REPLY TO 
 
 V- 
 
 ARCHDEACON FARRAR'S EXCURSUS 
 
 ,,/■■?• . •■■ 
 
 ERRATA. .V 
 
 Page 30. line 2, for " preisumptive," read " presumptuous." 
 
 31 "24 " "Judacio," • " " Judaioo." 
 
 32 " 3 '• "Aut," ■ " "Ant." 
 " considering " 
 " young ruler" 
 
 47 " 22, after " blasphemous " supply " thought." 
 51 tmnsjx)se first and second paragraphs. 
 
 " 40 " 22 " 
 " 45 " 21 " 
 
 " " consideration." 
 " " lawyer." 
 
 --■-•fe 
 
 
 MONTREAL : 
 
 DAWSON BROTHERS, PUBLISHERS. 
 
 1^4. 
 
KEPLY TO 
 
 ^ 
 
 ARCHDEACON FARRAR'S EXCURSUS 
 
 .;,3 '■„ .,v •• 
 
 m 
 
 ETERNAL HOPE. 
 
 ..■: • v^r-- 
 
 
 BY 
 
 'A '- ■; 
 
 W. HENDERSON, M. A., T.C.D., * 
 
 CANOK AND PBINCIFAL OF THE DIOCESAN THEOLOGIOAL COLLEGE, MONTREAL. 
 
 »' liir , ^ii- 
 
 MONTREAL : " 
 DAWSON BROTHERS, PUBLISHE^LS. 
 1884. 
 
■;:' 
 
 Entered according to Act of Parliament of Canada, in the year 1884, in 
 the Office of the Minister of Agriculture, by Dawson Brothers, 
 Montreal. 
 
 «".:. 
 
 GAZETTE PRINTING CO., MONTREAL. 
 
^^ PREFACE. : . 
 
 ''-'-'-' . ■■ ■ , " --*.;■' "■ ■ ".'. '''■-■ 
 
 • -•:■.'.-*. 
 
 The following is a reply to the request made 
 by the Students of the Montreal Diocesan 
 Theological College that I should criticize Arch- 
 deacon Farrar's interpretation of the texts quoted 
 in the Excursus to his book entitled " Eternal 
 Hope." I pray that it may be instrumental in 
 counteracting, in some measure, the evil effects 
 of that misleading book, and in establishing, 
 strengthening and settling those who read it, in 
 the conviction, that he who believeth not " shall 
 not see life ; but the wrath of Grod abideth on 
 , him." r - y -■_ ■ ^ ---. , \-, ;.",;: 
 
 Montreal, Feb. 27, 1884. . » 
 
 ■■' ■4., 
 
y" 
 
 -X 
 
 \ 
 
 :H^' 
 
E^EI^LTT 
 
 TO 
 
 ARCHDEACON FARRAR. 
 
 ; G-ENTLEMEN, ^ 
 
 In accordance with your request, I 
 proceed to state my views on the subject of 
 Eternal Punishment. " 
 
 You must bear with me, however, if I detain 
 you beyond the time of an ordinary lecture in 
 the consideration of this question. This is a 
 subject of more than ordinary importance ; and 
 more than ordinary care and time are required 
 to expose the fallacies by which anti-orthodox 
 views are invariably supported. Some may, 
 indeed, question its importance, but with me 
 there is no room for doubt on the subject ; for, 
 surely, it must be of the very highest moment, 
 in relation to practice, to know whether we 
 
can remove, without injury to the building, the 
 foundation on which the superstructure rests. . 
 How then shall this question be determined ? 
 I propose — . 
 
 1. To point out what the Church of England 
 teaches on the subject. 
 
 2. To state the various opinions respecting it. 
 
 3. To explain the conditions of the problem. 
 
 4. To adduce evidence of the orthodox doc- 
 trine. 
 
 5. To reply to objections. • -^ 
 
 6. To criticize Archdeacon Farrar's Excursus 
 on "Eternal Hope." 
 
 I. What does the Church of England teach? 
 Is there any ground for the statement that " by 
 no single formulary of the Church of England 
 is such a dogma required " ? 
 
 To which we reply, that, in the Athanasian 
 Creed, it is said of the person who does not 
 keep the Catholic faith whole and undefiled, 
 "without doubt he shall perish everlastingly," 
 and, "they that have done evil shall go into 
 everlasting fire," — " which except a man believes 
 faithfully he cannot be saved." 
 
