redemption and the Redeemer. It 
 becomes a part of piety not to study phenomena so 
 unedifying, and so fatal to the preconceived theory of 
 what a ' Protestant Bible' ought to be." 
 
 None, I think, can fail to see the irony and })hilo- 
 sophic scorn that underlies these remarks. That 
 genuine, humble reverence for, and dependence upon 
 God's teaching in His Word, is wanting. But, again : 
 " The indefensible method, moreover, of citing the books 
 of the Bible as if some one had beheld an anfjel inditinof 
 them in succession, without consideration of their indi- 
 vidual history, of the degree of confidence due to the 
 fullness of each writer's information, of the positive 
 marks of defective hnoivledge or misconception in some,, 
 will serve the cause of truth no longer." So, also : " I 
 cannot conceal my conviction that the path of duty and 
 of wisdom in dealing with such documents as the 
 Gospels, demand this practical conclusion ; if they offer 
 to us any statements of Christ's doctrine by excess or 
 defect, conspicuously disagi-eeing with the facts, or with 
 the plain sense of His teaching, as recorded by the same,. 
 
210 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 I 
 
 4 
 
 fr-r [iP 
 
 or other historians, resolutely to refuse to allow such 
 exceptional misreports, or omissions, to interfere with 
 the truth which has been learned by a wider survey of 
 the evidence." (pp. 524-5.) That is to say, that if any 
 particular text, or texts of Holy Scripture does not or 
 do not agree with my ideas of the scope of Scripture 
 teaching on any given subject, said texts must go to 
 the wall. By such a procedure, man is at at liberty 
 to believe just such portions of Scripture as suits his 
 pui'pose. 
 
 Upon this principle Mr. Cox, author of " Salvator 
 Mundi," very quietly eliminates first one part, then 
 another, of Holy Scripture, as inadmissible in evidence, 
 and then proceeds to consider certain words in their 
 abstract meaning, and so to destroy all that specific 
 teaching which they derive from the context. 
 
 I am sorry to see that Dr. Farrar has some sympathy 
 with Mr. White in his view of Inspiration (see p. G3 
 ct seq. and excursus 5) ; and it is, I think, clear that 
 his (Canon Farrar's) general views concerning Future 
 Punishment must be traced to the fact that he argues 
 more from his own preconceived opinions than he does 
 from implicit regard to the Inspired Word. I must 
 make another quotation from Mr. White. " In a large 
 collection of books, the works of authors living in 
 different ages through fifteen centuries, at different 
 distances from God, enjoying different measures of that 
 afflatus which sometimes lifted up a prophet to the 
 third heaven, and sometimes only to the first, and some- 
 times did not lift him up from the earth at all, but left 
 him to obtain, like St. Luke, *a perfect understanding* 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 211 
 
 w such 
 re with 
 rvey of 
 b if any 
 
 not or 
 jripture 
 st go to 
 
 liberty 
 jits his 
 
 lalvator 
 't, then 
 I'idence, 
 in their 
 specific 
 
 inpathy 
 p. G3 
 ar that 
 Future 
 argues 
 le does 
 I must 
 a large 
 dng in 
 ifferent 
 of that 
 to the 
 I some- 
 3ut left 
 ending' 
 
 by personal enquiry, — it is vain to anticipate a uniform 
 terminology in doctrine, or an equal comi^rehension of 
 the trutJis of redemi>tion " (p. 425). 
 
 According to Mr, White, we may believe more or less 
 of luhich lurlter we please, and to that writer yield just 
 so much credence as suits us. 
 
 With such views of Revelation as Mr. White holds, 
 it is rather superfluous so far as he is concerned ; and 
 it may only be regarded, as in deference to a popular 
 prejudice, that he elaborates a system of Theology out 
 of the Scriptures at all. In order to justify himself 
 in throwing discredit on St. Matthew on account of 
 that decisive passage — ch. 26 : 46 — he proceeds to quote 
 an example of defect in St. Matthew's account of the 
 fall of Jerusalem and coming of Christ, as if that were 
 valid evidence against him, as a plenary inspired 
 witness. But Mr. White must know very well that 
 such an omission is not peculiar to St. Matthew; as, 
 upon the same subject, nothing is more frequent through 
 the Old and New Testaments, than to find that addi- 
 tional information is given in another book, in order 
 to give all that God sees Jit to reveal upon that subject. 
 
 Take, for instance, David's numbering Israel. Thus 
 1 Chron. 21 : 1, tells us : " Satan stood up against Israel, 
 and provoked David to number Israel " ; while 2 Sam. 
 24 : 1 tells us : " And again the anger of the Lord was 
 kindled against Israel, and He moved David against 
 them to say, go number Israel and Judah." Was the 
 author of the Book of Samuel an incompetent witness ? 
 By no means ! So of the many acts of our Saviour 
 recorded in the Gospels : we find frequent instances 
 
212 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 
 t 
 i 
 
 where additional information is given by one Apostle, 
 to that afforded by another. 
 
 Thus St. Matthew, recounting the call of Peter 
 (Matt. 4: 18), says: "Jesus, walking by the sea of 
 Galilee, saw two brethren," &c. St. Luke 5: 2, says: 
 *' And it came to pass as the people pressed upon Him 
 to hear the Word of God, he stood by the Lake of 
 Gennesaret." Is St. Matthew an incompetent witness, 
 and is his testimony either more or less inspired 
 because he does not speak of the people "pressing upon 
 Him to hear the Word of God ;" or because he does not 
 mention the fact of Jesus going into Peter's fishing 
 boat ? Any reason is better than none at all, if it 
 will serve the turn, it would appear, according to Mr. 
 White's philosophy. 
 
 Let us hear a little good, sober, sound teaching upon 
 Inspiration. 
 
 Mr. Lee, in his work on Inspiration, page 31, says: 
 " The various parts of Holy Sciipture, then, I would 
 again repeat, in order to be rightly understood, or 
 justly valued, must be regarded as the different mem- 
 bers of one vitally organized structure; each per- 
 forming its appropriate function, and each conveying 
 its own portion of the truth." He then proceeds to 
 speak of the two Gospels of St. Matthew and St. John: 
 one most serviceable a^'ainst the Gnostics, the other 
 against the Ebionite;? •— one omitting what the other 
 supplies. 
 
 What is true of the Gospels as a whole, is true of 
 their several accounts of particular truths contained 
 therein. 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 213 
 
 Apostle,. 
 
 if Peter 
 I sea of 
 2, says: 
 )on Him 
 Lake of 
 witness, 
 inspired 
 ing upon 
 does not 
 3 fishing 
 all, if it 
 or to Mr. 
 
 o 
 
 ing upon 
 
 31, says: 
 I would 
 jtood, or 
 nt mem- 
 ich per- 
 mveying 
 ►ceeds to 
 5t. John: 
 he other 
 le other 
 
 s true of 
 ontained 
 
 With regard to that vain distinction which Mr. White 
 attempts to draw between the degrees of knowledge 
 and of afflatus, &c., in the several writers; I will quote 
 again from the same sound and learned theologian^ 
 p. 41 : "I repeat, in whatever degree or manner, this 
 actuation by the Holy Spirit may have been exercised : 
 for it should never be forgotten that the real question 
 with which our enquiry is concerned is the residt of 
 this Divine influence, as presented to us in the Holy 
 Scriptures, not the manner according to which it has 
 pleased God that this result should be attained. Moses 
 unquestionably received more abundant tokens of the 
 Divine favour than Ezra or Nehemiah, or the author 
 of the Book of Chroni.^es; but this does not render 
 that element of the Bible, in composing which Moses 
 was the agent, one whit more true or more accurate in 
 its details than the writings of the others. 
 
 The disciple whom Jesus loved, and who reclined 
 upon His bosom, enjoyed far higher personal privileges 
 than St. Mark or St. Luke; but still this affection of 
 his Divine Master, does not render St. John's Gospel in 
 one single feature, a more trustworthy vehicle of Divine 
 truth which it c(mveys, than the records of those who 
 who were but companions of the Apostles." 
 
 So again: "The opinion that the subject matter 
 alone of the Bible proceeded from the Holy Spirit 
 while its language was left to the unaided choice of 
 the various writers, amounts to that fantastic notion 
 which is the grand fallacy of many theories of Inspira- 
 tion; namely, that two different spiritual agencies were 
 in operation, one of which produced the phraseology in 
 29 
 
214 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 ■■■ f 
 
 m 
 
 i 
 
 '4 
 
 its outward form, while the other created within the 
 soul the conceptions and thoughts of which such phrase- 
 ology was the expression. The Holy Spmt, on the 
 contrary, as the productive principle, embraces the 
 entire activity of those whom He inspires, rendering 
 their language the Word of God. (1 Thes. 2: 13.) 
 The entire substance and form of Scripture, whether 
 resxdting from revelation or natural knowledge, are 
 thus blended together in one harmonious whole : direct 
 communications of religious truth, as well as the infer- 
 ences which the Sacred Writers adduced therefrom ; the 
 lessons to be learned, whether from exhibitions of 
 miraculous power, or from the facts of histoiy; such 
 matters, together with all the collateral details of 
 Scripture, have been assimilated into one homo- 
 geneouos rganization by the vital energy of the Spirit." 
 P. 45. 
 
 This is a sound and rational account of Inspiration. 
 It is not the " mechanical theory," which regards the 
 man's faculties as inert, and bearing no part in the work, 
 but it makes the composition which we call " the Bible;" 
 whether " a few texts," or a whole book, or many books ; 
 to be infallibly, truly and perfectly the Word of God : a 
 Divine communication, perfectly and entirely reliable, 
 and, to Christians, of unquestioned authority, as an 
 absolute rule of truth, in things pertaining to God. 
 Accepting such premisses as true with regard to inspi- 
 ration, one " text," if belonging to the Inspired canon, 
 and clear in its testimonj'^, would be valid evidence ; 
 and one such text against Mr. White's theory, ought 
 to make him pause and consider whether he and his 
 
 iii (f 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 215 
 
 ;hin the 
 phrase- 
 oa the 
 ces the 
 ndering 
 
 2: 13.) 
 whether 
 Ige, are 
 1 : direct 
 e infer- 
 Dm ; the 
 ions of 
 y; such 
 tails of 
 
 homo- 
 Spirit." 
 
 ►iration. 
 rds the 
 e work, 
 Bible;" 
 books ; 
 God: a 
 eliable, 
 
 as an 
 .0 God. 
 ) inspi- 
 
 canon, 
 dence ; 
 
 ought 
 lid his 
 
 Theology may not be wrong : but much more, should 
 several of such texts, which he cannot satisfactorily, 
 even to his own mind, dispose of, save by depreciating 
 the authority of Inspiration. 
 
 Such a fact, however, to every one who holds the 
 Bible to be a perfect rule of faith and morals — the fact 
 that the ground of his faith is sought to be undermined 
 by the writer of any book; will be, to him a sufficient 
 and conclusive argument against it, and the particular 
 theory or theories which it seeks to advance. Moreover, 
 such a principle, as to the Word of God, if allowed to 
 operate, must soon manifest its destructive character. 
 " Their word will eat as doth a canker," and "increase 
 to more ungodliness." (2 Tim. 2 : 16, 17). 
 
 (f.) Prayers for the Dead. 
 
 This is the last of those great doctrinal issues which 
 I have selected for notice, as arising out of this 
 theodicy; and in which, Mr. White and his friends 
 would make radical changes in the teaching of the 
 Church. In this last, however, it most plainly and 
 practically asserts its distinctive character. Well may 
 Professor Gracey in his most sound, analytical and 
 scathing criticism of Canon Farrar's volume, say as he 
 does: " Many surprising antitheses are brought about 
 in the course of the developement of the theme, but 
 none more surprising than that Canon Farrar ha.s pro- 
 vided a common meeting place for High Churchmen, 
 and Low Churchmen, and that meeting p^-^ce is pur- 
 p'.tory — the High[_Churchman's only complaint of the 
 
w 
 
 216 
 
 MODERN UNIVEESALISM 
 
 m 
 
 j.4 
 
 fKWiaB 
 
 Canon being that he does not go deep enough and far 
 enough." The remark is equally applicable in relation 
 to both hypotheses propounded concerning Future 
 Punishment, in their departure from the teachings of 
 Holy Scripture, and from the orthodox belief. Universal- 
 ists and Materialists find a meeting place: — and that 
 meeting place is purgatory. 
 
 Both agree in a probation and purgation after 
 death, and it would appear also, both of the righteous 
 and the wicked. So at least of Mr. Heard and Mr. 
 Cox ; so also, Professor Plumptre, and Canon Farrar 
 most distinctly intimate to us their belief in a 
 Purgatory. Canon Farrar says that our Reformers only 
 rejected Purgatory "in the rough." Professor Plumptic 
 recognizes with thankfulness the fact that Mr. "White 
 admits agencies leading to repentance and reformation 
 extending beyond the present life: (Vision of the 
 Future p. IG,) and Professor Mayor says: " Of all the 
 writers, (i. e., commenting on Canon Farrar's book,) Dr. 
 Allen is, I think the only one except Mr. Arthur and 
 Professor Gracey, who regards the suggestion of a 
 continued probation in any form, as inadmissible, 
 notwithstanding the strongest predisposition to opti- 
 mist views." (Canon Farrar's answer to his Critics, 
 p. 31.) Here is the premiss which all the learning or 
 •' new learning " of the heterodox party lays down, 
 but which only Dr. Littledale is ready, at once to press 
 to its proper conclusion. A writer in " Church Bells," 
 the Editor of which, evidently favours the modem 
 Eschatology, prefers to leave the question of " Prayer 
 for the departed," an " open question," at present, and 
 
 ■ itj 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 217 
 
 s 
 
 merely takes the negative ground, {pro teiin. no doubt,) 
 that such prayer, " though not commanded is not for- 
 forbidien." Dr. Littledale, complains that Canon 
 Farrar does not at once proceed to apply the premiss 
 which he has laid down, as to probation in the inter- 
 mediate state. He says " Dr. Farrar, while most use- 
 fully drawing attention to the unfamiliar fact, that the 
 Jewish Church has no tradition whatever in favour of 
 endless punishment, has failed to group visibly with it, 
 that other fact, that Prayers for the Dead passed with- 
 out break from Judaism into Christianity." (Future 
 Punishment p. 61) I do not stop to controvert the 
 position here taken, I will merely say that the facts 
 are unproved; but while Dr. Littledale, true to his 
 theological tenets, argues chiefly from the scholastic, 
 and traditional stand point ; he also infers that such 
 position is, as he considers, also scripturally and tlicre- 
 fore logically, as well as theologically, true. Here is 
 our court of appeal : " To the Law and to the Tes- 
 timony." We are willing to take Primitive, or Refor- 
 mation Theology, for what it is properly worth ; but 
 we test both in this crucible ; w^e weigh both in this 
 balance. It is justly said by the learned Bingham in 
 his Antiquities of the Church, (Book 15 ch. 3, sec. 15 ;) 
 r.ad also by Bishop Jewel and other of the Reformers, 
 "Sn';iish and Continental, tha^t the primitive Chris- 
 tians' remembrance of the departed faithful, was of a 
 different character from the Romish worship, consisting 
 of prayers for them and prayers to them ; yet although 
 this may be said by way of defence and mitigation, it 
 does not do away with the just relation of their 
 
218 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM. 
 
 
 H 
 
 practice, to the facts of Biblical teaching and Biblical 
 theology.* 
 
 The Church of the Reformation, freed from the ante- 
 cedents of its associations and the influence of long 
 iiges of Papal superstition ; the theology of Protes- 
 tantism, as » system of Homiletic Truth, and contra- 
 distinguished from Sacramental, or what is now 
 technically called "Catholic" Theology, knew nothing, 
 knows nothing, in the matter of faith and morals, to be 
 alloived, much less required of men, that cannot be 
 cL3arly authorized and taught by Holy Scripture. The 
 watch- word, . he battle-cry of this controversy, and 
 of the conflict v ich all see must come, will be the 
 words af the great Chillingworth : " The Bible, and the 
 Bible alone is the religion of Protestants." For this 
 reason, I am not careful to consider at any length the 
 ecclesiastical, or traditional aspect of this matter. It 
 suffices for us that all the scope of Scripture is against 
 the idea of prayer for the dead. It rests upon no other 
 basis than that of philosophical speculation, or of a 
 corrupted Christianity. 
 
 If it is reasonable, because Scriptural, to say that 
 the righteous are Missionaries in Hades to the wicked. 
 
 * I quote the following from Bishop Jewel, as expressing the mind 
 of our Reformers, and their position with respect to authority for 
 the practice. Such authority they would accept, only from Holy 
 Scripture. 
 
 " Prayer for the dead, is none of those articles that M. Harding 
 hath taken in hand to prove. And therefore as his manner is, he 
 sheweth us cue thing for another. This kind of prayer althoush it 
 be mere superstition, and utterly without warrant of God's Word, 
 yet I confess it was manywheres received and used, both in Gregory's 
 time and long before, and is avouched of Gregory by a number of 
 vain and childish fables." (Jewel p. 743). 
 
 Alii, 
 
Biblical 
 
 lie ante- 
 of long- 
 Protes- 
 contra- 
 is now 
 lothing. 
 Is, to be 
 nnot be 
 e. The 
 rsy, and 
 be the 
 and the 
 'or this 
 gth the 
 :er. It 
 against 
 o other 
 )r of a 
 
 ly that 
 vieked. 
 
 he mind 
 jrity for 
 m Holy 
 
 Harding 
 er is, he 
 lough it 
 Word, 
 reeory's 
 mber of 
 
 >IVD MATERIALISM. 
 
 219 
 
 and are there co-workers with Christ in the conversion 
 of the wicked dead, as Mr. Jukes and Mr. Cox tell us, 
 and Mr. White and Mr. Heard, together with Dr. 
 Farrar, Professor Plumptre and Professor Jellett allow ; 
 then, it may be reasonably allowable and reconcileable 
 with Scripture, not only to pray for them, seeing that 
 they are, hypothetically, engaged in a pious work (and 
 as Mr. Heard and Mr. Cox, with Mr. Jukes, supposes 
 that they are at the same time being " salted with 
 fire," or themselves undergoing a purgative or sancti- 
 fying process) ; but, in consideration of their position of 
 dignity it might, so, possibly be allowable to pray to 
 them. If, however, their position as to probation in 
 Hades is an unscriptural, and an untenable one ; then 
 the theory and practice which they would introduce, is 
 untenable and unscriptural too. 
 
 Moreover, and it is this, chiefly, that I would draw 
 attention to, there is, in principle and in practice actu- 
 ally no dividing line, between such doctrine, in its view 
 of the intermediate state — and all the monstrous imno- 
 sitions and flagrant superstitions, of that horrible and 
 anti-christian system, which has obtained for the 
 Church of Rome, the title of " Mother of Harlots and 
 the abominations of the Earth," as its Divinely- 
 appointed and proper cognomen. Such a considera- 
 tion, in view of all the history of the past, and of the 
 solemn utterances of Inspiration, may well suggest to 
 the disciples and teachers of the modern school of 
 Eschatology, to re-examine by the Divine Word, the 
 foundation on which it rests. If we are to have pur- 
 gatory and prayers for the dead as integral parts of 
 
i 
 
 
 
 220 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 our theologial system ; do we not thereby allow that 
 the claims of the Roman Pontiff have cogency and 
 coherence ? 
 
