IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

1.0

I.I

m
Hi

123. IIIII2.5

IIIIM |||||Z2

IM mil 2.0

1.8

1.25 1.4

1.6

■^

6" —

►

..^

<$>

/}.

'/a

% ">

'^M' c>1

^yjw

Phot(^raphic

Sciences
Corporation

^<b

s^. ^

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

Covers damaged/
Couverture endommagee

□ Pages damaged/
Pages endommagdes

□ Covers restored and/or laminated/
Couverture restaurde et/ou pellicul6e

Pages restored and/or laminated/
Pages restaur6es et/ou pellicul^es

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

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

□ Quality of print varies/
Quality indgale de I'impression

Bound with other material/
Relie avec d'autres documents

□ Includes supplementary material/
Comprend du materiel supplementaire

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.

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

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

"Sf;', ,;<-.

MODERN UNIVERSALIS!

AND

MATERIALISM,

AS VIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF

HOLY SCEIPTTJRE,

THE REV. EDWARD SOFTLEY, B.D.

WITH INTRODUCTION BY

-•:.

THE

ROWSE

REV

IXCIPAL

■. W. CAVEX, D. D.,

OF Knox's College, Toronto.

ILL &

TORONTO :
HUTCHISOX, PRINTERS,

1879.

fo'

19 62 45

)<9

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.

THE RIGHT REV. I. HELLMUTH, D.D., D.C.L.,

Lord Bishop of Huron,

THIS VOLUME IS RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED

THE AUTHOR.

in
it

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.

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.

(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.

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

ex
qu
cai
bu
res
W(
we
J
a g
the
sor
exi

INTRODUCTION

THE REY. W. CAVEN, D.D.,

PRINCIPAL OF KNOX COLLEGE, TORONTO.

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

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.

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

MODERN UNIVERSALISM

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

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

MODERN UNIVERSALISM

«-■;

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

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

MODERN UNIVERSALISM

lit i

\y r

I \

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^

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.

, 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

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

AND MATERIALISM.

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

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

i It

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

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

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

AND MATERIALISM.

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

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.

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-

ill]

ilii
I

:i>

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.

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

MODERN UNIVERSALIS^

i!^

ill

i'li

j
(Ml

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.

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

.•>#

MODERN UNIVEllSALISM

ir$

! 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.

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

wawngim

wmmm

MODERN UNIVERSALISM

^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.

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 .

MODERN UXIVERSALISM

'ill

1:1

l«

;•!

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.

(Prs-

(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

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.

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

MODERN UXIVERSALISM

I I

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.

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

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.

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,

MODERN UNIVERSALISM

tit

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.

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

■if a

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.

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: ' \

VV'^

MODERN UNIVERSALISM

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

MODERN UNIVERSALISM

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.

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.

MODERN UNIVERSALISM

/•«

t^^

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.

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.

■

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.

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

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.

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

.»

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.

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

MODERN UNIVERSALISM

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.

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

MODERN UNIVERSALISM

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.

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,

MODERN UNIVERSALISM

;'!

If'

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

AND MATERIALISM.

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

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.

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

*■ '

MODERN UNIVERSALISM

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.

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.

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

MODERN UNIVERSALISM

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.

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

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.

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.

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,

AND MATERIALISM.

(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

MODERN UNIVERSALISM

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

AND MATERIALISM.

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

MODERN UNIVERSALISM

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."

AND MATERIALISM.

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?

MODERN UNIVERSALISM

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

AND MATP:RIALTS>r.

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)

1.0

I.I

f Ilia iiM
:: 'iiii^ iiiiM

.;. m III 2.0

1.8

1.25 1.4

1.6

■<

6" —

►

'^i

^/.

0-,

•^^ c^^

•cw

' ^w

Photographic

Sciences
Corporation

23 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, NY. 145)0

(716) 872-450.?

.:<'' .^

W-

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.

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

MODERN UNIVERSALISM

If
II

is
m

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.

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

MODERN UNIVERSALISM

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.

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

MODERN UNIVERSALISM

•r

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

^^-

AND MATERIALISM.

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

MODERN UNIVERSALISM

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.

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

MODERN UNIVERSALISM

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.

AND MATERIALISM.

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

MODERN UNIVERSALT M

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.

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

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.

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.

AND MATERIALISM.

101

Chap. II.

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.

102

MODERN UNIVERSALISM

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

ft^,

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

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

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.

ich

>el,

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

i \i\

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.

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

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

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

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

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 ^ !

Ml i

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.

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

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

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

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

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'

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."

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-

132

MODERN UNIVERSALISM

M I

a1 !

' I

-i; I

I ;!

it!l

■ ' 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

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«.

■"»•

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

'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

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

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

^ \ 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.

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."

the

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

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

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

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

AND MATERIALISM.

157

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.

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

\ il

' H

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«

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

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

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

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)

■^

{•/

<^' c^

% %

i^ %

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

►

.^.

«^#

W Pi

///.

Photographic

Sciences
Corporation

23 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBiSTER,N V. 14580

( ,M6) 872-4503

■1>'

-<j,.

Pl^

<" WJ"

,< /%• MP,

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

I >
11^

[ii

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^

'*■

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

180

MODERN UNIVERSALISM

■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

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

AND MATKRIALISM.

185

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

186

MODERN UNIVERSALISM

?■

" 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-

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,

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

■

194

MODERN UNIVERSALISM

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

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

f^'i

204

MODERN UNIVERSALISM

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

216

MODERN UNIVEESALISM

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

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.

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

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

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.

:ff'

I'-f ■

^■M"

■> *

.)'•■

•, ).

"l /

■226

MODERN UNIVERSALISM

ij--,j

■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

228

MODERN UNIVERSALISM

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.)

230

MODERN UNIVERSALISM

THE MODERN VIA MEDIA, AS REPRESENTED

BY PROF. BIRKS.

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
-:■%

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 ;

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''

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

" 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.

240

MODERN UNIVERSALISM

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»

(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

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

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

?,•*■■

,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^

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-

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

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.

1.': :

t' f .

'%'

250

MODERN UNIVERSALISM

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.

•' 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.

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

258

MODERN UNIVERSALISM

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

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

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?-

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':

■16

2.0

1.4

1.6

e).

%^w

^m ..

Photographic

Sciences
Corporation

€^

.^-^

■V

23 WEST H.k\W STREET

WbBSTEi.N.Y. 14^80

(71iS) 872-4503

<>°.t^:

Q'.r

i/l

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

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

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?

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.

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!

ik I

274

APPENDIX.

^l^

" 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.

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

278

APPENDIX.

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.

■: 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

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

mmm

s;'-f

Sf «

^iu

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. , ,• •

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

•1

)

1 'I

,,, ,

r .

»■'

' 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

Bil

> Si

■;;i

' h

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

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-

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.

•■•^ ■,

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^