 In the Litany we are taught to pray, saying, 
 " from thy wrath and from everlasting damna- 
 tion good Lord deliver us." 
 
 In the Catechism we are taught to say " that 
 He will keep us from our ghostly enemy and 
 from everlasting death." ; ^' 
 
In the Burial Service we are taught to pray, 
 saying, " deliver us not into the bitter pains of 
 eternal death." , 
 
 • In the Commination Service we read of the 
 ** dreadful judgment hanging over our heads," 
 of the " sudden destruction " which we shall not 
 escape, of " burning the chaff with unquencha- 
 ble fire," of the time " when men shall call upon 
 the Lord and he shall not hear," " they shall seek 
 him early but shall not find him," of the " outer 
 darkness," and of the "extreme malediction 
 which shall light upon them that shall be set 
 on the left hand." 
 
 In the Ordering of Priests, allusion is made 
 to the " horrible punishment " which will ens: ^ 
 on neglect of official duties. 
 
 Yet with this evidence before him, and with 
 the knowledge that every clergyman must sub- 
 scribe to the Prayer book before his ordination. 
 Archdeacon Farrar does not hesitate to say that 
 '* no formulary of the Church of England requires 
 it." ' 
 
 True, it is no longer included among the more 
 formal articles of the Faith, but when the forty- 
 second article on this subject was omitted, the 
 words quoted above were deliberately retained. 
 Hence we argue that the formal statement of the 
 doctrine was regarded as needless, and the fact is, 
 its frequent and informal presentation in the 
 various offices "is a stronger proof that it is 
 
8 
 
 required" than if it were presented in a more 
 formal manner. It is evidently taken for grant- 
 ed, and the reasonable presumption is, that every 
 one will receive it without question. ' 
 
 It should be remembered also that it is em- 
 bodied everywhere in the Homilies, and as we 
 subscribe the Homilies when we subscribe the 
 Book of Common Prayer, it will be difficult to 
 understand how any one can honestly enter the 
 ministry of the Church of England, or remain in 
 it, who does not accept the doctrine in the plain 
 grammatical sense of the terms in which it is 
 expressed in the Liturgy. - ; - 
 
 II. I propose to define the opinions on the 
 subject. 
 
 One is TJniversalism which teaches that all 
 men and evil angels after enduring an indefinite 
 but temporary punishment shall eventually be 
 saved. /^ 
 
 Another is " Alleviationism " which teaches 
 that the impenitent shall neither cease to be, 
 nor be saved, but shall become better in charac- 
 ter and consequently in condition. • ., 
 
 Another is that eternal, punishment means 
 merely separation from the eternal, without 
 involving any more positive penal infliction. 
 Another is " Conditional Immortality " which 
 teaches that Glod " only hath immortality," and 
 that man was created potentially, but not neces- 
 sarily, immortal. The devil, a manslayer from 
 
the beginning, led man into sin for the express 
 purpose of destroying his immortality, and 
 this was actually effected by the fall; that 
 immortality is restored only on condition of 
 faith in Christ, and that all therefore who 
 have not this faith in Christ shall cease to 
 exist. ^ _ 
 
 Another is Farrarism, or Eternal Hope, which 
 is so indefinite that it can only be regarded as 
 the belief of one who would like to be a Univer- 
 salist if he could. ' ^ - 
 
 Another, the Orthodox Doctrine which teaches 
 that the finally impenitent shall exist hereafter 
 in a state of greater or less misery, in proportion 
 to the evil deeds done in the body without Grod 
 and without hope and therefore for ever. 
 
 III. I proceed next to state the conditions of 
 the problem : — 
 
 1. We have to deal with a Sovereign Creator. 
 He doeth according to his will both in the 
 armies of Heaven and among the inhabitants of 
 the earth. None can question his right to dic- 
 tate the terms on which he shall confer the gift 
 of life, or grant its continuance for any specified 
 time. . ^ . \ ■ 
 
 2. We have to deal with an immutable Grod. 
 "I am the Lord, I change not," are his own 
 sublime words. He may change his mode of 
 procedure in any given case, but in himself he 
 cannot change. Even in man a change of out- 
 
10 
 
 ward action does not always argue a change 
 of purpose. In Grod it never does. Otherwise 
 he would not be God. 
 