 Yes ! That system is indeed homogeneous in all its 
 parts, and self-consistent ; and in adopting any of its 
 conclusions, we must in consistency and in reason, 
 adopt the ap'^rj, and premiss on which they depend. 
 The controversy now pending is a controversy concern- 
 ing first principles, doctrinally as well as practically. 
 It is not merely a question of Romanism, or Protestant- 
 ism, Sacramentalism, or Homiletical Truth, Philosophy, 
 or Revelation. It is not even one of superstition, or 
 faith in the revealed supernatural ; but it is a ques- 
 of Theism or Atheism, under the form of Christ, or 
 Anti-Christ. 
 
 This, ;.s I Relieve, is a fair statement of the issue 
 before us : It remains to be asked of all who hold to 
 " the faith once delivered to the saints," in view of the 
 internal dissensions and sectarian differences, which 
 make much of the less, and separate between brethren 
 in the faith of a common Lord, of an Inspired Reve- 
 lation of Him, and of a Covenanted Salvation : " What 
 are you going to do, brethren, what are you going 
 to dor 
 
 ■I 
 
 il '^1 
 
 • iiH, 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 221 
 
 3W that 
 cy and 
 
 1 all its 
 y of its 
 reason, 
 depend, 
 oncem- 
 [itically. 
 testant- 
 osophy, 
 tion, or 
 a ques- 
 uist, or 
 
 le issue 
 
 hold to 
 
 of the 
 
 which 
 
 rethren 
 
 Reve- 
 
 What 
 
 going 
 
 ■1 
 
 A COMPARATIVE VIEW OF UNIVERSALISM 
 AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 It will, I think, be useful to compare the two great 
 departures from the doctrine of Holy Scripture with 
 respect to Future Punishment. A few words may 
 suffice with respect to each of the salient features of 
 difference. Their unity of origin it is not difficult to 
 trace. It is philosophic perplexity with reference to 
 the Divine Word and its teachings. It is found in a 
 demand, in order to faith, which is not absolutely 
 refused, that such Revelation as we have in the Bible, 
 shall be v^oable of philosophic demonstration. Mr. 
 Cox demands liberty to " interpret it by his reason and 
 conscience." So Mr. White. It is more or less plainly 
 asserted, by all who advocate the modern eschatologies. 
 Their unity of origin, therefore, is found in philosophic 
 rationalism : " oppositions of science falsely so called." 
 
 Their first divergence is found with respect to man's 
 ontological qualities. Universalists receive the long 
 €stablished belief of the immortality of the soul ; a 
 truth which, as a foundation, underlies both Natural 
 and Revealed Religion. 
 
 Materialists most directly and plainly support, as they 
 require, the hypothesis of speculative scientism, and 
 adopt, in whole, or in part, the monstrous assertions of 
 Dai-win, Huxley and Tyndal, and trace in man's onto- 
 logical constitution a development from, or a similarity 
 to, that of the brute creation. Materialism, pure and 
 30 
 

 222 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 simple, has the merit and the glory, of claiming for 
 man an affinity with the baboon. 
 
 The Christadelphians, connect in their doctrine, 
 somewhat the same elements as the Docetae attempted 
 to do, in primitive times. Such a conglomeration of 
 heterogeneous elements, at least affords to us this 
 instruction : viz., How subtle and how malignant is 
 the operation of Original Sin ! 
 
 The Christadelphian hypothesis, although it does 
 fondly, and with singular audacity, claim affinity with 
 Scripture truth ; yet, affords so little ground for human 
 confidence, notwithstanding the great blindness of the 
 natural mind, and the alienation of the heart from 
 God ; that, as a system, I have not deemed it necessary 
 to be considered. Logically and consistently, it holds 
 to the annihilation of the wicked at death. To them, 
 there is no resurrection. The theory of conditional 
 immortality is a modified form of materialism. The 
 " tri-partite nature of man," is its foundation. Man 
 as an animal, composed of body and soul, is developed 
 from the brute creation. 
 
 But their saving clause, to prevent human degrada- 
 tion altogether, is found in their assertion of a third 
 quality ; but what is the proper name for it in the 
 original, 'rrvevfia, or yjruxp^:, mi* or tDS5. they are not 
 
 agreed ; nor are they likely to be. 
 
 This, so far as its Scripture authority is concerned, 
 is a radical flaw. 
 
 Further, — from its doctrinal results — of the Tri- 
 partite theory, the adage may apply, "The remedy is 
 worse than the disease." 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 22a 
 
 ming for 
 
 doctrine, 
 ittempted 
 Bration of 
 » us this 
 ignant is 
 
 I it does 
 nity with 
 3r human 
 iss of the 
 ;art from 
 necessary 
 '■j it holds 
 To them, 
 nditional 
 3m. The 
 m. Man 
 eveloped 
 
 degrada- 
 f a third 
 it in the 
 are not 
 
 mcerned, 
 
 the Tri- 
 jmedy is 
 
 Conditional Immortality asserts a resurrection of the 
 wicked, and an existence of one part of man in an 
 intermediate state; but whether irvev/xa, or ylrvxo<i, the 
 spirit, or the soul, the conscience or God-consciousness,, 
 or, the soul as supposed to be represented by the middle 
 part of man's nature, or being, does not appear. Here, 
 too, they are involved in philosophical, as well as in 
 Scripture difficulty. Universalists, as they hold the 
 immortality of the soul, arc in no such difficulty. They 
 hold to a resurrection, both of the righteous and the 
 wicked. Yet it would appear that Mr. Cox, irrespective 
 of this, holds to the new scientific " discoveries;" for 
 he says, (p. 222), " Nor does it, i. e., Universal Salva- 
 tion, less accord with the demands of Science, than 
 with the dictates of Reason and the Moral Sense ; for 
 it carries on the evolution of the human race throuf;h 
 all the ages to come." I have italicized the word 
 " evolution." 
 
 There is yet one point of difference between Modern 
 Universalists and Materialisis ; which, while it may be 
 regarded as a necessary sequence from their respective 
 theories, is also one of great consequence to the causfr 
 of Biblical truth, and is specially worthy to be noted. 
 Universalism, if it does not ignore, it certainly depreci- 
 ates the great fact of Satanic agency in the world, and 
 the intimate and constant influence of such agency upon 
 mankind, from the beginning of their temptation in 
 Eden. Human probation is pervaded by this influence, 
 as well as by that of the creature, and by that of sin : 
 The world, the flesh, and the devil, are a trinity of evil, 
 and a trinity in unity. As God's revelation is progressive. 
 

 524 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 i'i 
 
 and as the revealed history of the human race is 
 climacteric, in the assertion of a dualism of character 
 and condition; so, the fact and the character of Satanic 
 agency, is not only a part of such Revelation, ant; of 
 such History; but from ^♦s very character, forms a 
 corroborative and unanswerable argument for the 
 finality of man's condition being fixed, at death: so 
 Also, for the confinement of salvation to a imrt of the 
 human family, in whose character and conduct here, 
 during moral trial, is found a radical and chosen 
 separation from moral evil, as it is bound up with 
 Satan's apostacy. From such connection, as we have 
 no ground in Revelation to look for Satan's reclama- 
 tion, and so for his forgiveness; we have no ground to 
 look for such reclamation in those who have chosen his 
 ways; and this is actually the case with all the 
 unsanctified, albeit, with lesser degrees of malevolence 
 in some cases, as with lesser degrees of light: The 
 princij[)le is yet the same, during that period of probation, 
 longer or shorter, which God has in His wisdom, assigned 
 to each. 
 
 This is a sufficiently conclusive argument against 
 Universal Salvation. 
 
 So also, as the leading feature of God's government 
 ■of His creatures, is reward or punishment by character, 
 i. e. natural rewards and punishments, as a distinctive 
 and fundamental principle; so, that principle, in itself 
 considered, and with cumulative force of reason, when 
 man's connection, under trial, with Satan and his 
 influence, is duly weighed; does utterly disallow, that 
 this principle, should in one case, culminate according 
 
 k Mi 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 225 
 
 ,n race is 
 
 character 
 of Satanic 
 3n, ant' of 
 ', forms a 
 } for the 
 
 death: so 
 cirt of the 
 luct here, 
 id chosen 
 I up with 
 3 we have 
 5 reclama- 
 ground to 
 chosen his 
 h all the 
 ilevolence 
 
 ght: The 
 probation, 
 
 , assigned 
 
 it against 
 
 to its character, in the blessedness of the righteous man; 
 and while the happiness of one, should be a happiness 
 of character, attained under moral law, and under 
 such law, — as its law of choice, — so, for ever blessed ; 
 and, that the punishment of the other class under a 
 similar moral law of trial, matured and developed, by 
 a law of its own choice, should be punished, not by a 
 moral, but by a physical law, under which, its being, 
 both physical and moral ; (for so we must term it, 
 although they will not allow that the wicked have 
 a spirit, properly considered, save as animals have;) 
 must perish, and for ever cease to be. 
 
 Thus, while the force derived from the fact of Satanic 
 agency and influence, is productive of a principle of 
 eternal punishment in the case of the wicked, and 
 so essentially diverges from Universalism ; yet, as it 
 involves a principle by which sound logic and the 
 teaching of Holy Scripture is alike contravened ; it, 
 as well as the contrary theory, is unworthy of man's 
 acceptance : — as a rational being, as a Theist, or as a 
 consistent believer, in the plenary inspiration, and 
 authority of the Bible.* 
 
 vernment 
 character, 
 istinctive 
 , in itself 
 on, when 
 
 and his 
 ow, that 
 
 cording 
 
 * Here is Mr. White's statement as to progressive development of 
 the doctrine of Satanic agency. (P. 142, Life in Christ.) 
 
 "The further back you go in Hebrew history, the earlier the epochs 
 to which the Hebrew books belong, the fainter and dimmer is the 
 character of the references to the agency of evil spirits." 
 
 " The nearer you advance towards the maturity of Jewish thought 
 when it was strongly influenced by Hellenic culture " — " the more 
 pronounced and dreadful becomes the doctrine of ■ >".l spiritual 
 agency." 
 
 " In the teaching of Christ and His Apostles, you find it flaming 
 out like lightning whose ' flash hangs durable in heaven.' " 
 
 See now how his argument recoils upon himself. 
 
1^ 
 
 w 
 
 
 $ 
 
 
 
 
 :ff' 
 
 1 
 
 I'-f ■ 
 
 
 ^■M" 
 
 
 ■> * 
 
 ' 
 
 .)'•■ 
 
 
 ni 
 
 
 •, ). 
 
 
 t{ 
 
 
 "l / 
 
 
 ■226 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 ij--,j 
 
 Ki 
 
 
 ■i:j 
 
 But we now come to a point of agreement ; and by 
 these occasional links by which they attach themselves, 
 we see that there is a practical co-operation : Unity in 
 diversity, unity in origin, unity in practical working, 
 unity in result. 
 
 The agreement referred to, is found in purgatorial 
 discipline,in the intermediate state. They are agreed as 
 to this. Both Universalists and Materialists ' this 
 to be true, of the righteous and of the wicked. Mr. 
 Cox says, " The reward of the righteous is at once 
 retributive and perfecting, the punishment of the 
 unrighteous is at once retributive and remedial." P. 202. 
 But the result at last, so far as Scripture is concerned, 
 is, that it is broken, and that violence is done to its 
 testimony, by both parties, as in the formulation of the 
 several theories ; while, as the distinctive features of 
 each, as a theory of Eschatology is concerned ; the one 
 teaches the destruction or annihilation of the wicked ; 
 the other, their ultimate renewal and salvatio 
 
 Buu, now let us look at the collateral issues censing 
 out of these several systems of Eschatology, in relation 
 to the great cardinal doctrines of the Gospel, and their 
 
 * 
 
 "We do not learn that any passages, except these thr.^e, (i. e., 
 Isaiah 33 : 14, 66 : 24, Daniel 12 : 2), are cited from the Old Tt stament 
 writings, in support of the modern (?) doctrines " — "During certainly 
 five, and possibly six or eight thousand years, preceding the advent 
 of Christ, there was an innumerable race of sinful creatures on earth, 
 abandoned for the most part to hereditary superstitions, for the most 
 part unable to read or think clearly, and nearly at the mercy of 
 their kings and priests. Now all these seemingly mortal creatures, 
 were all immortal, &c., &c., and liable to everlasting miser jf in hell :" 
 (Life in Christ, p. 189), ergo the doctrine of Orthodoxy is not true ! 
 But what of the Revelation of Satanic agency''? Is it not true ? By 
 no means ! Mr. White admits that it is. 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 227 
 
 ; and by 
 emselves, 
 Unity in 
 working, 
 
 irgatorial 
 
 agreed as 
 
 " ' this 
 
 :ea. Mr. 
 
 i at once 
 
 i of the 
 
 " P. 202. 
 
 oncerned, 
 
 )ne to its 
 
 on of the 
 
 atures of 
 
 the one 
 
 vicked ; 
 
 relation 
 md their 
 
 ir-^e, (t. e., 
 Tt stament 
 y certainly 
 he advent 
 on earth, 
 r the most 
 mercy of 
 creatures, 
 I in heU :" 
 not true! 
 rue ? By 
 
 sources and connections. First of Natural Theology : 
 God in Nature. Here God's nature and character is 
 misrepresented and distorted from the facts of such 
 Theology, and so prejudiced : notably, by Materialists, 
 and, with allowance, of Universalists ; if we take Mr. 
 Cox's statement as a specimen. 
 
 With regard to Natural Religion, there is unmis- 
 takeable agreement. The very name of it is offensive 
 to Mr. Heard. • The intuitions of our moral nature, 
 in regard to responsibility, future life, and future 
 judgment, are scouted as untenable by those who hold 
 to Materialism ; and they are quite in accord with 
 speculative scientists. 
 
 Mr. White is constrained to give some honour " to 
 the voice within the heart," but it is here constraint, 
 and is utterly at variance with his "Theodicy." Vainly 
 also, do Universalists also strive to maintain, that 
 Natural Religion is not against them, and that Bishop 
 Butler leaves room for new discoveries, in Scripture, 
 as well as in science. 
 
 Their pleading is vain, concerning "reason and 
 conscience;" and the latter faculty is much scandalized 
 
 * Mr. Heard says, (p. 23), "We must, however, in limine, protest 
 against the so-called syatem of natural religion. Though man may, 
 by his unaided reason, spell out one, or even two of these truths 
 singly, yet he certainly cannot put them together, he certainly cannot 
 reach even that elementary stage of faith spoken of in Heb. 10 : 6, 
 ' For he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is 
 a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him. ' " 
 
 He says, (p. 32), that the Orthodox Theology in endorsing Natural 
 Religion, and holding to the immortality of the soul, does "under- 
 prop the latter by scholastic argument !" Also, that Bishop Butler's 
 first chapter upon Natural Religion, " might be cut out, leaving the 
 rest of his work stronger for the rejection of this as the weakest 
 point 1" 
 
(ff-M. 
 
 ' I 
 
 i 
 
 228 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 i 
 
 by the connection they would seek to drag it into, as it 
 repudiates so rationalistic a companion, if its voice may 
 be allowed to be heard. They are united in doing 
 violence to Natural Religion, although the reception of 
 the immortality of the soul as a part of their system 
 must give a force and cogency to its claims in the 
 eyes of Universalists, which Mr, Heard and his school 
 will by no means allow. So, they theoretically differ 
 and diverge from each other; while practically, Natural 
 Religion, God's witness in the human heart and con- 
 science, is depreciated or damaged in its character,^ 
 force and authority. 
 
 We now pass on to Revealed Truths as given to us 
 in Holy Scripture. It has been shewn at large, how 
 both Materialists and Universalists, dishonour and 
 depreciate the character and authority of Revelation. 
 I only notice the fact, now, of their agreement in so 
 doing. 
 
 So in its interpretation, it is either distorted by 
 rigid literalism, or by rigid allegorizing, or else, more 
 palpably and culpably, as with equal violence to sound 
 reason, wrested from its just connection, and, I am 
 constrained to say, however severe it mpy be judged 
 to be, " handled deceitfully." I will now, as briefly 
 as I may, enumerate the doctrinal agreements of the 
 two systems. The character of God, is alike limited, 
 humanized, or blasphemed, (can we say less ?) by both 
 parties. 
 
 The nature of Original Sin, as stated in the Holy 
 Scriptures, is quite undermined, and the foundation laid 
 for mere philosophical morality. 
 
 ;illr 
 
into, as it 
 voice may 
 in doing 
 jception of 
 ir system^ 
 US in the 
 his school 
 jally differ 
 y, Natural 
 b and con- 
 character^ 
 
 iven to us 
 large, how 
 mour and 
 Revelation, 
 [lent in so 
 
 torted by 
 else, more 
 i to sound 
 ,nd, I am 
 e judged 
 as briefly 
 ts of the 
 e limited, 
 ) by both 
 
 the Holy 
 lation laid 
 
 AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 229 
 
 Spiritual Regeneration by the Holy Ghost is, as a 
 truth of Revelation, either transfen-ed to an ontological 
 change, or greatly depreciated as to its character as a 
 pre-requisite for holiness here, and heaven hereafter. 
 In like manner the Atonement of the blessed Saviour 
 is either misrepresented as to its character, greatly 
 depreciated as to its value, or made indirectly avail- 
 able to all, instead of those who now and here believe 
 upon Him, by means of a compulsory purgatorial 
 discipline, resulting in their ultimate coercion : thus 
 invalidating or limiting the declaration of Holy Scrip- 
 ture, that " salvation is through grace by faith," and 
 ** not of ourselves." 
 
 The culminating point, however, is purgatory, and 
 prayers for the dead. Here, in their agreement upon 
 these subjects, the modern Univei-salists and Materialists 
 have fully demonstrated their Anti-Christian chaiacter. 
 
 In so teaching, they actually place themselves in the 
 position of that system, of which the voice of the 
 Supreme Judge, speaking of her coming and awful 
 judgment, says : '* Come out of her my people, that ye 
 be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of 
 her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, 
 and God hath remembered her iniquities." (Rev. 18:4.) 
 
 31 
 

 230 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 THE MODERN VIA MEDIA, AS REPRESENTED 
 
 BY PROF. BIRKS. 
 
 if 
 
 '4 
 
 i 
 
 1 r 
 
 In the previous chapter, I have endeavoured to 
 compare the systems of Universalism, and Materialism, 
 with each other ; and to shew by such a summary of 
 their teaching, the relation which they bear to each 
 other, and to the teaching of Holy Scripture. 
 
 Our view of the present state of this ^'^'^.t contro- 
 versy, would not be complete, did we not h.. o take into 
 consideration another theory : not very clearly stated 
 by any one, yet with most plainness by Prof. Birks ; 
 who rejects the teachings of orthodoxy, in its integrity, 
 and in one of its essential features. 
 
 He equally disclaims both Universalism and Mate- 
 rialism : how far he is in unison with the former, I will 
 endeavour to shew. Be it first remarked, that Canon 
 Farrar, also rejects Universalism and Materialism. Yet 
 we cannot distinguish between his teaching and Univer- 
 salism. So, of Prof. Plumptre, and, I imagine, of 
 Prof. Mayor. 
 
 I suspect that Prof. Birks's theory, in its coherency, 
 as it involves a theodicy of its own, will be found to 
 include the above-named gentlemen in the same cate- 
 gory, although their ideas are but negatively expressed.* 
 
 * Canon Farrar says (p. 64, Answer to his Critics) ' ' The hope of 
 viUigatio, the refritjeria, the remissions, which God may grant nere- 
 after, the cessation of a maddening agony and a gnawing remorse, is 
 surely a very different thing from the assertion that all sinners will 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 231 
 
 ENTED 
 
 oured to 
 
 ierialism, 
 
 imary of 
 
 to each 
 
 t contro- 
 take into 
 ly stated 
 f. Birks ; 
 integrity, 
 
 nd Mate- 
 er, I will 
 Canon 
 sm. Yet 
 Univer- 
 igine, of 
 
 lerency, 
 found to 
 ,me cate- 
 pressed.* 
 
 he hope of 
 {rant nere- 
 remorse, is 
 inners will 
 
 In the notes upon several important topics involved 
 in this discussion, I shall have occasion to refer more 
 particularly to Prof. Birks's teaching ; I shall, here, but 
 summarize and trace his system to its Theological and 
 Scripture basis. The procuring cause of his theory, is 
 found, chiefly, in his view of the nature and efficacy of 
 the atonement of Christ ; but naturally, in order to its 
 logical consistency, he traces such cause further back. 
 The atonement of Christ, must of course have for 
 its basis, as a remedy for man's sin, the fact of man's 
 need. The character of that need, and its extent, must 
 be a foundation stone in any system of Theology. Mr. 
 Birks finds in man, philosophically considered, an onto- 
 logical capability of Redemption. He says : (Difficulties 
 of Belief, p. 94-) " It is equally clear, that the whole 
 economy of man's redemption rests entirely upon the 
 duality of his being." This is a part of his chapter on 
 the creation and fall of man. 
 
 It is a philosophical endeavour to solve a problem of 
 God's moral government, in the case of man, as compared 
 with angels. He regards the simplicity of the being of 
 Angels as an ontological bar to the possibility of their 
 recovery: (Difficulties of Belief, p. 191) but man was 
 created weaker, in order that he might be redeemed. 
 This, of course, is mere speculative assumption, and is 
 of little moment, save as we consider what relation it 
 
 ultimately be admitted to the beatitude of Heaven — to those joys 
 which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor hath it entered into the 
 heart of man to conceive." The only difference it would appear, that 
 there is, at present, between Mr. Birks and Canon Farrar, is this : 
 the former does not hold probation in Hades, as does Canon Farrar. 
 
232 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 m 
 -:■% 
 
 s 
 
 n 
 
 bears to a Theological system and superstructure. He 
 assumes therefrom, that man was created; — that the first 
 pair were so created; — that they were, with all their 
 posterity, overshadowed by a provision of redeeming 
 grace, even before they fell: even as he holds that the 
 atonement has a relative eflficacy, for the good of all 
 men, whether they believe in it, or not; That their 
 connection with Christ, as the federal head of the race, 
 forgives the debt of sin, although it does not, without 
 faith, cure the disease: That the curse of the Law is 
 removed, but the curse of the Gospel remains. So, 
 "He is the saviour of all men." "All men" are still 
 "his brethren." Therefore, their punishment has still 
 relation to that fact. 
 
 He makes that punishment indeed, to be " eternal :'*^ 
 but it is rather a negative, that a positive punishment. 
 They will not, he thinks, be finally restored and for- 
 given: but it will be a privative punishment of the loss 
 of God's favour, which they, having merited, will pro- 
 bably finally acquiesce in. 
 
 Yet that this even, will be eternal, he is not quite 
 persuaded, as he says, (Vision of the Future, p. 75.) It 
 will be " a loss of the beatific vision, perhaps for ever." 
 Thus, it is, according to Mr. Birks, simply a punishment 
 of character only. This is the main part of his theory. 
 It has however some reference to the doctrine of Original 
 Sin, and is there also, open to grave exception. He 
 says (Ways of God, p. 164) when treating of Regenera- 
 tion; "But since it is always conceivable that the 
 aversion and inattention, might have been more total, 
 and the obstinacy in evil, greater and more stubborn ; 
 
 i. 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 233 
 
 ire. He 
 the first 
 ill their 
 deeming 
 bhat the 
 >d of all 
 lat their 
 the race, 
 without 
 ) Law is 
 :ns. So, 
 are still 
 has still 
 
 jternal :"^ 
 
 ishment. 
 
 and for- 
 
 ihe loss 
 
 ill pro- 
 
 )t quite 
 75.) It 
 )r ever." 
 ishment 
 theory. 
 Original 
 H. He 
 genera- 
 lat the 
 e total, 
 ibborn ;. 
 
 the fact of the change, always must involve a kind of 
 negative goodness, in the want of a greater possible 
 degree of iniquity, which maintains for it a really moral 
 character, and justifies the immense results that are 
 tsuspended upon it." 
 
 This evidently involves semi-pelagian error. So also 
 the distinction drawn by Mr. Birks, between " the death 
 the penalty of sin, and the second death," is utterly 
 without warrant (as I conceive) of Holy Scripture. It 
 rests upon the assumption of Mr. Birks's theological 
 system, that the atonement of Christ, as relatively 
 efficacious to all men, gives them to share, actually, in 
 the benefits of His death ; as He is said to have abolished 
 the original penalty, in every case : also it is asserted, 
 that as they share in the Redemptive benefits of the 
 resurrection, so in like manner, that the Second Death, 
 spoken of in Scripture, is diverse from that " death," 
 which is the penalty of sin, and is even curative and 
 reformatory in its character. So, he endorses the saying 
 of Plato, that all punishment is reformatory, "i^unish- 
 ment is set before us, in the light of a Divine medicine 
 for the diseases of the soul." " Difficulties ot Belief," 
 p. 226. Again, " However terrible and solemn, it is 
 his Divine remedy for all that is most fearful and 
 appalling, in the actual, or possible, evil of a fallen and 
 rebellious universe," p. 222. Thus, the " second death," 
 is curative in its character, different from the " wages " 
 of sin, and the penalty pronounced in Eden, and reme- 
 dial for it, as for its procuring cause, — i. e., Sin.* 
 
 *Thus it will be seen that Mr. Birks holds to a kind of Purgatory; 
 
i! • 
 
 ■■'. ' 
 
 i" i 
 
 II'' 
 
 m 
 
 
 234 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 It is to be added that, as he considers the punishment 
 of the lost is a matter of knowledge and contemplation 
 to the redeemed ; therefore, not only can it not have 
 that character which is commonly ascribed to it ; but 
 also, that probably the beholding of it, may even be 
 necessary to retain the redeemed, in that constant and 
 holy allegiance to God, by which their continued bliss 
 is assured. I will only say that this supposition also, 
 is a fanciful and unscriptural assumption, contrary not 
 only to the moral instincts of mankind, and the hope 
 engendered by Divine grace ; but also contrary to Holy 
 Scripture. That we shall be " like Him," " see Him as 
 He is," " awake up after His likeness," together with 
 the whole tenor of Scripture teaching, forbids such a 
 belief. 
 
 It is evidently an endeavour, philosophically, to solve 
 a difficult problem concerning God's moral government. 
 But as Mr. Birks does not do so but with,, what he 
 considers to be, Scripture authority for his system of 
 eschatology and its theological connections; I shall 
 now proceed to consider those passages which he brings 
 forward, in illustration, or in support of his argument. I 
 have already noticed Mr. Cox's quotation of one passage, 
 frequently quoted by Mr. Birks, viz., 1 Tim. 4: 10. 
 " Who is the Saviour of all men." It is only necessary 
 here to remark, that Mr. Birks's interpretation of this 
 
 as do the Univbiaalists and Materialists, but with thia difference ; 
 that it is "perhaps for ever," thut they lose the beatific vision of 
 Jehovah ; — and, (we may so infer from this, and from his reaching as a 
 whole) in like manner, that their final deliverance from such purgatory, 
 ia also doubtful : possible, it may be, or itrobabk. 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 235 
 
 Qishment 
 mplation 
 not have 
 t it ; but 
 even be 
 tant and 
 ued bliss 
 ion also, 
 krary not 
 the hope 
 r to Holy 
 3 Him as 
 her with 
 s such a 
 
 L to solve 
 jrnment. 
 what he 
 ''stem of 
 
 I shall 
 e brings 
 iment. I 
 passage, 
 4: 10. 
 Bcessary 
 
 of this 
 
 ifference ; 
 vision of 
 ching as a 
 urgatory. 
 
 passage, is the chief support which he finds in Holy 
 Scripture, for his theory with regard to the atonement. 
 We may pass on to a second, found in Psalm G2: 12. 
 " And that Thou, Lord, art merciful, for Thou renderest 
 to every man, according to his work." Mr. Birks's 
 position is, that it has reference absolutely to all men, 
 and that God's mercy is shewn to the wicked, even in 
 punishing them; so that such punishment is, to them, not 
 devoid of mercy. What we have to seek now, is the 
 meaning of the passage. Has it such absolute reference 
 to "all men?" I consider that the passage, as the 
 scope of the Psalm shews, has reference specially to 
 God's care, and sustenance of his servants; and therefore 
 that the mercy spoken of, as ministered by Him, is with 
 reference to " every one " of such in particular, if not 
 exclusively ; that He who searches the hearts, and who 
 by the rule of their sincere affections, judges them, and 
 not according to the strict letter of a perfect obedience 
 to all his commands; will so, mercifully, as by this rule 
 of judgment, keep and preserve them. Not only so, 
 but as it is from their enemies that they need his 
 protection ; so, as he judges those enemies also, by a 
 similar rule, and sees them to be deficient and utterly 
 wanting in such a principle ; He will consequently, by 
 the same mitigated and merciful, while at the same 
 time just rule of judgment, deal with them, also, "ac- 
 cording to their works." So we interpret Matt. 16: 27. 
 
 A third passage is Isaiah 24: 15. " Wherefore glorify 
 ye the Lord in the fires, even the name of the Lord God 
 of Israel in the isles of the sea." 
 
 First let it be noticed that Bishop Lowth's translation 
 

 236 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 •r 
 
 .•*i 
 
 ■tf- 
 
 reads as follows, — v. 14, " But these shall lift up their 
 voice, they shall sing ; the waters shall resound with 
 the exaltation of Jehovah. Wherefore in the distant 
 coasts, glorify ye Jehovah ; in the distant coasts of the 
 sea, Jehovah, the God of Israel," His note on this 
 place is full of interest. V. 14. " But these — that is, 
 they that escaped out of these calamities. — The great 
 distress brought upon Israel, and Judah, drove the 
 people away, and dispersed them all over the neigh- 
 bouring countries : they fled to Egypt, to Asia Minor, 
 ' J the islands, and the coasts of Greece. They were to 
 be found in great numbers in most of the principal 
 cities of these countries. Alexandria was in a great 
 measure peopled by them. They had synagogues for 
 their worship in many places, and were greatly instru- 
 mental in propagating the knowledge of the true God 
 amongst these heathen nations, and preparing them for 
 the reception of Christianity. This is what the prophet 
 seems to mean by celebrating the name of Jehovah in 
 the waters, in the distant coasts, and in the uttermost 
 parts of the land, 0*73 "the waters" ; vBcapy LXX, vSara 
 
 Theod. ; not o»()3 " from the sea." 
 
 T • 
 
 15. ("In the distant coasts of the sea.") For Qi*iJs^2i 
 I suppose we ought to read ti'^'^fc^lS I which is in a great 
 degree justified, by the repetition of the word in the 
 next member of the sentence, with the addition of tDTT 
 to vary the phrase, exactly in the manner of the 
 Prophet. tS'^'^fc^ ^^ a word chiefly applied to any distant 
 countries, especially those lying on the Mediterranean 
 Sea. 
 
Lip their 
 id with 
 
 distant 
 is of the 
 
 on this 
 -that is, 
 le great 
 ove the 
 3 neigh- 
 t Minor, 
 
 were to 
 )rincipal 
 L a great 
 »ues for 
 T instru- 
 [ue God 
 
 hem for 
 
 Drophet 
 ovah in 
 
 iermost 
 C, vBara 
 
 a great 
 
 in the 
 
 ofQ'TT 
 of the 
 
 distant 
 
 Tanean 
 
 AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 237 
 
 Others conjecture Qin»'i;i» t:'^in^» Q'^7ai^l» D''?a:?S ; 
 Cllfi^n * "^b^S* illustrati ; Le Clerc. 
 Twenty-three MSS. read t]'^*11i^lZI- 
 
 ' T 
 
 The LXX do not acknowledge the reading of the 
 text, expressing here only the word Iqiij^, €v rai? vrja-oK, 
 
 and that not repeated. But M. S. Pachora, and I. D. 
 II. supply in this place the defect in other copies of the 
 LXX, thus : Ata tovto t) Bo^a Kvpiov ea-rat ev TaL<i 
 vr}(TOi,<; T/X9 daXa<Tar)fi' ev Tat<i vrja-on to ovofia rov Kvpiov 
 €)€oi/ laparjX evBo^ov earuL. According to which the 
 LXX had in their Hebrew copy t3'>ii^^ repeated after- 
 ward, not Q''*^:}^^. 
 
 I think that the version of Bishop Lowth, will 
 commend itself to the intelligent reader, on account of 
 its agreement with the context; and also to the philolo- 
 gist, it offers good and cogent reasons for acceptance. 
 But even did we accept the reading of the authorized 
 version, the context is altogether against Mr. Birks's 
 strained and fanciful interpretation, as it very evidently 
 refers to the godly who are so called upon to glorify 
 Jehovah : the remnant j whether in the fires of perse- 
 cution, or in the distant coasts, where they were driven. 
 I may add that Mr. Cox quotes this passage, for the 
 purgatory which he teaches. A further passage is 
 quoted by Mr. Birks, as considered to give support to 
 his theory : i. e., Isa. 57: C6. "For I will not contend 
 for ever, neither will I be always wroth, for the spirit 
 should fail before me, and the souls which I have made." 
 
 Bishop Lowth makes a slight deviation from the 
 authorized version in one paragraph, which reads thus : 
 32 
 
238 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 3 
 
 " For the spirit from before me would be overwhelmed, 
 and the living souls which I have made." 
 
 Here, again, I quote from Bishop Lowth's Notes, 
 verse 10, " For I will not always," &c. The learned 
 have taken a great deal of pains to little purpose, on 
 the latter part of this verse, which they suppose to be 
 very obscure. After all their labours upon it, I think 
 the best and easiest explication of it, is given in the 
 two following elegant passages of the Psalms, which I 
 presume are exactly parallel to it, and very clearly 
 express the same sentiment : 
 
 " But in His tender mercy will forgive their sins. 
 And will not destroy them ; 
 Yea, oftentimes will He turn away His wrath, 
 And will not rouse up all His indignation ; 
 For He remembereth that they are but flesh, 
 A breath that passeth, and returneth not." 
 
 68 : 38, 39. 
 " He will not always contend. 
 Neither will He for ever hold His wrath ; 
 As a father yearneth towards his children. 
 So is Jehovah, tenderly compassionate towards 
 
 them that fear Him, 
 For He knoweth our frame ; 
 He remembereth that we are but dust." 
 
 103 : 9, 13, 14. 
 To these, also may be added Mich. 7: 18-19 : where 
 the language is similar, and the scope of the meaning 
 precisely parallel to those passages quoted by Bishop 
 Lowih ; but in all, it has a direct and specific reference 
 to the "remnant of His heritage," and to those that fear 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 23D 
 
 vhelmed, 
 
 s Notes, 
 learned 
 rpose, ou 
 ose to be 
 <, I think 
 sn in the 
 , which I 
 ^ clearly 
 
 r sins, 
 
 •ath, 
 
 > 
 sh, 
 
 J8, 39. 
 
 towards 
 
 3,14. 
 
 where 
 neaning 
 
 Bishop 
 jference 
 
 at fear 
 
 Him ; nor can it be said of any place of Holy Scripture 
 that there is not a clear and and radical distinction 
 made between His chastisements of His own people, and 
 his judgments upon the persistenly sinful and dis- 
 obedient. 
 
 That passage quoted by Mr. Birks from Gen. 6: 3, 
 " My spirit shall not always strive with man ;" is, also, 
 utterly without point in relation to his argument. 
 
 It is immediately connected with the shortening of 
 the term of human life ; anil that, on account of man's 
 great wickedness, and by reason of his subjection, as 
 is generally supposed by commentators, to Satanic 
 government; and in the cohabitation of "the daughters 
 of men," with the ** sons of God :" i. e., apostate angels 
 or devils. The result of which was, "there were giants 
 in the earth in those days. 
 
 So,God shortened the term of man's earthly probation, 
 during which his spirit strives with the unregenerate. 
 But, again Mr. Birks appeals to Holy Scripture ; and 
 here, to Hosea 13: 14, "0 death, I will be thy plagues.'* 
 
 But here also the just exegesis of the passage gives 
 no colour of support to his theory : for both the Prophet, 
 and St. Paul, who quotes him, in 1 Cor. 15, is treating of 
 the godly, and of God's dealings with such. And whether 
 it be objectively considered, in the atonement of Christ, 
 which is made over to them, in its benefits, as a royal 
 behest, by Him who has provided for them in His 
 victory ; or whether it be considered subjectively, as 
 to his work in them, by reason of which the fear of 
 death is taken away, and its power broken ; it is the 
 believer alone that has any part in the promise 
 referred to. 
 
I 
 
 240 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 f 
 
 exegesis 
 
 Isaiah 25: 8, is quite parallel, and has the same 
 as it refers to " His people." Hairs Com- 
 mentary on Hosea, published by Nicol of Edinburgh, 
 and edited by Mr. Sherman, has some excellent remarks 
 upon the passage quoted from that Prophet. 
 
 Mr. Birks, in support of his opinion respecting the 
 federal relation of the wicked to Clirist, irrespective of 
 faith, and in accordance with his exegesis of 1 Tim. 4: 10, 
 quotes Gen. 9: 6: " Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by 
 man shall his blood be shed : " and also the Mosaic 
 enactment, (Deut. 25 : 3) that forty stripes should not 
 be exceeded in scourging : " lest thy brother should 
 seem vile unto thee." This is intended to enforce hir 
 opinion that God will, in a similar way, not only, in 
 some manner show mercy in His final punishment of 
 the wicked : but also, because they have absolutely 
 some part and benefit in the work of Christ's redemption, 
 as they are also men, and that He has the relation, 
 to them, of their federal Head. There yet remains one 
 passage more, which is pressed as proof that God has, 
 in some way, through Christ, made provision for a 
 degree of mercy and grace to those who are finally 
 condemned : It is that the love of Christ has a " length, 
 breadth, depth, and height, which passes knowledge." 
 Eph. 3: 19. 
 
 When I come to deal with the matter in a final and 
 positive form, I will say more upon this subject; but 
 let me now remark, that in a parallel place, where 
 David is speaking of God's mercy, or love, a^ d di ib- 
 ing it in a somewhat similar way, ' ue heaven 
 is high above the earth, and as f& ^ the easi iS 
 
 'i;t 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 241 
 
 tlie same 
 \Vs Com- 
 :linburgh, 
 b remarks 
 
 icting the 
 lective of 
 'im.4:10, 
 t)lood, by 
 e Mosaic 
 lould not 
 er should 
 iforce hir 
 i only, in 
 hment of 
 bsolutely 
 emption, 
 relation, 
 lains one 
 God has, 
 3n for a 
 finally 
 length, 
 wledge." 
 
 from the west;" (Ps. 103 : 12), he confines such mercy and 
 love in that place, "to them that fear him;" and 
 although we are told in Ps. 145: 9, "His tender mercies 
 are over "all his works;" yet, in such statement, the 
 scope and meaning is evidently restricted to time, and 
 has special reference to creature benefits. So, again be 
 it remarked, and with th is reference, " He is the Saviour, 
 or benefactor of all men:" but he is so specially, and in 
 a higher degree of salvation and benefit, "to them that 
 believe." 
 