 3. We have to deal with ^an immortal soul. 
 The soul does not need food as the body does to 
 repair the continued waste. Hence it is not likely 
 that it is subject to waste of any kind. The 
 soul is immaterial and indivisible, and therefore 
 ^ it is probable that it is immortal. It partakes of 
 the divine nature, and therefore it is more than 
 probable that it is immortal ; and if we regard 
 the subject from an historical point of view, it 
 seems to have been almost universally admitted 
 in all ages. 
 
 Moreover, " if we grant that the soul can sur- 
 vive such a shock as its separation from the 
 body it seems irrational to entertain doubts as to 
 its subsequent continuance. The most skeptical 
 philosopher might exclaim : Only prove to me 
 that the soul continues after death and I will 
 make no difficulty in granting to you that it is 
 immortal. Prove to me that there is a future life 
 at all, and I will grant to you that it is eternal." 
 
 "The ' Critique of Practical Eeason' demon- 
 strates what Butler had only recommended as 
 consistent with our previous knowledge — or at 
 least not inconsistent with it — viz : that there 
 is a righteous God ; that he reveals himself in 
 conscience, and that the spirit to which he 
 reveals himself is immortal." 
 
11 
 
 4. "We have to deal with an unchangeable 
 Law. It is of the nature of law to be unchange- 
 able. Moreover, this law is a transcript of the 
 Divine nature. Any law fou ided on temporary- 
 relations may be abrogated when it ha3 se:ved 
 its purpose; but law founded on the eternal 
 necessities of the divine nature must be as; 
 etefnal and unchangeable as <xod himself. 
 
 5. We have to deal with man in his covenant 
 relationship to the law. Man was placed at his 
 creation under the first covenant of works, 
 G-en. ii. 16, 1*7, in relation to which another 
 covenant is spoken of, viz : the new covenant, 
 Heb. xii. 24. The first covenant was made with 
 Adam, in a federal capacity, as the representative 
 of our race, who, on this account, is called the 
 " First Adam." I Cor. xv. 45. He entered into it 
 willingly, and with a full sense of the righteous- 
 ness of the arrangement. This appears as well 
 from the title, covenant, which implies an agree- 
 ment between the parties, as also from the two- 
 fold consideration that we cannot think of Adam 
 while perfect as objecting to the will of his 
 Maker, and that after his fall he made no reflec- 
 tion on the injustice of the arrangement. In the 
 person of Adam each one of us broke this original 
 covenant, and became liable in cons^ quence to 
 all the penalties which were visited on him, 
 viz., alienation from Grod — depravation of nature 
 — forfeiture of the Spirit — and all else that is 
 
 
12 ^ 
 
 involved in the comprehensive sentence, "Thou 
 shalt surely die." The demonstrative evidence 
 of this is the universality of death in its physi- 
 cal aspect. " In Adam all die." I Cor. xv. 22 ; 
 yea, even those "who have not sinned after 
 the similitude of Adam's transgression." Rom. 
 V. 14. The death of infants is inexplicable on 
 any other supposition. The first covenant there- 
 fore is still in force in reference to all, -8j^ it is 
 written, " Tliis do and thou shalt live^ Luke x. 28. 
 
 By its terms the rewards of eternal life and 
 happiness are still conditioned upon the presen- 
 tation of unblemished obedience to all the 
 precepts of the divine law. And in case of dis- 
 obedience, not only is the same demand for 
 unblemished obedience continued, but in addi- 
 tion, the threatened penalty (Gren. iii. 17, 19,) is 
 incurred and must be endured, until the required 
 condition l)e fulfilled, ^. e., so far as man himself 
 is concerned, for ever. For, as before transgres- 
 sion, the continuance of life depended on the 
 continuance of perfect obedience ; so after trans- 
 gression the restoration of life depends upon the 
 same, together with the endurance of a satisfac- 
 tory death. 
 
 6. We have to deal with a class who are 
 devoid of merit. Merit is the technical term for 
 perfect unbroken obedience ; and where merit is 
 wanting two things are needful in order to make 
 full amendment for it ; first, death by the shed- 
 