 I have now, I think, fairly and correctly stated Pro- 
 fessor Birks's theory concerning the Eschatology of the 
 wicked, as it stands related to the Theological position 
 taken by him, in reference to the Atonement, and to 
 kindred subjects ; and I have also considered the pas- 
 sages of Scripture by which he supports that theory. 
 I shall, in the next and last chapter, offer a little in a 
 Positive form, concerning the acknowledged difficulties 
 connected with the subject of Future Punishment ; 
 and with a special reference to that form of solution 
 which Professor Birks has attempted. 
 
 inal and 
 ect; but 
 3, where 
 d* ib- 
 heaven 
 easi 13 
 
t -1 
 
 242 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 POSITIVE RESULTS. 
 
 3» 
 
 ,1 
 
 (a.) As related to Future Punishment. 
 
 •• What shall we say then" ?— Rom. 9 : 14. 
 
 I have endeavoured, so far, to guard the sacred 
 deposit of God's Holy Word, from what I consider to 
 be incorrect views both of its nature and of its teaching: 
 and, in doing so, although I have, upon some parts of 
 the subject under discussion, given what I regard as a 
 correct and positive statement of that teaching ; it yet 
 remains for me to express, (1) that view thereof with 
 regard to the nature and duration of Future Punish- 
 ment, which, I believe, the Sacred Writings most 
 plainly and unmistakably justify ; and, (2) to state 
 my view of this subject as it is related to Christian 
 Theism. In thus summing up the result of our 
 enquiries, it will be necessary, first to notice the prin- 
 ciple which underlies Professor Birks's theory, as it 
 professes to solve the admitted difficulty ; and as it 
 is separable in its character, and as a system, from 
 Universalism and from Materialism. I have, in the 
 details of his teaching, considered what I regard as 
 specifically objectionable ; what I now speak of, is 
 the substratum upon which, as a whole, his system 
 rests. His acceptance of the theory of the Tricho- 
 tomy is an integral part of that system, and funda- 
 mental to it. It is philosophical in its character. 
 
 ■ii, 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 243 
 
 ^T. 
 
 e sacred 
 
 nsider to 
 
 reaching: 
 
 ! parts of 
 
 [jard as a 
 
 g ; it yet 
 
 eof with 
 
 Pimish- 
 
 ^'s most 
 
 to state 
 
 hristiau 
 
 of our 
 
 10 prin- 
 
 as it 
 
 id as it 
 
 from 
 
 in the 
 
 rard as 
 
 of, is 
 
 system 
 
 Trieho- 
 
 funda- 
 
 iracter. 
 
 It is an endeavour, methodically to demonstrate, the 
 philosophy of God's moral government * This I regard 
 as absolutely futile ; contrary to the explicit teaching, 
 and allowance of Revelation ; forbidden by all the 
 teaching of Church History ; and irreconcilable with 
 the admitted facts of Catholic Theology. Let us see 
 what does Revelation say, as to the question of such 
 an anatomical process. We might, however, go further 
 back, and say, " What does our intuitive perception of 
 the nature of God say upon this matter ? " 
 
 Moreover, does not reason itself, that much slandered 
 and abused faculty, tell us, that the universal and 
 personal cause of all things, more especially of a race 
 of moral agents, must be so immeasurably superior to 
 such agents, as to be beyond their analytical and per- 
 
 * I will here not'ce a gratuitous attack which Mr. White has seen fit to 
 make upon " Fopulai- Protestantism," as he terms it. 
 
 " Few things are more wonderful than the slight degree to which modem 
 character is usually influenced by the "indwelling of God's Spirit," 
 
 " Again, " Popular Protestantism is strikingly deficient in both logical 
 instruction and a warm poetic environment. Botli the intellect and the 
 irragination are torpid, and require the awakening of a new inspiration in 
 faith. Tliey require in a word, a morally credible Christianity, which may 
 take hold of the whole structure of humanity." 
 
 One step further — let us help it. They require to learn Logic and The- 
 ology from Mr. White and Conditional Immortality ! 
 
 So, again, p. 606, he says that their doctrine of immortality " will prove 
 itself a veritaole flaming nword ;" and again, p. 607 : " For in fact the main 
 position here defended, if successfully established, is nothing lens than a 
 physical and metaphysical demonstration of the truth of evangelical Chris- 
 tianity." What shall we say 1 What of tl'is wonder of the 19th Century ? 
 The system, and its exponent 1 
 
 In a similar way does Mr. Heurd argue against Natural Religion (pp. 231- 
 88) that because Natural Religion, in the case of the heathen and iieathea 
 philosophers, could not elaborate a Philosophical system of Theism, com- 
 plete in all its pirts: therefore there is no real light from Natural Religion, 
 no sound, nor valid evidence concerning the Deity : and so also, to the 
 heathen (iod gave no light, and so, no way of salvation! See also pp. 24 
 ^23. 
 

 244 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 If 
 
 I, 
 
 i' ? '" i 
 
 ■:"\ 
 
 
 
 feet estimate in relation to the details of His moral 
 government? What reason teaches, our moral sense 
 requires, and faith accepts. 
 
 The utterances of Revelation are emphatic. " Canst 
 thou by searching find out God, canst thou find out the 
 Almighty to perfection ? It is higher than heaven, 
 what canst thou do ? deeper than hell ; what canst 
 thou know ? The measure thereof is longer than the 
 earth, and broader than the sea." Job 11: 8, 9. 
 
 So, " Behold God is great, and we know Him not, 
 neither can the number of His years be searched out." 
 Job 36 : 20. 
 
 So, in like manner, does St. Paul contemplate this 
 fundamental truth, in his Epistle to the Romans. " 
 the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and know- 
 ledge of God ! How unsearchable are His judgments, 
 and His ways, past finding out ! " Rom. 11: 33. 
 
 So David. " Thy way is in the sea, and thy path in 
 the great waters, and thy footsteps are not known." 
 Psalms 77 : 19. Also, Psalm 97 : 2, " Clouds and 
 darkness are round about him." 
 
 So, in like manner, Solomon, 1 Kings 8: 12, "The 
 Lord said that He would dwell in the thick darkness." 
 So, 1 Tim. 6 : 16 : "He dwelleth in the light that no 
 man can approach unto." What does all teach us ? 
 What the language of the darkness of Sinai ? What 
 the unapproachable light of which the Gospel speaks ? 
 Moreover, what of " the hiding of his power ? " What, 
 also, of the order and method of His Revelation ? 
 What of the counsel which for ages and generations 
 lay " hid in God " ? What of the punishment of 
 
lis moral 
 ral sense 
 
 " Canst 
 id out the 
 I heaven, 
 I at canst 
 
 than the 
 
 9. 
 
 Him not, 
 hed out." 
 
 Dlate this 
 lans. " 
 id knovv- 
 dgments, 
 
 AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 245 
 
 path in 
 Known." 
 uds and 
 
 2, " The 
 kness." 
 
 that no 
 
 ach us ? 
 What 
 
 speaks ? 
 What, 
 lation ? 
 
 erations 
 iient of 
 
 prurient curiosity, in the case of those who looked into 
 the Ark ? 1 Sam. 6:19. 
 
 What also of that saying, " The secret things belong 
 unto the Lord our God"? And when we come to 
 experimental knowledge, what does all history and 
 experience of God's people say ? What lesson did God 
 give to the tried, the severely tried. Patriarch ol Uz ? 
 He of whom Jehovah himself testified unto, as " a, 
 perfect and upright man " ? Did not God point out to 
 him marvels and mysteries insoluble and inexplicable ? 
 Did he not emphasize this first principle, " God is 
 greater than man " ? Also, what was Job's action upon 
 this appeal ? " Who is he that hideth counsel without 
 knowledfje ? therefore have I uttered that which I 
 understood not ; things too wonderful for me, M'hich I 
 know not." Job 42 : 3. Does not this correspond to 
 the universal verdict of faith ? Does not such faith 
 stay upon God in the dark? So does Is. 50 : 10, teach. 
 And, moreover, is not such faith always justified ? 
 
 All the facts of Church History go to forbid the vain 
 endeavour to philosophize upon Revealed truth. Tliis 
 needs no argumentation. Every student of such history 
 readily admits it. Philosophy has never helped Revel- 
 ation, when it has been applied to moral questions. 
 We may say this much emphatically. Of course by 
 iftxoral, I here specially intend, doctrinal and religious 
 truth. Philosophy has, so, been the worst adversary 
 that religion has had to do battle with.* 
 
 * " The whole doctrine of original sin, its efl'ecta and itn punishment, we 
 must observe, is but the legitimate drawing out, in statement and conse- 
 quence, of the true and Scriptural doctrine of original sin. The corruptioa 
 
 83 
 
?,•*■■ 
 
 I, 
 
 
 ,i'*' 
 
 246 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 But it is also to be added, that the endeavour philo- 
 sophically to demonstrate God's economy of Future 
 Punishment, and its present connection with His moral 
 goverment, as Mr. Birks has endeavoured to do, is 
 contrary to the admitted facts of Catholic Theology. 
 
 I will but notice three. I might say that the veiy 
 fact of the Divine existence, as a Person, is beyond philo- 
 sophy, as elsewhere referred to; but can philosophy 
 explain the Incarnation, or the Hypostatical union ? 
 Can it solve the article of the Trinity, accepted by all 
 the Catholic world as fundamental ? 
 
 To these may properly be added another, which, 
 though it may not be said to be one upon which the 
 Catholic world is agreed, does nevertheless furnish an 
 instance additional, that philosophy is inadequate to 
 demonstrate the principles of God's moral government. 
 I refer to the doctrine of Election in its relation to 
 human responsibility. This is another of " the deep 
 things of God," and whichever theory is held, the 
 holder must still say, that it is held simply by faith, 
 
 of human nature followed deservedly, according to that doctrine, upon the 
 sin of Adam. But the corruption of human nature can only be adequately 
 define<l as the loss of free-will and necessary sinfulness ; and sin deserves 
 eternal punishment, and deserving it, will, according to the Divine justice, 
 infallibly obtain it unless it be forgiven. The consignment, therefore, of 
 heathens and unbaptized infants to the punishment of hell, extreme result 
 as it was, was but the result of the true doctrine ; because in the absence 
 of the only authorized sign of Divine forgiveness, these lay under the full 
 puilt of a sin which deserved such punisliment. There was no authoritv, 
 indeed, for the positive assertion of the fact of such punishment ; for the 
 fact implies that no forgiveness by any other means has been obtained, 
 and nobody can know whether God may not choose to employ other means 
 to this en«l, besides those of which He has informed us ; and if an exception 
 to the necessity of baptism is allowe<.l in certain cases, it cannot be arbi- 
 trarily limited ; nor does the doctrine of original sin itself at all restrict 
 the means by which its guilt may be removed." — MozUy on Predesti- 
 nation, pp. 123-4.) 
 
 i 
 
 >i^ 
 
our philo- 
 of Future 
 His moral 
 to do, is 
 leology. 
 t the veiy 
 ond philo- 
 )hilosophy 
 al union ? 
 ited by all 
 
 er, which, 
 which the 
 furnish an 
 lequate to 
 vornment. 
 elation to 
 ' the deep 
 leld, the 
 by faith, 
 
 ne, upon the 
 
 adequately 
 
 sin deserves 
 
 ivine justice, 
 
 lierefore. of 
 
 /reme result 
 
 the absence 
 
 ler tlie full 
 
 authority, 
 
 jnt ; for the 
 
 3n obtained, 
 
 other means 
 
 an exception 
 
 lot be arbi- 
 
 all rec'trict 
 
 m Predcati- 
 
 Q( 
 
 AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 247 
 
 and not by philosophical demonstration. For this 
 reason I hold it to be entirely incompatible with the 
 admitted facts of Catholic Theology to endeavour to 
 elaborate a philosophical demonstration upon this great 
 practical doctrine of Holy Scripture, as an integi'al 
 and fundamental part of such Theology. (See " Law 
 on the Immortality of the Soul," pp. 34, 35.) 
 
 I will here quote a sentence or two from Law upon 
 this subject. " Reasoning instead of faith, brought 
 about the first change in human nature; no less than a 
 real death to God. And nothing but faith instead of 
 reasoning, can give one fallen man power to become 
 again a son of God. Now to the end of the world, this 
 will be the unalterable difference between faith in 
 God, and reasoning about the things of God; they can 
 never change their place, or effects ; that which they 
 did to the first man, that they will do to the last." 
 
 It is next to be noted, that a disposition to system- 
 atize the teaching of Revelation, has led theologians to 
 mp.ke statements with regard to Future Punishment, 
 which I regard as in excess of what may be required, 
 or justified by the statements of Holy Writ; or, by that 
 fact which I have referred to in i lation to the nature 
 and operations of the Deity. It may be justly regarded 
 as a primary truth, having for its basis the necessary 
 character of the Deity, and the very fact of Scriptural, 
 or, we may say, intelligent Theism ; that the details of 
 Future Punishment cannot be known. 
 
 He who withheld from man for long ages, the method 
 of Salvation, and the details of his justification before 
 Himself; a matter of the most intense and painful 
 
m 
 
 m 
 
 248 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 interest to the su]\iects thereof ; who would have maii' 
 to rest upon Himself, as Jehovah, for such, and told him 
 to rest upon Him even for the fact ; may justly tell man 
 (and may be expected so to do), that, as he has to do 
 with Him, and not with a system of man's wisdom, he 
 must he content with such a measure of light, as to His 
 proceeding, as He may see fit to give. In this connec- 
 tion the doctrine of Original Sin, in its application to 
 those who die in infancy or childhood, and as it stands 
 connected with Law and Gospel, and a Future State ; 
 (if stated Scripturally ;) will not admit of being pressed 
 to its logical conclusion without giving us a view of 
 God's character, that the intuitions of our own minds, 
 as well as His revelations, will not justify : This is 
 an admitted exception to all rule, upon the subject. 
 So also of idiots. Whatever God has declared and 
 expressed as to his future judgment of His creatures, 
 we may and must implicitly receive, because His 
 expressed will is justifiable, from whatever source we 
 derive the knowledge thereof, as it may authenticate 
 a claim to be from Him : so, Mr. White's remarks (pp. 
 00, 01),* are, upon these premisses, utterly without 
 
 I:-* 
 
 -il 
 
 * " Smitten to tlie heart by the terrific dogma of the descent of the curse 
 of eternal death, in the sense uf endless suiferin);, upon the infant posterity 
 of Adam, these merciful doctors have insisted upon a limitation of the 
 signification of tiiis curse as respects the personally guiltless. The old 
 Roman divines had found in St. Paul's argument aiddressed to their own 
 church, (Rom. 5 ; 12,) decisive evidence that the death which ' entered by 
 one oflfence, or by the offence of one, passed upon all men, without any 
 limitation, even as St. Paul declares specially, upon them that had not 
 sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression.' Whatever reason 
 therefore, there was for understanding this threat in a triple sense, so as 
 to include eternal misery for Adam himself, a point of belief on which no 
 one seems to have entertained a doubt,) there was exactly the same reason 
 for believing that it descended iu its direful integrity upon all his posterity.. 
 
have mart 
 i told him 
 Y tell man 
 has to do 
 isdom, he 
 , as to His 
 is connec- 
 ication to 
 ; it stands 
 ire State ; 
 ig pressed 
 a view of 
 vn minds, 
 : This is 
 e subject, 
 ared and 
 creatures, 
 ause His 
 jource we 
 ihenticate 
 arks (pp. 
 without 
 
 of the curse 
 lilt posterity 
 Ation of the 
 The old 
 to their own 
 ' entered by 
 itbout any 
 lat had uot 
 ever reason 
 sense, so as 
 )n which no 
 same reason 
 
 IS, 
 
 1 posterity. 
 
 AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 249 
 
 point. A philosopher, arguing upon terrestrial things, 
 and upon certain and established premisses, might so 
 argue ; so also a philosophic moralist who discards 
 Revelation; but no man claiming to be a scriptural 
 Theist, and arguing concerning a being of wliom He 
 knows but in part, only indeed so much as that Being 
 sees fit to make known, may presume so to do. " Nay, 
 but man, who art thou that repliest against God ?" 
 So the remarks of Professor Plumptre (Vision of the 
 
 The case of infants might be inileed fearful, but there was no loophole of 
 escape for them from the system which embraced in its iron grip the whole 
 race of man. To insinuate that fur them the eternal death formed no part 
 of the irdierited curse was to break up the foundation of faith in redemption 
 and in the descent of original sin. Accordingly this position was maintained 
 with the utmost firmness by all the Roman theologians, and not less by the 
 Reformers. Augustine bad set the example of such firmness. ' It may 
 therefore, be rightly said (says he) that little ones dying without baptism 
 will be in the mildest damnation of all [in damnntione mstmimad.) Yet 
 he greatly deceives and is deceived who preaches that they will not be in 
 damnation ; since the Apostle says, judgment was by one to condemnation. 
 (MuUnm autem falht et fallUur, qui eos in damnatione predicat non 
 fu(uro.i.—Oi>ii. VII. p. 142.) 
 
 But that which they dreaded as fatal to systematic dir'nity, has been 
 assailed by our Knglish and American divines of recent times. These affirm 
 apparently without any evidence, except that derived from their own sense 
 01 moral fitness, that although the death threatened to Adam himself 
 included the three-fold curse with eternal misery, the curse as it descended 
 on the posterity dropt its most fearful signification, and came upon the 
 human race in its birth only as a two-fold doom, as temporal death, and an 
 inherited corruption of their nature which is termed 'death spiritual.' 
 Thus, it is supposed, all mankind are born, not under sentence of eternal 
 misery for Adam's sin, but oidy under a corrupt constitution of nature, by 
 which when they come to years, they will incur that sentence by their own 
 transgre.ssion. " 
 
 " The Augustinian system is best defended in its integrity. Take away 
 one of it» fundamental definitions, and it falld to the ground. 
 
 The recent protestant glosses breathe a compassionate leniency, but they 
 endanger far more than they defend. Augustine and Calvin were solid 
 logicians, t.nd may be trusted in their estimate of what is necessixry to the 
 conerency of their theological system." " Life in Christ" pp. 59, 60, 61. 
 
 Here be it remarked that we defend the i^ugustine system, as a rule, " in 
 its integrity." That rule however, as any human rule, or system, we hold 
 to be relatively, not absolutely perfect and true. The reason is found, as 
 asserted in this chapter. See here, also, previous note, with reference to 
 'Canon Mozley on Predestination. 
 
TT 
 
 
 1.': : 
 
 t' f . 
 
 '%' 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 250 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 li 
 
 Future, p. 18), have in this connection, much truth on 
 their side. " We follow the sacramental teachings of 
 Augustine and the mediaeval Church until we find our- 
 selves lodged in the conclusion that unbaptized infants 
 are excluded from salvation. We accept the truth that 
 eternal life depends upon our knowing Gel as He is, 
 until we stand face to face with the dogma t>at * all 
 who do not keep the Catholic faith shall without doubt 
 perish everlastingly.* We receive the thoughts of gi*ace, 
 election, predestination, until they land us in the 
 homhle decretum. We believe that man is justified 
 by faith in Christ, until men press the conclusion^ on 
 the one hand that we may continue in sin that grace 
 may abound ; and on the other, that millions of the 
 heathen are shut out from hope." So far, just and 
 good; but when the positive is evolved from the 
 negative, as in the case of Canon Farrar, or of the 
 Professor himself, then we protest. The things that 
 God has hid from us, cannot contravene what He has 
 revealed ; nor can an imjustifiable and distorted view 
 of the Divine clemency, contravene the fundamental 
 and revealed truth, that "God shall judge the right- 
 eous and the wicked." Neither can it, with allowance, 
 explain away, the radical character of Future Punish- 
 ment, or the express statements of Holy Writ as to its 
 continuance. 
 