13 
 
 ding of blood, to take away the guilt of disobe- 
 dience ; and second, the performL.nce of the 
 obedien^^e as originally required. The removal of 
 the guilt would not be sufficient to atone for the 
 sin. The supply of actual obedience in place of 
 demerit is, if possible, even more necessary, before 
 the demands of the law can be satisfied. For, 
 let a given right line represent the obedience 
 
 thus , a sin may be represented by a break 
 
 in the line, thus ; But is it not evi- 
 dent, that in order to mend the break it is not 
 enough simply to suffer for the act of breaking ? 
 The line itself must be made perfect, otherwise 
 the task is not complete. But in the case of 
 those who have broken the line of obedience 
 once, it is impossible to do this. They cannot 
 retrace the past and present a perfect obedience 
 for an imperfect ; consequently, their condemna- 
 tion must last as long as this inability lasts — 
 and is not that forever ? Can sinners ever hope 
 to overcome an obstacle like this ? If so, I know 
 not how it can be done. A failure to observe this 
 is one main cause of the prevalent indisposition 
 to receive the orthodox doctrine. In fact, the 
 non-recognition of man's legal relations in his 
 natural state, as set forth in the epistle to the 
 Eomans, is the root of much of the religious error 
 of the present day. 
 
 t. "We have to deal with those who are de- 
 rpived of the Spirit. This is involved in the 
 
 , 'T' 
 
14 
 
 representation given in Scripture of our natural 
 fitate, that we are "dead." For as death physical 
 means the separation of the soul from the body, 
 so spiritual death means the separation of the 
 soul from Grod. We are not by nature intellec- 
 tually or morally dead, but we are by nature 
 jspirituajly dead. As born into the world we 
 have no spiritual faculty, and are therefore 
 unable to discern the things of the Spirit (I Cor. 
 ii. 14,) any more than one can see who is born 
 without the faculty needful for that purpose. 
 This separation of the soul from G-od took place 
 when Adam sinned, and in fulfilment of the 
 judicial sentence : " Thou shalt surely die." In 
 other words, the Spirit was judicially with- 
 drawn, as the penal consequence of Adam's sin, 
 and we are inheritors of his inability in this 
 respect. : ■ / 
 
 8. "We have to deal with a helpless race. (1) 
 Naturally helpless, on account of the withdrawal 
 of the Spirit, involving as a necessary conse- 
 quence spiritual death, and (2.) For the same 
 reason eternally helpless ; (unless, indeed, the 
 Holy Spirit can be restored,) for, not only has the 
 spirit been withdrawn, but we are unable to 
 retrace our steps and substitute merit for demerit 
 — obedience for sin. _^- 
 
 9. We have to deal with a Spirit who cannot 
 operate except in conjunction with the Saviour. 
 One person of the sacred Trinity cannot act inde- 
 
16 
 
 pendently of the other two. The grieved Spirit 
 cannot return unless the terms of the original 
 covenant are fulfilled. Consequently the work 
 of the spirit is inseparably connected with the 
 work of Christ. If ever, therefore, the mediatorial 
 work of the Saviour shall cease, the work of 
 the Spirit also must cease, and man must be left 
 in his natural helplessness to fulfil the terms of 
 the covenant in his own strength. 
 
 10. "We enjoy the presence of the Spirit now for 
 a time, because Christ has fulfilled the covenant 
 for us, and we are therefore undergoing now for 
 a time a second probation. The first was passed 
 representatively in Adam. The second is passed 
 personally during our present life time. Tested 
 at first to see whether he would fall, man is now 
 tested a second time, to ascertain whether he will 
 rise again and re-occupy the position which in 
 Adam he lost. Being involved in eternal con- 
 demnation by the fault of another, he has now 
 the opportunity of being " drawn out," but if he 
 refuses the intervention of that Providence which 
 would make him an adopted son andjheir of the 
 kingdom, he has nothing to look for but a cer- 
 tain fiery indignation which shall devour the 
 adversaries. 
 
 11. There is, however, a limit to the mediatorial 
 reign of Christ, and therefore a limit to the gra- 
 gious operations of the Divine Spirit. On this 
 point the Old Testament Scriptures have given 
 
 ,k 
 
16 
 
 many indirect intimations^ and the New many 
 clear and infallible proofs. The wise man said 
 "He that being often reproved hardeneth his 
 heart shall suddenly be destroyed, and that with- 
 out remedy. Prov. xxix, 1. It is written: "Then 
 shall they call upon me, but I will not answer ; 
 they shall seek me early, but they shall not find 
 me." And we are all familiar with the words : 
 " The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and 
 we are not saved." , 
 
 More clearly still, in the New Testament 
 we read of the dresser of the vineyard using 
 these significant words : '" After that thou shalt 
 cut it down." We find the Lord Jesus described 
 4is the "last Adam," and the present dispensa- 
 tion spoken of an the "last time." — Nay more, to 
 remove all room for doubt, it is expressly stated, 
 2 Cor. XV. 24 : " Then cometh the end, when he 
 shall have delivered up the kingdom to the 
 Father, when he shall have put down all rule and 
 all authority and power "; and " There remain- 
 ethno more sacrifice for sin." The Spirit which 
 was purchased by the sacrifice of the Saviour 
 shall be finally withdrawn. The restraints now 
 imposed upon the propensities of the wicked 
 shall be entirely and forever taken away, and as 
 a natural consequence the last state of these men 
 shall be worse than the first. Unimpeded then 
 by any supernatural check they will decline from 
 one degree of moral turpitude to another, as 
 
It 
 
 inevitably as a stone held for a time at the top 
 of en inclined plane, must roll downwards, when 
 that whicli held it is removed, and not cease till 
 it reaches the spot where, in accordance with the 
 unalterable laws of the universe, it must remain 
 until it shall either ascend of itself or be taken 
 up by sonie superior power. , 
 
 Hence it follows that reconciliation with God 
 can only be effected while the reign of the 
 Saviour lasts. It will be too late to look for it 
 after the " door is shut." — ^Matt. xxv. 10. It can- 
 not take place after the Son shall have " delivered 
 uj) the kingdom." Nor after death and hell shall 
 be " cast into the lake of fire." » - 
 
 12. We have to deal with those who will be 
 continually sinning; Many seem to think that 
 when the Hubicon ol death is passed, the fountain 
 of sin will be dried up, and the punishment to 
 be endured will have reference only to the sins 
 of this life, but a little reflection will show how 
 erroneous this opinion is : "A corrupt tree can- 
 not bring forth good fruit," and though it be 
 true that for the demerit of evil deeds committed 
 here — nay more, of a single evil deed, an eternity 
 of punishment is no more than the due reward 
 according to the terms of the covenant. Yet it 
 is no less true, that the punishment to be awarded 
 hereafter is not to be regarded as referring exclu- 
 sively to the sins committed here. It refers 
 eqtkally to sins committed in that future state. 
 
18 
 
 Each successive sin has its own weight of penalty- 
 attached, and it needs no great ability to under- 
 stand that endless sin demands an endless 
 punishment. ^. ^ • 
 
 13. Another element should not be forgotten — 
 Will the lost even desire to be reconciled 
 unto God ? How could they when they 
 entertain an undying hatred to God and every- 
 thing good ? Not only will they not wish 
 for such an inestimable blessing, but they will 
 probably wish that they may not be reconciled. 
 They may undoubtedly seek relief, for they will - 
 be "tormented in this flame," but they will 
 not seek it in the company of the holy, just and 
 good. They may wish to have the " tongue 
 cooled," but not that they may chant the praises 
 of the Lord. Their only desire will be that they 
 may be permitted to return to the earth from 
 whence they came. If the permission were 
 granted it is presumed that they would remain 
 unchanged and pursue again the indulgence of 
 those sins which brought them to the place of 
 torment, and separated between themselves and 
 their God. 
 
 14. It is scarcely needful to add that there will 
 be only the two states after the judgment. There 
 is no intermediate condition between that of 
 those who endure the wrath to come, and that of 
 those who enter into the joy of the Lord. Then 
 as now, if the word of God be true, whosoever 
 
 . «•". 
 
19 
 
 shall not be with Christ shall be against him, 
 and it will need then more than the power of 
 divine Omnipotence to change the enmity of the 
 hard and stony heart into the friendship and love 
 of one that is filled with the influences of the 
 Spirit of God. ' ; - r 
 
 Such are the conditions of the problem before 
 us, and when we review them, we conclude that 
 if the Grod of the universe be unchangeable ; if 
 his covenant of works be still in force ; if the 
 mediatorial reign of Christ be limited in dura- 
 tion, and the work of the Spirit inseparably 
 connected with it ; if man be left to himself to 
 satisfy the demands of the violated law and to 
 stand perfect and complete before a holy God — 
 it cannot be done. It is impossible for a man to 
 renew his life from the beginning and fill up 
 the deficiencies of the past, and present a right- 
 eousness which will stand the searching scrutiny 
 of him " who keepeth mercy for thousands " but 
 will by no means "clear the guilty." 
 