 The case of infants, children, and idiots, are without 
 the limits of a justifiable argumentation : The same is, 
 at least, relatively true of the heathen. We are indeed 
 plainly told that they are subjects of law, although 
 the same law will not be applied to them as to others. 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 251 
 
 truth on 
 chings of 
 find our- 
 d infants 
 ruth that 
 as He is, 
 umt * all 
 lut doubt 
 of gi-ace, 
 \ in the 
 justified 
 Lision, on 
 at grace 
 s of the 
 just and 
 rom the 
 r of the 
 igs that 
 
 He has 
 ed view 
 amcntal 
 e right- 
 owance, 
 Punish- 
 is to its 
 
 vithout 
 lame is, 
 
 indeed 
 though 
 
 others. 
 
 They " shall perish without law :" that is, the law of 
 Revelation, or God's Holy Word ; yet they " shall be 
 beaten with few stiipes." 
 
 That there is a probation under Natural Religion is 
 certain : and also, that God has appointed it to them 
 under tJiat law : that is, those who so live and die : 
 they are not hopeless without Revelation, nor is God's 
 mercy confined to those who hear the Gospel. This 
 we are justified by facts of Revelation in declaring. 
 All who seek God, under any circumstances, or in any 
 nation, are accepted of Him : His tender mercies are 
 over all His works. 
 
 Yet, we send the Gospel to them, because we are 
 commanded so to do ; and because from what we see 
 and know, as well avS what we are explicitly told by 
 God, it shall, if received, convey to them greater 
 blessings. 
 
 That there will be degrees of rewards and also of 
 punishments, seems clear from Holy Writ. 
 
 We have every reason for believing that the Great 
 Assize will embrace all the inhabitants ox our globe ; 
 and that although degrees of punishments and rewards 
 may and will obtain, still their nature and character 
 will be, in each case, the same ; i. e., whether applied 
 to Natural or to Revealed Religion. 
 
 With respect to the punishment, as also to the reward : 
 it will be primarily and chiefly that of character, but 
 not exclusively. 
 
 Neither will it (positively considered) be confined 
 to admission or exclusion from God's presence. The 
 language of Holy Scripture forbids this belief. 
 
252 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 The " fire" may not, and it may I tliink, Lo presumed 
 that it will not be a literal fire, any more tlian we 
 may consider that the New Jerusalem shall be paved 
 with gold, or have precious stones for its foundation. 
 
 Such language however, describes a Positive reward, 
 and also a Positive punishment. The language, whether 
 of Father Fumiss, or of Bishop Jeremy Taylor, or of 
 other imaginative writers, upon this subject, is mingledi 
 I fear, with a " false fire," when they speak as they 
 do, in certain places. 
 
 Yet, withal, Professor Birks's speculations as to the 
 acquiescence of the lost in the Divine judgment, is 
 ■without warrant. All we know goes to forbid the idea, 
 either of another probation, or of a possible restoration, 
 or of a qualified hope as to God's favour being bestowed 
 upon those so at last condemned. Most certainly the 
 system which he has elaborated from Philosophy and 
 Scripture to support such a hope, is utterly witliout 
 foundation in Revealed Truth. 
 
 The argument from Ub^y ^^^ al(ovio<i is not regarded 
 
 as tenable by Mr. Birks himself, and I think that the 
 evidence given herein is such as utterly to dissipate 
 such a fond illusion, so much relied upon by Canon 
 Farrar, Mr. Cox, and Mr. Jukes, and so much perverted 
 from its just meaning, and misapplied by Mr. White 
 and his confreres. 
 
 Thus, while we cannot conclude otherwise than that 
 God has declared a punishment, and not an annihila- 
 tion of the wicked ; so also may we not conclude 
 otherwise than that that punishment is one which all 
 the teaching of Holy Scripture justifies us in believing, 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 253 
 
 Teauraed 
 tlian we 
 je paved 
 lation. 
 reward, 
 whether 
 or, or of 
 iiingled> 
 as they 
 
 IS to the 
 iient, is 
 the idea, 
 boration, 
 estowed 
 inly the 
 )hy and 
 without 
 
 garded 
 
 lat the 
 issipate 
 
 Canon 
 rverted 
 
 White 
 
 m that 
 nihila- 
 nclude 
 ich all 
 ieving, 
 
 nay, requires us to do so ; that it is to be without end.* 
 To " hope," even, otherwise, is without any certain or 
 revealed basis of hope ; for, although with God nothing 
 is impossible, save what He has ordained to be so, still 
 all that He has revealed goes to forbid man to hope for 
 any good, however remote, or qualified, to those who 
 live or die unreconciled or disobedient to Him. It 
 has been .showed, that the eternity of Future Punish- 
 ment is quite separable from the Manichaean idea of 
 two principles. 
 
 The wisd(mi and power that hasci ated free agents, 
 is not limited in His dealings by the contingency of 
 their actions, upon his commands ; nor can .such disobe- 
 dience and the punishment that He allots to it, at all 
 contravene His supreme perfections from any point of 
 view. 
 
 All the evidence that we have, goes to substantiate 
 the truth that God is good to all in this life, and that His 
 tender mercies are over all His works ; but it is ever 
 to be remembered that it is onh' provisionally so, and 
 
 ♦Mr. Birks says (Ways of Qotl, p. 128) "We cannot reasonably doubt 
 that devils grow more intensely diabolical by long continuance in tlie |iractice 
 of fraud and malice . or that tne holy angels, by the very habit of obedience 
 to the will of God, gain increa.sing stability and delight in the way of 
 holiness." See Rev. 10: 20, 21, and 16: 9) as applied to men ; and ilev. 
 12: 12, as applied to devils. »So, (Ways of God, p. 163.) " But when the 
 opposition snews itself by wilful refusal to recognize the power and claims 
 of a truth which conscience feels to be true, the sin is deeper and more 
 dangerous. It is a presumptuous transgression. When this obstinacy 
 continues and grows habitual, and especially when it displays itself under 
 the fullest means of light, it passes into a diabolical malignity of evil, and 
 becomes the sin unto aeath, fmm which there is no retlcmption, and for 
 which the servants of God themselves are forbidden to pray." So Dr. 
 Allen, Vision of Future, p. 367, agrees. Thus we see that there is more 
 than one aspect of the law of continuity. So also Scripture corroborates the 
 quotatioDB made above. See Numbers 15: 30; Deut. 17: 12; Fs. 19: 13. 
 
 34 
 
^ 
 
 
 •' m^' 
 
 
 j-^: 
 
 254 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 ■j:>'^ 
 
 under circumstances of the present ; and that such 
 goodness is shown as a powerful premiss in the argu- 
 ment for man's obedience. But, parallel with this, there 
 is evidence also of the " severity" of God, as well as of 
 His " goodness." This is found in the awful fact that 
 by one man, and by one sin, He has seen fit to allow 
 wide spread and fearful physical suffering, and moral 
 evil to be entailed upon the race, and from which the 
 good also suffer, as well as the bad : the obedient as well 
 as the disobedient. Both truths combine to form a 
 most powerful premiss, for the solemnity of that trial 
 which God has here allotted, and to require that the 
 issue of such trial of moral agents shall be of a most 
 grave and awful character. 
 
 All known truth in relation to God combines to 
 teach this lesson. God's positive utterances go to 
 assure us of the rich and lasting blessings which shall 
 be conferred upon the righteous when publicly approved 
 by Him as such : in like manner may it be said of His 
 utterances, under similar circumstances, with relation 
 to the irreclaimably disobedient. Some have conjec- 
 tured that, in the Divine mercy, some hope may lie in 
 a different value of the word auoviof; as applied to them. 
 So, Bengel: and so Mr. Heard, notwithstanding his 
 hypothesis of the Trichotomy, agrees with him, that the 
 doctrine of future retribution is one not to be discussed.* 
 
 * Bengel adds that the word ciuivios has two significations is undeniabie, 
 and thus the Scriptural expressions Kokturls aidvios, and (uii adtit^ios, 
 (everlasting punishment, and ererlasllng life, Matt. 26 : 46) seem to have 
 luiequal meanings. 
 
 Considering alao, he adds, 'all that we experience, and that is revealed 
 to us respecting the Divine mercy, we may lairly believe that there is an 
 
 ;llL. 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 255 
 
 lat such 
 he argu- 
 liis, there 
 rell as of 
 Pact that 
 to allow 
 id moral 
 hich the 
 t as well 
 • form a 
 hat trial 
 that the 
 f a most 
 
 bines to 
 3 go to 
 ch shall 
 pproved 
 1 of His 
 relation 
 
 conjec- 
 y lie in 
 
 them, 
 ing his 
 
 lat the 
 
 ussed.* 
 
 ideniabie, 
 
 ^ CUClll'tOS, 
 
 m to have 
 
 revealed 
 nere is aa 
 
 (See Tri. Part. Nat. of Man, p. 258, note.) Most 
 certainly God's wisdom here, as elsewhere, confounds 
 man's ingenuity. God gives to all who seek Him, in 
 humble sincerity, every encouragement to believe, and 
 to " wait" upon Him ; but to the disobedient He holds 
 out nothing, as such, but a fearful looking for of 
 judgment. 
 
 Enough light is given to us in the way of duty ; but 
 the path of the wicked is hedged up with darkness ; 
 and that darkness which is pointed to in their future, 
 is not by God's Word lit up with one glimmering ray. 
 All that we can learn, is, that " the secret things belong 
 to the Lord our God": that "light is sown for the 
 righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart." 
 
 What we cannot now demonstrate of God's judgment 
 with respect to the wicked, viz., that it will be every 
 way worthy of God ; saints will yet, and they alone, will 
 believe. The creature must here, as in other groat 
 articles of revealed truth, bow before the All-Perfect 
 Creator. To none does He allow a full understanding 
 of this great mystery. So seems St. Paul to say. 
 "What have I to do, to judge them also that are without? 
 Do not ye judge them that are within ? But those that 
 are without God judgeth." 1 Cor. 5:11, 13. Of this 
 we may be assured, that in the clearer light of eternity, 
 when the character of that judgment in all its relations 
 shall be fully known ; as the subjects thereof shall 
 
 economy for the poor ignorant heathen, apart from that with which we are 
 concerned. St. Paul Joes not undertake to give any final decision about 
 them. *' what have I to do with them that are witnout." (1 Cor. 5 : 12.) 
 See fiengei's Life and Writings, English translation, p. 376. 
 
m 
 
 25G 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 tlien bo dumb before Him, and fully admit Him to be 
 in such dealing, as in all His ways, the perf'ict God ; so 
 also, all His Saints and the Holy Angels shall then say, 
 " Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are 
 Thy judgments." Rev. 19 : 2. 
 
 (ii.) Ultimate, and as related to Christian 
 
 Theism. 
 
 We have not yet dealt with the actual issue, involved 
 in this discussion. The question as to the character and 
 duration of Future Punishment, is after all merely aside 
 issue. The fact of a future state of rewards and suffer- 
 ings, is so re(|uired by the constitution of the human 
 mind, that it cannot but be submitted to, by the human 
 mind, as a fact. Here, God has not left himself with- 
 out witness. It has been said that, whether there 
 exists, or has ever existed such a Ijeing as an Atheist 
 by IntdUi/ent conviction, may well be doubted. The 
 force of evidence, both from witliin and from without, 
 to the evidence of a suj)reme First Cause, goes to forbid 
 it. Nevertheless, this does not do away with that 
 moral opposition to it, which actually exists in the 
 human mind, and in the human heart. This has been 
 manifest in different ages, in different ways. Deism 
 and Pantheism are tlie natural results of this condition 
 of man's moral nature. The various corruptions of 
 Christian doctrine and of Revealed Truth are to be 
 traced to the same origin. The distinctive features of 
 Revealed Religion have ever been objected to by men, 
 or else have been dealt with in such a way, that 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 257 
 
 im to be 
 God; so 
 hen say, 
 L'ous are 
 
 TIAN 
 
 nvolved 
 
 2ter and 
 
 ly a side 
 
 J suffer- 
 
 hunian 
 
 liuman 
 
 f with- 
 
 r tlicro 
 
 t'itheist 
 
 I The 
 
 without, 
 
 forbid 
 that 
 in the 
 ifs been 
 
 Deism 
 idition 
 ons of 
 
 to be 
 ires of 
 Y men, 
 that 
 
 endeavours have been made, which, by harmonizing 
 them with our human conceptions ; their distinctive 
 features, not being eliminated ; they have been more or 
 less reconciled with our finite ideas of the Deity, and 
 our fallen state and relation, as moral agents, to Him. 
 
 The history of the past as to to this matter, is sub- 
 stantially the history of the present. 
 
 To go back no further, the preaching of the Cross 
 was to the Jew a stumbling block, and to the Greek 
 foolishness. The Saviour, however, in Ilis Person, and 
 His Work, and His Offices, notwithstanding all the 
 development therein given of God's purposes, main- 
 tained still unimpared the primary and essential truth 
 of the character and ways of God, as being in direct 
 antithesis to the character and ways of man. 
 
 In the present age, discovery, as the result of research 
 and ex])erience, has put us in possession of many 
 important, though inferior truths. Many run to and 
 fro, and knowledge is increased, yet tlie wicked do 
 wickedl3\ 
 
 The Nineteenth Century is thought by some to be 
 marvellously in advance of the past. Scientific know- 
 ledge is, by some, thought to be capable of solving 
 absolutely all problems, even moral ones. So Huxley, 
 Darwin, and Tyndall would seem to say. 
 
 So, a cautiou;. statement of Bishop liutler is pressed 
 into sc'viee, as seeming to endorse the position of 
 modern scientists. It is due, however, to Butler to 
 believe that no such conception as theirs, ever i)ossessed 
 him when he wrote those words. 
 
 Whatever development natural science may have 
 
I 
 
 V. 
 
 258 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 i 
 
 attained unto, or may be capable of, by reason of labor 
 and experience of others ; it is to be remembered that 
 there is no developement of the human mind, as to its 
 intrinsic capabilities ; otherwise, men might attain to 
 the knon'ledge of angels, did not this material fabric, 
 our earthly bodies forbid it : nay, such developement 
 did time permit, might go on, ad infiniimn. 
 
 But if there cannot be such a development of the 
 powers of the human mind ; so, neither can there be 
 such developement of rel'ujioiis character, by which, 
 more reasonably, such knowledge of moral questions 
 might be looked, or hoped for. It is very gravely to 
 be doubted whether the faith of modern Christians has 
 excelled that of Abraham : nay, it is doubtful whether 
 it has been e(|ualled. What is true of that (piality, is 
 true of others. The fact notwithstanding, however 
 wrongly, or unreasonably, remains . the spirit of the 
 present age, as expressed in connection with this sub- 
 ject, will not receive the principle of an incovipre- 
 hensible Deity. To put it in plainer language, they 
 object to, or will not receive Scriptural Theism. 
 
 A comprehensible God ; that is, comprehensible to 
 his creatures, and, so to speak, capable of analysis, would 
 nut be the God, either of Nature or of Revelation. Thus 
 it is actually an issue between Theism and Atheism : 
 it goes further than an issue between pseudo scientism 
 and revelation : it is God, or no God. 
 
 The American representative of modern Atheism, in 
 its ))resent form, has in language fouler and more 
 blas])]i('mous than that of Tom Paine, expressed his 
 rejection ami (d)horrence, of the God of the Bible : nay 
 more, has defied Him. 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 259 
 
 1 of labor 
 >ered that 
 , as to its 
 attain to 
 ial fabric, 
 lopement 
 
 nt of the 
 there be 
 y which, 
 juestions 
 ravely to 
 tians has 
 whether 
 uality, is 
 however 
 t of the 
 ^his sub- 
 compre- 
 <re, they 
 
 .sil)Io to 
 s, would 
 Thus 
 tlieisiu : 
 iientism 
 
 tusni, ill 
 I more 
 sed his 
 le : nay 
 
 Mr. White, in more measured, but, in no undecided 
 terms has expressed his rejection of an incomprehen- 
 sible Deity. Here is the difficulty with all the systems 
 which we have under consideration. Such incompre- 
 hensibility, if not rejected, is not maintained : but 
 <tpologhed for, and so, modified. 
 
 The ultimate issue then, is this; — Is such a quality, 
 as in God, and a necessary, and inseparable element of 
 the Divine perfections, to be maintained unimpaired ? 
 That is, is Theism, or Atheism true, and to be 
 maintained ? 
 
 I have said, in reviewing Mr. Birks's system of 
 Eschatology, that a philosophical statement of the 
 Bibk doctrine of Future Punishment, by all the analogy 
 of Revealed religion, is inadmissable and impracticable; 
 I will here enlarge my application of the same principle, 
 and state it in a more positive form. 
 
 The result of all enquiries concerning the God of 
 Nature, and of Revelation, is identical in both fields of 
 enquiry, The field of Nature contains many acknow- 
 ledged mysteries. Some links in the chain of causes 
 we are able to trace ; but they are the lower links. 
 This must still be held to be true, irrespective of the 
 increase of scientific knowledge. Much of this know- 
 ledge also must be regarded as problematical. The 
 science of Geology for instance. But with the largest 
 allowance possible, man knows the God of Nature but 
 in part. Here, there are "secret things which belong 
 to the Lord our God." 
 
 With such He bowed Job to submission. What is 
 true in the field of Nature, is true in that of Revelation 
 
 ^.J V, 
 
2G0 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 also. It is evident, as a historical fact, with regard 
 to Revealed Truth, as we have seen. The method of 
 God's Redemption was "hid in God:" for "ages and 
 generations," God kept back the details so to speak, of 
 that method, while He revealed, to some, the fact. That 
 fact was progressively developed as such ; Ijut when 
 it was most fully made known to man, the same mystery 
 which enshrouds the Divine Being, even when His 
 counsels and character are most manifest; is still, as a 
 primary and necessary truth, joreserved intact, as upon 
 the first page of Revelation. 
 
 What is true with respect to Revelation and to Nature, 
 is equally so with respect to experimental religion : the 
 religion which is the result of an ol)jective Theism: that 
 which alone deserves the name. By this religion, as by 
 Nature and by Revelation man is taught to wait upon, 
 to hope in, to depend upon, a personal and perfect first 
 cause. Such is the nature of the schoolin^j: which His 
 pupils i)ass under. It is the schooling of Faith. Intelli- 
 gent and reasonable faith; yet faith, nevertheless. kSucIi 
 says, as does the Divine message : " Blessed are all they 
 that wait for Him." It is not a science ; for that recpiires 
 proof and demonstration. The Author, as the matter 
 of it, is al)Ove science. As it is as pure morality, above 
 mere knowledge, — so the great Author of such morality, 
 — as the cause, must be above and greater than, the effect. 
 The incomprehensibility of God is an admitted fact in 
 the history of His Providence. There is no separation 
 between the doctrine of the Divine existence and this 
 feature of His governance: if one is admitted the 
 other must follow. Here God asserts His Sovereignty : 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 2G1 
 
 h regard 
 lethod of 
 ages and 
 speak, of 
 id. That 
 ut when 
 5 mystery 
 hen His 
 "itill, as a 
 , as upon 
 
 D Nature, 
 
 ^ion : the 
 
 isui: that 
 
 on, as l>y 
 
 lit upon, 
 
 feet first 
 
 licli His 
 
 Intelli- 
 
 s. Sucli 
 
 all they 
 
 e(|uires 
 
 matter 
 
 , ahove 
 
 lorality, 
 
 le effect. 
 
 lact in 
 
 aration 
 
 nd this 
 
 ;ed the 
 
 liignty : 
 
 and also, this essential element of His character. Wo 
 are, as we are dependent upon God as our Supreme 
 Governor, equally dependant upon Him, for the 
 knowledge of the details of His proceedings to us ward. 
 I say the details: because, although He has made known 
 to us the fact, most absolutely and certainly, that He 
 will judge the righteous and the wicked ; and, as a fact, 
 certainly, and pefectly ; as to the tuay of it, as also 
 as to the way of His Redemption and other great 
 truths connected with it, there are secret things which 
 in the assertion of His character, He has reserved to 
 Himself, and which belong not to us. It is not 
 necessary for us to know them, but it is necesssry 
 for us to believe this concerning Him, — which the 
 knowledge we have of Him requires, — that He is both 
 holy, and just, and good. " If we believe oiot, yet He 
 abideth faithful : He cannot deny Himself." Nothing 
 can countervail this. Nor can one attribute of His 
 character be exalted at the expense of another. 
 
 This, — as we may know, — we are required to believe. 
 His utterances require our unhesitating faith, our awe 
 and our adoration ; His silence, in view of what we do 
 know of Him, as to anything regarding His dealings 
 and government to us ward, must also require our 
 trustful and loyal submission. There is absolutely no 
 alternative for man, as a creature and a sinner, but, so 
 to cast himself upon God, prayerfully seeking and 
 thankfully accepting what he has seen fit to reveal 
 to us concerning Himself, our interests and duty ; or, 
 in proud, unhumbled and defiant Athiesm, to reject 
 alike his knowledge and His service. 
 
£.1 
 
 ii- 
 
 262 
 
 MODERN UNIVERSALISM 
 
 E t 
 
 The existence of such an antagonistic principle and 
 its progressive development as Anti-Christ, we are 
 distinctly told of, and warned against ; and the writer 
 cannot but express his conviction that the culminating 
 point is near at hand, when such a principle as fore- 
 told, will declare itself. It is now turning over many 
 to unbelief, and corresponding sin. That a crisis is at 
 hand, is admitted and asserted by both parties in the 
 present controversy. 
 
 It is asserted by Universalists and Materialists, from 
 their standpoint, wherefrom, as scientists, or rather 
 pseudo-scientists, and unbelievers in the plenary inspir- 
 ation of the sacred writings, they look for the supre- 
 macy and triumph of their principles. It is admitted 
 and asserted by orthodox Christians, upon the basis of 
 God's Revelation, and of belief therein. Both look for 
 a coming trial of principles. Both look for a victory. 
 Unbelief looks for it : so does Faith ; and it is not 
 faith, or unbelief of mere doctrinal principles which, 
 of whatever impoitance, are still comprehensive of 
 Theism. No, it is Theism, or Atheism : God, or no 
 God. Holy Scripture, as has already been noticed, 
 anticipates this, and warns believers against it. 
 
 Forewarned, they are forearmed. Sin and error is 
 not merely of the understanding, but it is a 'moral evil. 
 It is a cunadative evil. It will assert itself in absolute 
 unbelief Here is its terminus, and here is the ulti- 
 mate and dividing line. " The fool hath said in his 
 heart, there is no God." 
 
 Whether some who incline to the principles of 
 Rationalism will revert to faith, or go on to the logical 
 issue, is another matter. 
 
AND MATERIALISM. 
 
 263 
 
 nciple and 
 it, we are 
 the writer 
 ilminating 
 e as fore- 
 :)ver many 
 crisis is at 
 tics in the 
 
 ilists, from 
 or ratlier 
 iry inspir- 
 blie supre- 
 1 admitted 
 le basis of 
 h look for 
 a victory. 
 it is not 
 OS which, 
 ensive of 
 od, or no 
 I noticed, 
 it. 
 
 i error is 
 loral evil. 
 I absolute 
 the ulti- 
 id in his 
 
 An eternal dualism is inevitably asserted. It is 
 that of sin and righteousness, faith and unbelief, 
 Theism and Atheism. This must, ultimately, in the 
 end of man's probation, the probation of the race, be 
 the issue, and the personal result. With one, or the 
 other, he will be ranged. 
 
 Such too, has ever, actually, been the personal issue. 
 But let us be assured of this, that whether in His 
 dealings with the righteous, or with the wicked; in His 
 final retributive dealings, the Lord Jehovah will be 
 and appear to all, confessed by all, and adored by His 
 own :— the all-perfect God. The faith of the godly 
 will then be fully justified, and the folly and ruinous 
 character of unbelief and rebellion will then,— and onhj 
 then, — be justly and truly realized. 
 
 ciples of 
 lie logical 
 
4' 
 
 t'',i 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 SY.NOPSIS OF AN ARTICLE ON au^. 
 
 By the Rev. John Carry, B. D. 
 
 By the kind permission of tlie author, I give this 
 valuable article in an abbreviated form. It was pub- 
 lished in " The Clergyman's Magazine " for June, 1878, 
 and was decidedly approved of by the " Guardian,"' 
 and by the " Literary Churchman." 
 
 I only regret that I cannot give it here in extenso. 
 As wjll be seen, it amplifies with much ability an 
 argument found in Book L, Part 1, of this work ; and 
 shews that athm, and words and phrases equivalent, 
 are used as synonyms with al^v and atoiwo?, both by 
 Classical writers, by Rabbinical writers, and in the 
 Septuagint and Hebrew text. This satisfactorily and 
 fully does away with the Etymological argument, by 
 which the Usus Loquendi is ignored. 
 
 I. Classical use. 
 
 The author first gives a quotation from the Timjeus 
 of Plato, Tauchnitz Edition, Vol. 7, pp. 2G, 27, in which, 
 he shews that dthm and aioiVLo^ are used as convertible 
 terms. Also, that Plato says of " past," " present," and 
 
T 
 
 2CG 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 
 " future " : " All these arc the different sorts of time, 
 as it imitates eternity — almva." 
 
 Of the hypothetical dissolution of created things, 
 he says : — 
 
 "Their pattern is a world, or nature, that exists 
 through all eternity" — to fiev yap Brj irapaheuyfia, wavra 
 
 alwva iarlu 6v. 
 
 In Timteus Locrus, vol. 7, p. Ill, he says : — 
 
 " God, the eternal {amviov) author of all things, 
 the intellect can alone perceive." And p. 112 : eiKcbv 
 Te3 dyevvuTO) xpovo) ov auova iroTayopevafie^ — " an 
 image of the unoriginated time which we designate 
 Eternity." 
 
 " Thus God, rcov aTrduTtov dp')^cvyov Kal ycveropa, is 
 aloiPio^;. And unoriginated time is alcov. 
 
 In Aristotle De Cojlo 1 : 9, we have the following : — 
 
 " For the term or end which embraces the time of 
 each one's life, beyond which there is no natural exten- 
 sion, is called each man's ala)v, life-time. And accord- 
 ing to the same manner of speech, also the end of the 
 whole heaven, and the end of which embraces all time 
 and infinity itself is atwV, which is derived from ever- 
 (dei-) existing." 
 
 '* Though this derivation is exploded by philologists, 
 nothing can more clearly express the common xuiage of 
 the word as the equivalent for a proper eternity, and 
 all doubt is removed by the derivation presented. 
 
 "And Diodor. Sic 1:0: dire^rivavTo koX to yevo^i t&u 
 avOpdyrrcov e^ aitavio^ vrrdp^eiv — "They held the human 
 race to have existed from eternity." 
 
 II. Next in order comes the Hebrew word t3bl3?- 
 
 U 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 2G7 
 
 3 of time, 
 
 d things, 
 
 l»at exists 
 fMj iravra 
 
 The author gives the etyniologicjil renderings. 
 These signify remote, or indefinite, or hidden time. 
 
 He then proceeds to shew, that by the usus loquendi 
 of the Old Testament writers, it came to signify eternal 
 duration. (Jer. 51 : 39. "Tliat they may sleep a per- 
 petual sleep. 
 
 U things 
 
 O f 
 
 12: 
 
 eiKcov 
 
 ie? — " an 
 designate 
 
 veropa, is 
 
 Dwing : — 
 B time of 
 al exten- 
 d accord - 
 id of the 
 J all time 
 om ever- 
 
 lologists, 
 usage of 
 lity, and 
 :ed. 
 
 2 human 
 
 Hebrews— "Asleep of tJ^-j^ Chap. 28 (LXX.) vnvdiaiv Jhivov 
 
 iolam), eternity;" " /. ^., for all r- < s r r 
 
 future, viz., death." — Fuirst, 
 
 Daniel 7 : 14. — •' His dominion tlova'ta aluvios, }}t4j ov naptXtvai- 
 is an everlasting dominion, which to», nai r) $a(Ti\tta amov ov 8«o- 
 ■hall not pass away, and His ^op^fffToi. 
 Kingdom that which shall not be 
 destroyed." 
 
 Ps. 90: 2.— "From everliiHttiKj iirli rov alSivoi tun roZ alwvot 
 to everUvttimj Thou (art) (Jod." ah «7. 
 "Eternity both past and future." 
 — Fuerst. 
 
 The absence of the copula in Hebrew, and the abso- 
 lute <rif el of the LXX., sufficiently attest the proper 
 eternity of the life of God which is meant. 
 
 Genesis 21 : 33.— "And Abra- 
 ham called on the name of the 
 Lord, the everlasting God." 
 
 0*hi aldpiot 
 
 dbi3? bi|l, (^l olam) : " Eternity without beginning 
 and end, applied to God alone, and always to be ren- 
 dered cverlastlng^—Fuerst. So Is. 40 : 28, ^bl:? Tllbi^, 
 {Elohay olam), " The everlasting God." Dan. 12 : 7. 
 " Sware by Him that liveth for ever and ever." dbl3?n 
 (through) the age, the singular with the article, denot- 
 
IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 m 1128 
 
 Hi': 
 
 m 
 
 ■16 
 
 2.0 
 
 1.4 
 
 1.6 
 
 v: 
 
 <^ 
 
 o 
 
 % 
 
 e). 
 
 /} 
 
 m, 
 
 %^w 
 
 ff 
 
 
 o 
 
 ^m .. 
 
 / 
 
 M 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 €^ 
 
 A. 
 
 f^ 
 
 \ 
 
 ^V 
 
 \ 
 
 \ 
 
 "^ 
 
 
 Cv 
 
 
 6^ 
 
 .^-^ 
 
 \j 
 
 ■V 
 
 23 WEST H.k\W STREET 
 
 WbBSTEi.N.Y. 14^80 
 
 (71iS) 872-4503 
 
<>°.t^: 
 
 Co 
 
 Q'.r 
 
 '% 
 
 i/l 
 
 \ 
 
 m 
 
 

 268 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 ing the totality of duration ; and so LXX. : ct? top 
 
 aiava. 
 
 »»tM 
 
 comnpiav cudnov. 
 
 ews Tov aiwvos in. 
 
 Isaiah 45: 17.— "Israel shall 
 be saved in the Lord with an ever- 
 lasting salvation." (Q'^^jbi^?* 
 
 • T 
 
 olamin, of ages, eternities) : " Ye 
 shall not be ashamed nor con- 
 founded, world without end." 
 iy ''?2bi5^13? ad-olemay ad =: 
 •' unto the ages of eternity," 
 
 A similar phrase is found in Micah 4:5," We will 
 walk in the name of the Lord our- God for ever and 
 ever." ^i?"i Qbl3>b> {I'olam vaed.) LXX. et? tov alcopa 
 
 V T T 
 
 Kal eireKeiva. 
 
 " Let us here observe a very striking and decisive 
 translation of the LXX. In Isa. 48 : 12, our authorized 
 version reads, " I am the First, I also am the Last." 
 For " the Last," the LXX has lilPli^ (akharon) ; but 
 
 the LXX. translate, 7rpodTO<i kol iyco elfiL et? rbv alwva. 
 " I am the First, and I am for ever!' 
 
 III. We now come to Septuagint uses of aicovLo<; to 
 express the longest duration, not in verbal translation 
 from the Hebrew, but in independent phraseology. 
 Job 33 : 12. alouviof: yap iarlv 6 iirdvw fipoTwv. " For 
 He that is above mortals (is) eternal; Authorized 
 Version: "God is greater than man." Wisdom 4:1. 
 " Virtue the memory thereof is immortal." dOavaaia, 
 Ecclus 13 : 1. 6 ^utv eh tov alwva == ^co?. " He that 
 liveth for ever " = absolutely for God. 
 . The author gives also a quotation from 4 Mace. 
 
 
: €49 TOV 
 
 We will 
 ver aiul 
 ov alwva 
 
 decisive 
 fchorized 
 Last." 
 n); but 
 
 If aldova. 
 
 'jovio^ to 
 islation 
 eology. 
 "For 
 lorized 
 n 4 : 1. 
 ivaaia. 
 e that 
 
 Mace. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 269 
 
 10 : 15, to shew that there also, aiBio<; and alcovio<; are 
 used as synonomous terms. 
 
 He also notices that '* emphasized forms, more com- 
 plex" are used in the Apocryphal books, and that they 
 contain many more statements of what Mr. Deutsch 
 calls " this damnable doctrine." I transcrib3 his remarks 
 upon the use of the words aiwvLo^ and athio<i. 
 
 " If indeed, wherever in canonical Scripture the 
 respective states of good and bad men in a future life, 
 are mentioned together and contrasted, we always found 
 carefully observed the supposed difference between 
 athio^i and alwviot, (as in 4 Mace. 12:12 where ala>vio<i 
 is used concerning punishment) ; there would then 
 unquestionably be the greatest reason for considering 
 that difference. But so far is this difference from the 
 mind of the sacred writers, that, as we shall see later 
 on, and as is indeed universally admitted, amvio^ of 
 supposed inferior force, is the word customarily and 
 almost technically employed to express the interminable 
 bliss of God's people. This is a question for those to 
 explain, who insist on the great variety of expression 
 which the Greek language made possible." 
 
 IV. Next in order is the Rabbinical use, and as I 
 cannot quote this in full, I will give the substance of 
 tlie testimony adduced therefrom. 
 
 Mr. Carry quotes from Lightfoot : Ilor. Heb. Matt. 
 12 : 32. Lightfoot traces the phraseology there used : 
 {oitK a<f>€6rja€Tai ainco, ovt€ iv rovrtp tm, alwift ovre iv 
 Tft) fiiWovTi,) to the Rabbinical phrase ntH Jlb^? and 
 n!in Ub^) {olam hazzeh and olam hahhah,) noticing 
 that while olam hazzeh refers to this life, olam habba 
 36 
 

 270 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 IP I 
 
 i 
 
 refers : 1. To the times of the Messiah. 2. To the state 
 after death. 
 
 So also it may be added, it appears that in the mind 
 of the Sacred Writers, i.e., in Matt. 12 : 32, as compared 
 with St. Mark 3 : 28, and Luke 12 : 10, the two dispen- 
 sations comprehended the entire and utmost limit of 
 human probation. 
 
 The author quotes from Buxtorfs Talmudical and 
 Rabbinical Lexicon, where " the living God Himself," 
 and " the King of Eternity, Q^2? olaTn, are spoken of as 
 convertible terms for Jehovah. Having: ascertained that 
 I2^r; means, in Rabbinical use. Eternity in the strict 
 
 T 
 
 sense of the word, the author quotes Daniel 2 : 44, Ps. 
 77: 7, 8, 9, and Isa. 45 17, to show that the phraseology 
 there used, is a reproduction of that in the Rabbins. 
 Specially may Ps. 77 be noticed because nS5b = ^'f 
 
 Te\o9, is used as parallel with uTro yevea^i koX y€ved<;. 
 
 As Mr. Carry says, " the Hebrew does its best in the 
 way of variety and amplification ; and the Rabbinic, as 
 represented in Buxtorf s. v. Xlby can do nothing better 
 
 than reproduce the very words in their later and debased 
 forms, and the amplification, to the ages of ages — ;j^'i)aby 
 1)2^3?^^.'* So, "It would be well to remember, that 
 these three verses, Ps. 77 : 7, 8, 9, represent with cer- 
 tainty the Rabbinic meaning of " ages of ages," which 
 must be something more than "a twelvemonth or so;" 
 even the ^3?i?anb3? 1^ of Isa. 45 : 17, and the €t9 tow 
 aioiva^ and ovk earai reXoi of Gabriel, Luke 1 : 33. 
 Now, in these verses of Ps. 77, just quoted, no one can 
 have a shadow of doubt that endless dui-ation is meant. 
 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 271 
 
 the state 
 
 he mind 
 ompared 
 ) dispen- 
 limit of 
 
 ical and 
 limself," 
 con of as 
 ned that 
 le strict 
 
 : 44, Ps. 
 
 aseology 
 Rabbins. 
 b = et? 
 
 T 
 
 it in the 
 binic, as 
 g better 
 
 debased 
 
 5r, that 
 
 ith cer- 
 
 ' which 
 
 or so;" 
 
 €t? TOW? 
 
 e 1 : 33. 
 
 )ne can 
 meant. 
 
 and yet the Greek translators never get beyond a bare 
 " transcription," where they were bound to do so, if any 
 uncertainty could possibly attach to their customary 
 phrase. Yet " Salvator Mundi " argues thus : " The 
 Greek language is not so poor that it cannot convey 
 the idea of unbroken time, in terms not to be mistaken. 
 It contains many words by which it might have 
 conveyed these ideas in the most definite and unques- 
 tionable way :" and so, when we find Greek translators- 
 employing a certain formula to represent several Hebrew 
 phrases, which unquestionably mean "unbroken dura- 
 tion," we are therefore bound to conclude — what in all 
 the world are we bound to conclude ? — why that the 
 Greek formula does not mean " unbroken duration !" 
 and we are to " conclude that there is hidden," in the 
 formula, " some doctrine of the ceons" 
 
 We humbly submit that this inference is utterly 
 against the facta of the case, and would be sufficiently 
 confuted by this present reference alone. This sup- 
 posed doctrine of ?eons is as mystic, as baseless, and 
 may perhaps develop into something as portentous as 
 the Gnostic doctrine of aeons. We believe that we 
 are not wrong in affirming, that the most imaginative 
 and speculative geniuses of Christian antiquity never 
 had a suspicion of such an esoteric doctrine. Origen, 
 with his well known universalism, his great learning, 
 his keen insight, and his untrammelled theorizing, was 
 the most likely man of all the Chuich to have made 
 this discovery of the geons. But the discovery was 
 reserved for this remarkable century. Origen has a 
 doctrine of retribution, but none of the aeons. 
 
I 
 
 
 272 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 "It certainly does seem a plain case of foregone con- 
 clusion against philological evidence. A weighty part 
 of that evidence has been quietly ignored; for the 
 LXX. whence the N. T. phrase is so largely derived, is 
 not referred to by Mr. Baldwin Brown, Mr. Jukes, or 
 Mr. Cox." 
 
 V. The New Testament use. 
 
 I can here but quote part of the author's remarks, 
 and give them in his own words. 
 
 " From the Rabbis, passed over into the New Testa- 
 ment, 6 al(i>v ovTOf and fx,e\Xct)v, to distinguish the present 
 life from that which follows the Last Judgment : as, 
 Luke 18 : 30, * manifold more in this present Katpt^ and 
 in the alcovi to come, life everlasting.' 
 