 IV. I proceed now to the proofs of the orthodox 
 doctrine from Reason and Scripture : 
 
 In the first place then, Reason suggests that 
 the same causes which operate to make the 
 punishment of sin inevitable here, may operate 
 in the same way throughout Eternity. Unless 
 there be some positive reason for anticipating of 
 a change in the laws which regulate human 
 action, the presumption unquestionably is that 
 
 '..■■■. ■v--i =.»:., 
 
20 
 
 in respect of sin, all things will continue as 
 they have done since the day in which Adam 
 by transgression fell. Some think that a change 
 will be introduced in the way of annihil- 
 ation, and that after a temporary punishment all 
 sinners shall cease to exist. But the moral diffi- 
 culties of the temporary punishment of the 
 wicked hereafter are much greater than those 
 connected with their eternal punishment. *' It 
 would seem like vindictiveness if God were to 
 raise men from the dead in order that, having 
 tormented them for a number of years, he might 
 consign them to annihilation. If annihilation 
 be no part of G-od's scheme we can understand 
 that a soul, as long as it exists, must bear the lot 
 in which it has involved itself. But if it be G-od's 
 intention to annihilate any, pity would suggest 
 that he should do so without inflicting prelimin- 
 ary torment . . It is more difficult to imagine 
 purposes served by the temporary sufferings of 
 the wicked after this life than by their eternal 
 punishment. Sufferings not supposed to end in 
 reformation, must be inflicted for the benefit, not 
 of the offender himself, but of others. Now we 
 can understand that the perpetual exhibition in 
 the case of a few (as compared with the whole 
 universe) of the terrible consequences of sin 
 may be the means for maintaining in the many 
 a wholesome horror of sin. It may be questioned 
 whether any transient exercise of judgment 
 
21 
 
 would suffice to produce an impression certain 
 to endure throughout eternity. But if tempor- 
 rary punishments will suffice, we can form no 
 conjecture as to the length of time necessary 
 for their continuance. No one can assert that 
 he has ascertained that this life is too short 
 for the display of Grod's hatred of sin, or that 
 he can discern a necesssity for prolonging the 
 misery which vice entails in this life for a fur- 
 ther period, which, however long, will still be 
 but a moment in comparison of eternity." 
 
 In short, then, the supposition of temporary 
 sufferings of the wicked to be succeeded by their 
 annihilation, appears to be quite destitute of evi- 
 dence, while it does not remove a single difficulty 
 which attends the doctrine of eternal punish- 
 ment." This was observed long since by Cicero, 
 who " casts great ridicule on this hypothesis as 
 entertained by certain stoic philosophers. He 
 urges that they grant all that is difficult, and 
 raise doubts where there seems no room for 
 doubt." Tusc. Quest. I. 32. 
 
 We see therefore no prospect of change in the 
 future ; on the contrary, there seems to be abun- 
 dant evidence to show that the same causes not 
 only may, but must operate throughout the 
 countless ages of eternity. 
 
 1. The necessities of the divine nature demand 
 it. G-od's infinite truth demands it. " Hath he 
 said, and shall he not do it? Hath he spoken, 
 and shall he not bring it to pass ?" 
 

 ~ - . _ 22 
 
 His iufinite holiness demands it. To pardon 
 sin without sufficient satisfaction would be to 
 encourage sin. It would be to offer a premium 
 upon its commission, and this is scarcely possible 
 for him who is "of purer eyes than to behold 
 iniquity," and " chargeth even his angels with 
 folly." 
 
 His infinite justice also demands it. The 
 stream of punishment must flow as long as 
 flows the stream of sin ; continued punishment 
 is but the requitalof desert to those who con- 
 tinue in sin. The reward of demerit is as much 
 required in the case of the sinner as the reward 
 of merit in the case of the righteous. Justice 
 demands that the punishment in the one case 
 shall be as lasting as the rewards in the other, 
 and if that be as long as . their unrighteousness 
 lasts, it is more than probable that it will be 
 for ever. 
 
 There is no reason to suppose that they will ever 
 become better, but on the contrary, worse. Carry- 
 ing with them the characters moulded by their 
 conduct in this life, they will move on in the 
 same direction in which they have been walking 
 here, and will become so fixed in their habits 
 that it will be impossible to change them. This 
 would be the natural result, even if they were 
 in the company of the holy and the good ; but if 
 not, how can we expect them to improve. Is it 
 at all probable that moral progress can be made 
 
in company with the devil and his angels, where 
 there is no counteracting influence for good , no 
 example to follow, no voice to warn, no power 
 to act ? 
 