 " Compare Matt. 19 : 28 : where the world to come, 
 follows the regeneration, when the Son of man sits on 
 the throne of His glory ; and Luke 20 : 35, follows the 
 resurrection : (vid., as above, Lightfoot's comment on 
 Matt. 12 : 32). 
 
 There are few examples of aloyv used absolutely, in 
 the New Testament ; though 2 Peter 3 : 18, is a clear 
 instance : — " To Him (Jesus Christ) be glor}'^ both now 
 and to the day of eternity — ek rj/xipav alwva<i!' (See 
 above IIL, Eccles. 18 : 10.) 
 
 The principal use of aloiv is in the phrase et? rov 
 alcova {for ever) ; of which let us take the following 
 examples, where the use is clear : John C : 51, " If any 
 man eat of this bread he shall live for ever : " because he 
 shares the life of Christ, (see v. 57.) And 8 : 35, 
 where we have figure and reality, and where the looser 
 and stricter use, before referred to, are found: "And 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 273 
 
 :t9 TOP 
 
 owing 
 f any 
 sehe 
 
 : 35, 
 ooser 
 
 And 
 
 the bondservant abideth not in the house for ever ; 
 but the son abideth for ever." 
 
 Luke 1 : 33 : " The angel says of our Lord, He shall 
 reign over the house of Jacob for ever, ct? tov? alwpa<i, 
 and of His kingdom there shall be no end ; t€\o?." 
 The parallelism proves the seons = endless, as the 
 sense demands. 
 
 We have a further amplification in et? tou«? aiwpo<i 
 roiv alwvcov as in Gal. 1 : 5 : " Our God and Father : to 
 whom be glory for ever and ever." (Phil. 4 : 20.) 
 
 It vi^ould seem that this formula corresponds with 
 the Hebrew superlative, as in Dan. 9 : 24, the Hebrew 
 " holy of holies," is translated in the authorized version, 
 " most holy ;" and as in the Magnificat, His mercy is 
 on them that fear Him, eh yevea^i yevewp (text us recep- 
 tus) unto generations of generations," i. e., the most 
 distant possible. Winer indeed (sect. 3G : 2), and 
 Grimm "(Lex. New Testament), regard the form as no 
 mere Hebraism, but as denoting ages made up of ages, 
 and equivalent to the longest possible duration." " In 
 the same book, this formula marks the duration of the 
 punishment of men and devils : 13 : 3, " Her smoke 
 goeth up for ever and ever." — apa^aipei et? Toi/'i al(opa<i 
 rap aloopap. The present tense, dpa^aipei, is also sug- 
 gestive of perpetuity. The authorized version " rose 
 up," is wrong; there is no various reading. In 20 : 10, 
 it is said of the devil, the beast, and the false prophet : 
 " They shall be tormented day and night for ever and 
 ever." And of the servants of God in the final blessed 
 state, it is said (22 : 5) : They shall reign for ever and 
 ever." 
 
■I! 
 
 r 
 
 ik I 
 
 274 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 ^l^ 
 
 m 
 
 1 
 
 m 
 
 " Al(i)vto<i has the same limitations as alcop cf. Rom. 
 IG : 25, /jLvaTTjplov ')(p6voL<i alavioi'^ aeatyrjfiivov, with 2 
 Tim. 1 : ^, '^(apLV rr^v Zodelaav ... tt/jo 'xpovtav alcoviayv. 
 Of this limited meaning six or seven examples are 
 found ; but its principal use is to express eternal dura- 
 tion, of which a single example will suffice : 2 Cor. 4 : 
 18, "The things which are seen are temiwral, TrpoaKUipa, 
 (lasting for a season), but the things which are not 
 seen are eternal, aloyvLa." 
 
 " Al(i)Pio<i (says Dr. Cremer) is specially predicated of 
 the saving blessings of Divine revelation, by which 
 their not being transitory is denoted : cf. 2 Cor. 5:1: 
 syn., a<l>0apTo^, 1 Pet. 1 : 23, cf. v. 25 (and 2 Pet. 1:11): 
 aKaTaXvTo<: ; Heb. 7 : IG., cf. v. 17 and 9 : 14." Of those 
 passages, in which, alQimo<i, as qualifying the punish- 
 ment of the wicked, are quoted by the author, I give 
 the two following : Mark 3 : 29, and 2 Thes. 1 : 9. Of 
 the former it is said : " He that shall blaspheme against 
 the Holy Ghost hath never (ovk eU tov alcova) forgive- 
 ness, but is in danger of eternal sm," amviov a/iapT^- 
 fiaro^t, as all the critical editions now read. 
 
 Of the latter " oltlvc*; BiKrjp Tio-ovaiv, oXeOpov alcouiov, 
 aTTO irpoacunrov rov KvpioVy koX diro rrj<i 86^?;9 Trj<i L<T)(yo<; 
 avTOv. 
 
 " An awful verse ! no idea of reformatory punish- 
 ment here ! shall pay the loenalty, shall suffer the 
 vengeance. What an amazing imposition on a Chris- 
 tian's judgment to ask him to believe, as Mr. Jukes 
 does, that oKedpov altaviov is a " remedial" process ! 
 What a terrible playing with terrible words is this! 
 cTTo TrpoaouTTov, K.T.X. IS n trcmcndous exaggeration of 
 
% 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 275 
 
 cf. Rom. 
 V, with 2 
 
 iples are 
 lal dura- 
 2 Cor. 4 : 
 JoaKaipa, 
 are not 
 
 cated of 
 >y which 
 )r. 5:1; 
 .1:11): 
 Of those 
 punish- 
 ', T give 
 : 0. Of 
 against 
 forgive- 
 afiaprrj- 
 
 ai(6piov, 
 
 punish- 
 fer the 
 Chris- 
 . Jukes 
 rocess ! 
 is this! 
 tion of 
 
 oKeOpov : the power that banishes to destruction, forbids 
 return." 
 
 I think it will be generally agreed, by candid readers, 
 that the Author has given us a luminous exhibition of 
 philological facts, and not theories. Also, that he has 
 cogently vindicated Orthodox Theolog}^ 
 
 I will but remark here, that the special pleading of 
 Canon Farrar, Mr. Jukes, Mr. Cox and others concern- 
 ing al(6vio<i and other words referred to by Mr. Cox 
 p. 37, does but furnish another instance of wilful viola- 
 tion of a well known and governing principle of inter- 
 pretation, viz., a due regard to the usus loquendi. 
 
 (B) -EXCURSUS ON THE RISE OF MORAL EVIL. 
 
 This is a topic very closely connected with the doctrine 
 of Original Sin, as the latter is with that of Future 
 Punishment. The character of that punishment, sug- 
 gests the enquiry, " Is Evil to be done away with, or, is 
 it to continue ?" " If so, why was it allowed of God ?'* 
 or, '• How did it originate ?" 
 
 The latter question is one which has perplexed the 
 wisest of men, for many generations, but it is again 
 revived in connection with the present controversy. 
 The destruction of evil, is demanded by many, as 
 essential to God's character ; and also, it is sought as a 
 demonstrated truth. There is a prescribed limit to 
 all such enquiries, which I have already referred to. 
 
 We may not expect such a demonstration as has 
 
frt 
 
 276 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 h 
 
 w 
 
 just been noticed, nor do I suppose such can be given 
 of the rise of moral evil ; but, as the orthodox belief 
 is supposed, by some, to favour the Manichean error, I 
 will offer some remarks, which may, at least, serve to 
 shew that it is not open to such a charge. I think, 
 that it may perhaps be shewn, to be consistent with 
 the facts of Revelation, and of experience in relation 
 to sin and temptation, that the entrance of sin, into 
 the world of higher created intelligences, was by a 
 process similar to that by which it entered our own ; 
 although, in the latter case, it was with a superadded 
 moral and personal influence, from without. I will first 
 quote Professor Birks's view of this question, from p. 
 78, " Difficulties of belief." 
 
 " Now, evil viewed in it's widest sense, includes the 
 necessity which underlies the whole universe of the 
 possible, and is a shadowy resemblance of the Divine 
 necessity of being, with no share in the spontaneity of 
 the Godhead. By virtue of its character, it can never 
 touch the Divine nature ; but seizes upon every created 
 being, which might possibly not have been, and attaches 
 to it, as a metaphysical evil, from the moment of its 
 birth, in the form of a necessary limitation, and privation 
 of still higher modes of being. But, in the form of 
 moral evil it cannot exist, since it has nothing spon- 
 taneous, or free in itself, till it has allied itself with the 
 freedom of some positive existence. 
 
 Now, this can only be, when the Creator, besides 
 creating all things freely, creates moral agents endowed 
 with His own prerogative of internal choice and free- 
 dom of will. But this marriage between metaphysical 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 277 
 
 be given 
 
 X belief 
 
 > 
 
 I error, I 
 serve to 
 I think, 
 3nt with 
 relation 
 sin, into 
 as by a 
 ur own ; 
 eradded 
 vill first 
 from p. 
 
 ides the 
 
 of the 
 
 Divine 
 
 aeity of 
 
 a never 
 
 created 
 
 itaches 
 
 of its 
 
 ivation 
 
 brm of 
 
 spon- 
 
 ith the 
 
 resides 
 dowed 
 i free- 
 lysical 
 
 evil, which is necessary, and the free-will of the creatnio, 
 out of which is born moral evil, must remain a mystery, 
 different in kind, yet very similar to tlic mystery of 
 the Divine existence." 
 
 Upon page 44, Mr. Birks says that moral evil "is an 
 inseparable result of the creation of free moral agents." 
 I would rather say, " is closely connected with the 
 subsequent history of such free moral agents." But I 
 think that a more satisfactory view of the whole matter 
 may be taken. 
 
 We may start with an ascertained and well established 
 premiss, that God is the perfect good, both in Himself, 
 and to His creatures : To all, but especially to moral 
 agents. Also, that all God's luorls are good, as they 
 originate from Him; but vjithin such a limitation as 
 He has assigned them. (Compare this with Mr, Birks's 
 statement, before quoted.) 
 
 This is true of moral agents, as [they stand related 
 to Himself: it is true of the material creation, in 
 the relation that material good, — properly, — in itself 
 considered, (including metaphysical, or spiritual, as dis- 
 tingitished from material good,) and also, in relation to 
 God's Law, — bears to man Both, as created, and not 
 self -existent, can be but relatively good, and so imperfect. 
 
 Both are capable, from their very nature, of trans- 
 mutation ; but of such a transmutation as is involved 
 in the relations they severally bear to God, and also to 
 each other. Objective material good, in its widest 
 sense, as above referred to ; when acted upon by a 
 free moral agent, contrary to the Divine Law of such 
 relation to Himself and to man ; may, as so operated 
 37 
 
IW 
 
 w 
 
 278 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 i*! 
 
 li 
 
 I 
 
 upon by the human will, produce, by reason of such 
 moral impress, marriage and conception; as God has 
 forbidden such alliance, by inherent law of the nature 
 of each, as well as by knowledge of God's command, 
 involved in such Free Agency; a subjective evil: Such 
 is sin. So, in its first inception, as afterwards known, 
 and ascertained by dogmatic teaching of Holy Scripture, 
 it is " the transgression of the law." 
 
 Created good, whether known or unknown, or of 
 whatever kind, when sought after by a free moral agent 
 so as to contravene the law and love of the Creatoi-; and 
 peculiarly so in the case of angels who had knowledge 
 of God ; must, in such case, stamp such a character of 
 evil upon them, as partakes of their own superior 
 ontological qualities. 
 
 Thus, moral evil, is not born of metaphysical evil, 
 and moral good, or free agency ; but of material, in 
 the sense before declared, and of moral good: i. e., 
 pure or unfjillen free agency. 
 
 This view appears to me to be fortified by the fact 
 that the culminatorv and final condemnation of men, 
 arises from a similar determinate preference of material, 
 or created good, (Rom. 1: 21-25) above the uncreated 
 and perfect Good : from whom all creation proceeds, as 
 the first cause, and to whom by n^^'n-al and by positive 
 law, as the proper and controlling good, all such intelli- 
 gent and moral creation belongs. 
 
 Such action as contravenes this law, is, by the whole 
 tenor of Holy Writ, the "sin unto death," Further 
 than this, the express testimony of Holy Writ, as to 
 the abuse of creature good, fortifies this position. The 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 270 
 
 of such 
 3 0(1 has 
 nature 
 mmand, 
 /: Such 
 known, 
 ripture, 
 
 I, or of 
 a,l agent 
 or; and 
 )wledge 
 icter of 
 superior 
 
 ;al evil, 
 
 rial, in 
 
 .: i. e., 
 
 le fact 
 men, 
 aterial, 
 created 
 eds, as 
 lositive 
 intelli- 
 
 whole 
 'urther 
 , as to 
 The 
 
 sin for which the heathen were condemned by Paul, 
 (Rom. 1:) is the condeming sin in all cases. So, God 
 says, (Matt. 2: 2) "I will curse your blessings, yea, I 
 have cursed them already, because ye laid it not to 
 heart." So David says, Ps. G9 : 22 ; so Paul, Rom. 11: 11, 
 " Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a 
 stumbling block and a recompense unto them." So, Ps. 
 106: lo, "God gave them their desire, but sent leanness 
 withal into their soul." The same voluntary, but sinful 
 deflection of man's life from God, was possible, under 
 the very highest conditions of created mcn-al excellency. 
 So, as free agents, but by the addition ( •' opposing 
 forces of good and evil in the allotted tiial, viian is 
 still tried; and the just relations of the ' ;eature, to the 
 Creator and Benefactor now manifested, justify us in 
 concluding that a perfect uiiity of princijjlc upon this 
 L;.i :,is, must ever have been God's rule for the gox^ernment 
 of free agents. 
 
 Why He did create free agents, we may not presume 
 to say ; but that moral evil, as existent, is traceable to 
 this fact, I quite agree with Professor Birks, altliough 
 I diff*er with him, as has been seen, as to the marriage 
 of free agency with metaphysical evil. 
 
 It does but remain, that we consider the question 
 " Is it possible for a froe agent — as an unfallen being, — 
 to be so tempted to a wrong exercise of such free 
 agency ? " (That is, aside from any operation of an 
 opposite principle from without, w^hether upon his 
 senses or upon his mind.) 
 
 When we consider the very fact of such free agent, 
 being a creature, and so mutable ; of his being a crea- 
 
■^A. 
 
 11 
 
 ■: ntB 
 
 li ' 
 
 280 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 ture, and so dependant upon the Divine Being for iiis 
 knowledge, we may see such temptation to be possible. 
 
 The possibility of temptation coming to him from 
 ^uithin, from tlie fact of such free agency, and of the 
 limitations inseperable from the creature ; (not the 
 necessity of such temptation,) is, I think, evident from 
 the premisses. Yet did we admit such temptation to- 
 be necessary, as Mr. Birks asserts metaphysical evil to 
 be necessary ; it by no means makes moral evil to be 
 necessaiy ; nor, as he asserts, " a necessary consequence 
 of the creation of Free Moral Agents." I quite agree 
 with him in what he says (p. 54,) that "the will of 
 such a creature is neither undetermined nor necessitated 
 by outward circumstances : it is se//-determined." 
 
 I also agree with him when he says (p. o(j), that 
 moral agents can only be ruled by moral influence ; 
 and that mechanism, compulsion, and mere physical 
 constraint, are means incompatible with the essential 
 laws of their nature, which Almighty Power cannot, 
 and Infinite Wisdom refuses to employ. An<.l hence, 
 the supposition that such remedies can avail, when all 
 others have failed, can be nothing else than a mischievous 
 delusion" 
 
 I have italicized the last sentence. 
 
 It must, however, yet be said, that what Mr. Birks 
 has written in the latter part of the same book, goes to 
 modify, if not to entirely contravene, the foregoing 
 utterance, and that he yet inclines to the belief that a 
 moral, if not a physical force, will qualify, if not 
 disannul, the results of a previous moral trial. 
 
 I think it to be quite apparent, upon the premissea 
 
 M. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 281 
 
 <; for Lis 
 possible. 
 m from 
 1 of the 
 not the 
 nt from 
 ition to 
 [ evil to 
 'il to be 
 3quence 
 ;e agree 
 
 will of 
 ssitated 
 d. 
 
 3), that 
 fuence ; 
 hysical 
 sential 
 cannot, 
 
 hence, 
 hen all 
 
 ievous 
 
 Birks 
 foes to 
 
 going 
 that a 
 if not 
 
 [nissea 
 
 which I have stated, (1) that, as is required by the very 
 nature of the creature, and the free agent, however 
 sinless ; (that is to sa}'', as having a mor.al nature with 
 no positive bias to sin), that it should be capable 
 of temptation ; so (2) that the nature of the case does 
 not require anything in the shape of metaphysical evil, 
 to produce such a result as moral evil ; because (3) the 
 nature of material, as distinguished from moral good, 
 as it also is imperfect ; so, when ' it is acted upon by a 
 moral agent, in contravention of the law of supreme 
 love, trust, and homage due to the Creator ; such action 
 must produce m such moral agent, the curse attendant 
 upon such deflection, as a generated ii,nd inherent moral 
 evil. (4) The knowledge of the creature, as an imperfect 
 knowledge, must require a trust in the supreme and 
 all-perfect Creator ; but if such rightful trust is alien- 
 ated, and by reason of such character of free-agency, 
 may be alienated from them to other possibly existent, 
 if not known objects, then also such deflection of the 
 creature's faith, is moral evil or sin. (5) We may 
 argue, a postcriovi, that God, as Creator of moral 
 Agents, will try them ; and so, that as first created, 
 their very moral qualities, by moral law are made 
 capable of such trial ; and also that, after trial, and by 
 moral law, they are so made, (morally), by confirmation 
 of a holy nature, incapable of falling. All we know 
 of God's moral government, enforces this lesson. * 
 
 * Mr. Birks's hypothesis (Doctrme of Belief, p. 228, ) of the know- 
 ledge given to the saints of the punishment of the wicked, and their 
 beholding of it, as necensary to their continued allegiance to (rod, is 
 
wm 
 
 mmm 
 
 s;'-f 
 
 Sf « 
 
 ^iu 
 
 iv 
 
 
 
 li 
 
 282 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 The result of all is evident and clear. 
 
 Orthodox eschatology gives no support to Manichean 
 en'or. God did not create evil, although He foresaw 
 it ; but, while as the all-perfect Creator, He could, in 
 His power and wisdom, and consistently with all His 
 perfections, create free agents, under moral law to 
 Himself ; so, when such free agents do, as they may, 
 determinedly, under such trial as He in His righteous 
 government has seen fit to appoint them, reject and 
 contravene such law ; He, who so created them under 
 such provisions, is not, by the law of His own being, 
 so limited and necessitated, in the just maintenance of 
 His character and government, either to restore them ; 
 be it by physical or by moral law, which they them- 
 selves have before refused ; or, otherwise, to undo, and 
 destroy the work of His own hands. Either of these 
 courses would deny the primary and necessary Law of 
 His Being ; i.e., Perfection. 
 
 altogether contrary to the tenor of Holy Writ. Their established 
 and tried holiness, by moral law, and by God's promise, relieves them 
 from all fear of such danger. , ,• • 
 
 ti 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 283 
 
 lanichean 
 e fores«iw 
 s could, in 
 h all His 
 il law to 
 hey may, 
 righteous 
 eject and 
 sm under 
 vn being:, 
 mance of 
 're them ; 
 ey them- 
 mdo, and 
 of these 
 r Law of 
 
 stablished 
 eves them 
 
 (C)-EXCURSUS UPON THE TRICHOTOMY 
 
 THEORY. 
 
 This theory is held by all who hold to conditional 
 immortality; and as upon it they build their system, as 
 distinguished from Materialism, pure and simple ; it is 
 worthy of some special attention. We shall see that 
 this system of Psychology, so philosophically elaborated, 
 is open to most grave and serious objections ; and like 
 the same principle, as applied to doctrine, not only does 
 not solve difficulties nor demonstrate Scripture truths ; 
 but it " poisons the stream of God's word." What is 
 elsewhere said respecting knowledge of God by Philo- 
 sophy, holds good here also. 
 
 1. In order to establish a foundation for their system 
 they need to have a clear and well ascertained difi'erence 
 laid down in Holy Scripture, between the words "^555, 
 and n?i-|, ylrvxv, and irvevfia. Which of these, marks the 
 
 highest of the three qualities of which man, according 
 to their theoiy is composed ? 
 
 This they are not agreed upon ; as indeed there are 
 no data in Holy Scripture upon which to ground such 
 a distinction. We need not, therefore, enter further into 
 this enquiry. Such a distinction, as clearly made and 
 defined and so verbally described, by the sacred writers, 
 is imperatively demanded as a valid basis. No such basis, 
 by their own consent, can be found. Ergo, they, the 
 sacred writers, use the aforesaid words as synonyms of 
 
4i 
 
 
 •1 
 
 
 n 
 
 ) 
 
 1 'I 
 
 ,,, , 
 
 Ni 
 
 i 
 
 T 
 
 i 
 
 r . 
 
 »■' 
 
 1 
 
 
 ' i 
 
 Ml 
 
 I 
 
 284 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 each other. In proof of this, see Is. 2G: 8, 9: where 
 n^l, and 'jjg^ are used synonymously. 
 
 2. Having ascertained that their system is without 
 Scripture for its foundation ; we may now see how it 
 contravenes, alike, the laws of sound reason, and also 
 the doctrines of Holy Scripture. 
 
 Mr. Heard (page 20, Tri-partite Nature of Man) says: 
 " It is in proportion as men, by attaining to spiritual 
 manhood, and having their senses exercised (by reason 
 of use) to discern good and evil, that they learn what 
 is the organ which discharges the function of spiritual 
 mindedness. We see only half the glory of God's word, 
 if we suppose that the same can discharge two different 
 functions; serve, i. e., as the intellectual instrument of 
 the unawakened psyche, and also as the instrument of 
 religious consciousness when the spirit is aw^akened and 
 turned to God." 
 
 So he says (p. 21): " It is not the psyche that prays." 
 But how will he explain what Paul says, 1 Cor. 14 : 
 *' My spii-it (TTvevfia) prayeth," as compared with the 
 same act of Hannah, 1 Sam. 1: 15: " I have poured out 
 my soul ("OB^), before the Lord ?" Here, no amount of 
 
 ingenuity can declare that the two words are not 
 synonymous ; as they describe the same act, and the 
 same instrument. 
 
 But it is also irrational. Is it not absurd to say 
 that with one faculty we understand of God, while with 
 another we understand of his works ? Moreover, *he 
 faculty of conscience, or God consciousness, as they 
 describe it, and which is identified with the Ttrevfia, by 
 
 ;fi: 
 
 li» 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 285 
 
 ) : where 
 
 without 
 } how it 
 mcl also 
 
 m) says : 
 spiritual 
 y reason 
 •n what 
 ipiritiial 
 i's word, 
 lifferent 
 inent of 
 inent of 
 led and 
 
 prays." 
 or. 14: 
 ith the 
 red out 
 ount of 
 
 re not 
 nd the 
 
 to say 
 e with 
 3r, *he 
 they 
 tia, by 
 
 some of them, and with the -^v^r] by others ; requires a 
 
 knowledge of God which is absolutely denied to the 
 
 wicked, by God's Holy Word. See Jude, 10. Hence, it 
 
 would follow that the wicked, accordingtotheirTheology, 
 
 had no conscience; but that they say, that the trvevfia, or 
 
 ^jrv)(r), or God consciousness, is not absolutely dead, but 
 
 dormant. But their qualified rendering of the word 
 
 ** dead," is utterly subversive of Scripture truth, as to 
 
 the spiritual condition of men without the grace of 
 
 God. There is another powerful argument against their 
 
 theory, from the work of the Holy Spirit upon sinners, 
 
 as not resulting in conversion. They speak of the 
 
 quickening of the dormant Trvev/Ma, or y^v-)(o<;, as the 
 
 work of conversion : what of those whose minds being 
 
 much informed, their consciences powerfully awakened, 
 
 and their affections moved so that they are " almost 
 
 persuaded " to be Christians, yet their iv'dl does not 
 
 finally choose God and life ? Does their philosophy as 
 
 to the quickening of the irvevna, or '^v)(p<i, explain this ? 
 
 The reason of their formulating such a theory, has its 
 
 basis in assent to the pure Materialism of Darwin, 
 
 Tyndal, and Huxley ; and is but a vain philosophical 
 
 endeavour to harmonize such oppositions of science, 
 
 falsely so called, with tlie pure Word of God. So, what 
 
 Mr. Heard says, (p. 150) is mere special pleading for his 
 
 hypothesis : viz., that without such a trichotomy as he 
 
 advocates, man would be ontologically incapable of 
 
 making choice of God and His ways ; whereas the 
 
 incapacity is not physical, but moral. His argument 
 
 is as follows : " Thus the contingency to evil could only 
 
 have been avoided in one way, by denying to man the 
 38 
 

 286 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 '■¥>■■ 
 
 "?'*f 
 
 % 
 
 pneumatical faculty altogether ; (i. e., as he defines it,) 
 freedom to choose the good and to refuse the evil, is 
 involved in the very definition of what a spirit is." 
 
 So also, that conscience which he speaks of, (p. 160) 
 " renewed as on active habit," we may, and do aflfinn 
 does not, necessarily, include conversion. There may 
 be much activity of conscience, and yet the truth may 
 be " restrained (from acting,) by unrighteousness." See 
 Rom. 1: 18. This too, is mere theorizing, and petitio 
 principii. In like manner the affirmation made (p. 164) 
 concerning the Divine afflatus at creation as being 
 temporary, and contrasted with the gift of the Holy 
 Ghost in regeneration, as being permanent BXi(\. abiding; 
 this, also, is quite unwarranted. The very phraseology 
 of Scripture, i.e., yevvdo), apaKaivtoaL^^ Kacvr] KTi(Tt<i, as 
 compared with the statements of the Word concerning 
 man's fallen condition, necessitates the inference that 
 Regeneration restores or reinstates man in God's favour, 
 both forensically by justification ; (as both regeneration 
 and justification result from faith;) and actually, by the 
 restorinij and renewingr man in that image of God which 
 consists in the love and choice of Him, and the which 
 he lost by disobedience. His theory of sanctification, 
 viz., " a growth of the rrvevfjua, (p. 217-19,) is open to 
 the same objection. As his statement of regeneration 
 goes far to make it an ontologlcal cha.nge ; so of sancti- 
 fication : it is an ontologlcal growth. 
 
 Mr. Heard's exegesis of Rom. 8:16, " The Spirit 
 itself beareth witness," &;c., is open to similar objection. 
 The orthodox and just exposition is, that the Holy 
 Spirit as Comforter, Guide, and as the Spirit of Adop- 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 287 
 
 efines it,) 
 he evil, is 
 nt is." 
 f, (p. 160) 
 do affinii 
 here may 
 ruth may 
 ess." See 
 id petitio 
 e (p. 164) 
 as being 
 the Holy 
 i abiding; 
 raseology 
 /cr/o-t?, as 
 >ncernino: 
 nee that 
 s favour, 
 neration 
 y, by the 
 Dd which 
 le which 
 ification, 
 open to 
 neration 
 f sancti- 
 
 3 Spirit 
 DJection. 
 e Holy 
 f Adop- 
 
 tion, resident as such in the liearts of God's children, 
 and who is so refen-ed to in the preceding vei-se ; (avTo 
 TO irvevfia, the same Spirit ;) bears witness to our mind, 
 that is to our intellect and conscience illuminated and 
 sanctified by Him, that we are God's children. Such 
 is His office as declared by Christ. (See here Stuart 
 on Rom :, in loco.) Mr. Heard's exegesis, as required by 
 the Trichotomy theory, must run counter to this office 
 of the Divine Trvevfia in us ; and as conversion is the 
 quickening of the rrvevfia, He who so quickens must 
 dwell in that which His presence quickens ; as, accord- 
 ing to Mr. Heard, the Trvevfia, and not the ■>^v-)(0<;, is the 
 God-consciousness or distinguishing faculty ; so, the 
 Holy Spirit witnessing, (according to his theory,) cannot 
 be the indwellhig Comforter, to the mere natural 
 TTvev/jLa, but can only be understood of the Spirit by 
 the Word of God, not within, but without the man : 
 and so also, to the Trvevfia of that man, not as a dead 
 or dormant irvevfia, but as renewed by the Spirit of 
 God. Hence it cannot properly be said to be "tg> 
 TTpevfjLaTi 7JfjLa>v " — " to our spirit " ; that is, according 
 to their theory ; whereas, by the context we learn that 
 it is the two principles within the man, of which St. 
 Paul speaks, and the existence of which is peculiar to 
 the regenerate. 
 
 Stuart, as quoted above, properly translates tw 
 TTvevfiari "^ficou as " with, or to, our minds :" making 
 nrvevfia, >|ri5;^o?, and voi)^, synonomous terms, as they 
 really are. 
 
 I have elsewhere shewn that the Trichotomy theory 
 affects the doctrine of original sin, so as to require 
 
m 
 
 W' 
 
 Bil 
 
 
 § 
 
 > Si 
 
 
 if 
 
 ■;;i 
 
 
 
 ' h 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 ri 
 
 I..:!: 
 
 288 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Semi-Pelagiaiiism. Hence Mr, White's assertion "erro- 
 neous Psychology, erroneous doctrine," is here, not " a 
 sword with two edges," hut a sword against them only. 
 In a similar way, Mr. Heard's theory to explain the 
 sanctification of those called late, is more than a 
 harmless conjecture : it leads to the Purgatory of the 
 Romish Church. 
 
 His notion as to the mystery of the Trinity is mere 
 speculative philosophy: and so of the resurrection body. 
 With respect to the question of Traducianism and 
 Creationism ; the Trichotomy theory does not solve it, 
 because, in the case of the unregenerate, it does not 
 touch the difficulty. The entire man is propagated ex 
 traduce, according to theTraducian hypothesis; while, 
 according to Mr. Heard, it is only in part, and the 
 pneumatical faculty is imparted at creation by God : 
 but, per ajfiatum, and not j7er spirltarn. This is to 
 avoid the difficulty of the Creationist hypothesis, which 
 would make God the author of evil. This affiatus of 
 the TTvevfia at creation, similar to the first act of God 
 when Adam was created, is renewed at every birth : 
 if the TTvevfMa is quickened, and the man made pneu- 
 matical, he is so made immortal : if not ; first the body 
 and soul, and lastly the spirit dies, and the man is 
 annihilated. This hypothesis, however, (as to per 
 afflatitin RTid 2)^^ spirit itm,) as has been seen, is con- 
 trary to the Scripture teaching concerning regeneration: 
 and so all falls to the ground as a mere scholasticism, 
 as it truly is. 
 
 Mr. Birks feels the same difficulty, but seeks to evade 
 it in a different way, (Difficulties of Belief, p. 151), by 
 
 i 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 289 
 
 /ion "erro- 
 re, not " a 
 :hem only, 
 splain the 
 e than a 
 oiy of the 
 
 by is mere 
 
 tion body. 
 
 nisni and 
 
 ^t solve it, 
 
 does not 
 
 agated ex 
 
 is; while, 
 
 , and the 
 
 by God : 
 
 lis is to 
 
 ^is, which 
 
 ifflatus of 
 
 ct of God 
 
 ry birth : 
 
 de pneu- 
 
 the body 
 
 man is 
 
 to i^er 
 
 1, is con- 
 
 le ration: 
 
 asticism, 
 
 to evade 
 151), by 
 
 saying that it was a wllfiU act of disoljodience in the 
 case of Adam and Eve ; but a sinful will, cannot so bo 
 propagated to their descendants : thus, the personal 
 and condemning sin of a perverse will is afterwards 
 acquired. This, he endeavours to prove that young- 
 children cannot have. It is part of his theodicy, as 
 to the atonement, that sin is both a " debt " and a 
 " disease " : Christ's work does away with the former, 
 in all cases. 
 
 The " disease," is that of which men lulll not be cured, 
 though they may. 
 
 The harmlessncss, innocence, and ignorance of little 
 children, as referred to in the passages of Scripture 
 quoted by Mr. Birks, is relative, not absolute, and in 
 no way militates against the Scripture doctrine of 
 Original Sin, as it applies to them, that they " are very 
 far gone from original righteousness, {"qiiani longissime 
 dlstet") and of their own nature, are inclined to evil.'' 
 The corruption of the ivill, is no less certain and real, 
 in their case, than in that of the adult. The acts of 
 the will mav, and must be, as conformed to the measure 
 of intelligence, less positive, and numerous; but not less 
 truly do such acts, in accordance with a nature alienated 
 from God, take place. 
 
 " Even a child is known by his doings, whether they 
 be pure, or whether they be right." Prov. 20: 11. The 
 acts of the will, in the case of the adult, as more 
 developed, and based upon more knowledge of God, 
 are proportionately culpable : by the operations of the 
 same moral law of character, such acts become a liahit, 
 unless controlled and subverted by a superior moral 
 
290 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 pill- 
 
 It 
 
 law, which the moral agent, freely, though not without 
 the aid of sovereign grace, chooses and obeys. 
 
 Otherwise, the corrupt tree, by the law of its own 
 nature, brings forth corrupt fruit. 
 
 The "sin unto death," is but the same in kind, — as it 
 culminates and developes, — as it was in embryo. The 
 will, together with the other moral faculties, is equally 
 corrupted with them, from first to last. 
 
 The true solution of the supposed difficulty is to be 
 found in another way. Like God's sovereignty and 
 man's free agency, both (i.e., Traducianism and Crea- 
 tionism) are true. 
 
 As Pantheism would do away with the Divine Person- 
 ality, and make the known laws of nature to be nature's 
 God ; so of such arbitrary and one-sided theories. 
 God has both physical and morpl laws, by which He 
 governs the universe, and their limits He has defined. 
 Within these limits they are His voice. But we know 
 not all of them. He is in them and above them, because 
 prior to them. Much more to us. We have seen that 
 the same is true as to the rise of moral evil. God was 
 not the author of it, although He foreknew it. 
 
 He in His wisdom made law, and under its pro- 
 visions allowed a free moral agent, whom He had so 
 created, to transgress it. He did not, and does not, 
 compel ; neither does He do so, now here. 
 
 All things wait upon Him, the perfect Jehovah. 
 Man has indeed, as a free agent, destroyed himself; 
 but there is yet, free and ready help in God. 
 
 .'"V 
 
without 
 
 its own 
 
 id, — as it 
 ^o. The 
 3 equally 
 
 '■ is to be 
 nty and 
 id Crea- 
 
 i Person - 
 nature's 
 theories, 
 hi eh He 
 defined, 
 ve know 
 because 
 L'cn that 
 jrod was 
 
 its pro- 
 had so 
 )es not, 
 
 shovah. 
 imself ; 
 
 ADDENDA. 
 
 The work refeiTed to on page 153, is by Joannes 
 A^orstiuz, who, I find, was a Hollander, not a German. 
 
 It was first published at Leyden in 1C58 ; it was 
 republished with the addition of a second part, in 
 1G65. The last edition was published at Frankfort in 
 1705. 
 
 Winer refers to it as at the head of all previous 
 works of the kind. His own work, it would appear, 
 has practically superseded it. On account of some 
 defects in it and all other existing works of the kind, he 
 considers that " a new work on the Hebraisms of the 
 New Testament is much needed." Thus, in Winer's 
 opinion, his own great work on the Idioms of the New 
 Testament does not fully meet the want. 
 
 I transcribe some passages from Winer's Grammar 
 of the New Testament Diction, as ratifying some 
 remarks of my own upon the subject. 
 
 " It may be seen from these observations, that in 
 the New Testament there is a two-fold Hebraism, the 
 one perfect, the other wiperfect. 
 
 " Under the former we include such words, phrases, 
 and constructions, as belong exclusively to the Hebrew- 
 Aramaean language, and therefore were transferred 
 from the latter directly into the Hellenistic idiom, 
 which is the diction of the New Testament. 
 
 " Imperfect Hebraisms we denominate all words, 
 phrases, and constructions wliich, although found in 
 Greek prose, have probably been transferred from the 
 Hebrew- Aramaean vernacular language. This would 
 seem to be the case, partly because the latter was 
 more familiar to the writers of the New Testament, 
 
■"^ww^ii^w*-- 
 
 292 
 
 ADDENDA. 
 
 
 •■•^ ■, 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 n4. i 
 , as 
 
 and they cannot be supposed to have had a perfect 
 knowledge of the written Greek language ; arid partly 
 because the words, phrases, and constructions were 
 more common in Hebrew than in Greek." 
 
 "It is thus also evident that all Hebraisms have not 
 been unconsciously introduced into the language of 
 the Apostles, (Van der Honert Si/iitax, p. 103). They 
 were obliged to retain religious expressions (which 
 constitute the greatest part of the Hebraisms of the 
 New Testament), because they wore closely connected 
 with the religious ideas themselves, and Christianity 
 was to be appended to Judaism. 
 
 " Besides, the Greek in itself offered no symbols of 
 the deep religious phenomena which the religion of 
 the Apostles unfolded." (I would call jjarticular 
 attention to the two last sentences.) 
 
 " Many Greek words are used by the New Testament 
 writers with a very direct reference to the Christian 
 system, as technical religious expressions : so that, 
 from this arises the third element of the New Testament 
 diction, viz., the 'peculiarly Christian. See Clear de 
 Stylo New Testament, p. 380, ed. Schwartz. Compare 
 especially the words ep7a, 7riaTi<i, iria-reveLV eU 'Xpi'CrTov 
 BiKaLovaOai, eKXeyiaOai,, ol €K\€tcTuiy oi arfioi (for Chris- 
 tians) a'noaTo\o^^ the construction evayyeXileadaL nva 
 (without account of the thing), the appropriation of 
 the term ^diTTLcrixa to baptism. 
 
 " However, most of these expressions and formulas 
 are still found in the Old Testament and writings of 
 of the Rabbins. It will therefore be difficult to prove 
 that anything was introduced by the Apostles peculiar 
 to themselves. This Apostolic idiom is confined rather 
 to the sense of words and phrases, and lies on the 
 surface of philology."* *> 
 
 * Winer's Idioms. Agnew & Ebbeke'a Ed. Part I. an i III. , pp» 
 34, 36, and 37. 
 
«- perfect 
 ^hd partly 
 ions were 
 
 3 have not 
 iguage of 
 3). They 
 iH (which 
 ns of the 
 connected 
 ristianity 
 
 inbols of 
 sligion of 
 )articular 
 
 estameni 
 Christian 
 so that, 
 .'stament 
 01 ear tie 
 Compare 
 
 XPI'O'TOV 
 
 •r Chris- 
 6ai TLva 
 iition of 
 
 ormulas 
 ;ings of 
 
 prove 
 3eculiar 
 
 1 rather 
 on the 
 
 in., pp^