 2. The terms of the covenant demand it. In 
 order to see this clearly, it is needful to remem- 
 ber what has been said about the demerit and 
 the guilt of sin. It is the demerit of sin and not 
 its guilt which causes the eternity of future 
 punishment. While, therefore, the demerit of sin 
 remains, the punishment cannot but remain also. 
 But the demerit must remain forever where once 
 it exists — for man can neither blot out the past 
 nor fill up his demerits in the future. He can- 
 not mend the breach in the line of his past dis- 
 obedience and come to the Lord, and say : My 
 obedience is perfect — as thoroughly so as if I had 
 never sinned. Till this is done the case is hope- 
 less. The broken covenant will call for its ful- 
 filment ; and it is evident from the nature of the 
 case that it must call in vain. 
 
 3. The interests of Grod's moral government 
 demand it. The law which is " holy, just and 
 good," must be maintained. To relax it would 
 be to render the divine government unworthy of 
 respect throughout the moral universe. It would 
 be to offer the gift of life on lower terms than it 
 was offered originally to Adam in his state of 
 innocence, or to angels and archangels before 
 him. It would be to manifest a culpable weak- 
 
24 
 
 ness such as we attribute only to fallible man, 
 and to declare that the endurance of a partial 
 penalty will suffice, not only to free from condem- 
 nation, but also to entitle to the reward of right- 
 eousness. 
 
 4. The free agency of man demands it. It is 
 well worthy of consideration whether the Uni- 
 versalist theory is not inconsistent with the truth 
 of the free ag'ency of man. " Is it not a condition 
 of the very idea of probation that some will 
 stand, others fall ; and does not the logical con- 
 clusion from the theory go to prove the denial 
 of free will ? Is it really compatible with the 
 true idea of free will that all should eventually 
 choose aright ?" 
 
 5. The mission of the Saviour demands it. If 
 sinners be restored at all hereafter, it must be 
 apart from the work of Christ and the interven- 
 tion of his Spirit, as already proved. But if so, 
 the mission of the Saviour, with all its wondrous 
 antecedents and accompaniments, was really 
 needless for purposes of salvation. It was noth- 
 ing more than a mere sensational exhibition of 
 extraordinary moral virtue. The miraculous 
 mcarnation of the Son of Man, his deep humila- 
 tion and unparalleled sufferings are thus re- 
 duced to the level of a mere theatrical display, 
 with a view to produce a moral effect ; or, at best, 
 to give men a helping hand towards the attain- 
 ment of everlasting salvation ; a help which 
 
 . ■, . V 
 
25 
 
 might have been dispensed with, if this theory 
 be true, and which was wholly unnecessary in 
 any absolute sense, if it so be that we can be 
 saved by temporary punishment, or any other 
 name under heaven but that of Jesus only. 
 
 In short, the Universalist theory seems to be 
 a total abnegation of the G-ospel. It is certainly so 
 with regard to the finally impenitent. Previous 
 to Revelation it would be more difficult to under- 
 stand how sin could be forgiven than how it 
 could b^ eternally punished. But by E^velation 
 the mystery of forgiveness is explained, while 
 the certainty of eternal punishment is confirmed- 
 Since, therefore. Revelation gives no hope (as we 
 shall presently see) of future restoration to the 
 lost, it seems impossible for those who accept 
 not the oficr of forgiveness now, to escape the 
 due, and therefore the eternal, reward of their 
 deeds.- ■■■"'"^ " "■'■ ■' " ■ ■'"•"' ^^^'^■^■■■• 
 
 6. On the supposition that Christ had not 
 come, man must have perished everlastingly^ 
 Much more will he be punished " with ever- 
 lasting destruction from the presence of the 
 Lord, and from the glory of his power," if he 
 either neglects or rejects th^^. great salvation 
 provided for him. Sin in the light of the cross 
 becomes exceeding sinful. It enhances un- 
 utterably the guilt of the unbeliever. It leaves 
 him equally without excuse and without 
 redemption. 
 
1 
 
 26 
 
 7. But we go further and say, that universal 
 restoration is impossible even if the Spirit of G-od 
 could intervene, apart from the Saviour's satisfac- 
 tion for sin ; and simply because, as already 
 proved, personal satisfaction in the future can 
 never satisfy for personal sin in the past. Even 
 therefore on the supposition that the impenitent 
 could become thoroughly sanctified in body, soul 
 and spirit, apart from Christ, this would not 
 suffice to fulfil the terms of the covenant. It 
 would not avail to supply the perfect righteous- 
 ness. It would not be enough in a court of 
 justice to reverse the sentence of death. ; ; 
 
 8. And for the same reason we say that restora- 
 tion is impossible, even if it could be proved that 
 punish ^nent is purgative. It is not merely the 
 cleansing of the sufferer from the guilt and pol- 
 lution of sin, that is required. The perfection of 
 obedience from the beginning must be secured. . 
 The terms of the covenant as regards the precepts 
 of the lav7 must be kept inviolate. But we deny 
 that punishment is purgative in relation to the 
 impenitent, whatever it may be with reference to 
 others ; as chastisement, it may be, but not as 
 punishment; and, you are aware that chastise- 
 ment relates only to the good. 
 
 9. It is a strong confirmation of this truth that 
 it is so closely in accordance with the analogy of 
 nature. There is a point in the affairs of the 
 men of this world, up to which they may retrieve 
 
27 
 
 their fortunes, but beyond that point it is im- 
 possible. • ■ V - 
 
 We conclude, therefore, from the foregoing 
 considerations that the present life is " the " 
 season favorable to salvation, and the analogy of 
 nature teaches us that seasons neglected can 
 never be recalled. 
 
 But what saith the Scripture. Before we 
 examine it, let me say that there are certain rules 
 to be observed in its interpretation which can- 
 not be overlooked. Of these two only need be 
 mentioned here. 
 
 1. We must interpret it so as to make it con- 
 sistent with itaelf, e. g., the meaning of the word 
 " reconciliation " must be limited, as God himself 
 has limited it. If he says that reconcialiation can 
 only be effec^ ^d in one way, viz., through Christ ; 
 who are we that we should presume to say it may 
 take place in some other way, viz., apart from 
 Christ? 
 
 2. We must interpret it from the position of 
 its own writers and audiences. 
 
 We come then to the consideration of Scrip- 
 tural testimony. It may be subdivided- into the 
 following parts : 
 
 1. The testimony of the Old Testament. 
 .' 2. The testimony of Christ. . 
 
 3. The testimony of the Apostles. 
 . 4. Indirect testimonies. 
 
 We find the first testimony in Gren. ii. Vj, 
 
 
 * . i 
 
/■ 
 
 28 
 
 where it is written : "In the day that thou eat- 
 est thereof thou shalt surely die." This means 
 more than physical death, for though Adam died 
 he continued to live. It embraces a two-fold 
 death, " dying, thou shalt die." It supports the 
 view that the state of future retribution is the 
 continuation and development of the present. It 
 intimates that the ultimate death to which refer- 
 ence is here enigmatically made, will be unlim- 
 ited in its duration. This is indicated negatively 
 by the absence of all limit in the verse before us, 
 and there is room for the belief that our first 
 parents thoroughly understood the matter in this 
 sense. If this be true, Adam sinned in full 
 view of the nature of the predicted consequences 
 and so the very first man (as might naturally 
 have been supposed) had clear and sufficient 
 information given him respecting a doctrine, of 
 which some do not scruple to say that there is 
 no trace of it whatever in the Old Testament 
 Scriptures. " ' ■ 
 
 The next testimony is found in G-en. iii. 15, 
 where it is written " Thou (the serpent) shalt 
 bruise his heel." Here it is clearly revealed that 
 though the promised Seed should bruise the ser- 
 pent's head, yet the serpent should bruise his 
 heel, in other words, should succeed in inflicting 
 a permanent injury upon that body of which 
 the promised Seed was the Head. I say perma- 
 nent, because, confessedly, the bruising of the 
 
 ', ♦ 
 
29 
 
 Head is permanent, and the bruising in the one 
 clause of the sentence must be equally perma- 
 nent with that in the other. If so, we find in 
 these words, a clear prediction of the future and 
 permanent sufferings of a portion of that body 
 of which the Saviour was the appointed repre- 
 sentative. They declare on the very first page 
 of human history, the perfect compatibility of 
 such suffering with the reality of the Saviour's 
 supremacy, and the truth of his conquest over 
 all his enemies. --► 
 
 Some indeed say that if any be lost, it 
 will in so far be an evidence that Satan 
 has triumphed over Christ — as if the captives 
 behind the conqueror, in his triumphal entry to 
 the city, were not rather an additional evidence ■ 
 
 ^C ' of his triumph than an evidence against it. 
 
 ^ ;■ They say — his purpose of salvation towards them 
 
 / : is frustrated — yes, if that purpose was that all 
 
 ; should be saved without exception, but the very 
 
 • opposite seems to be the case. He has said 
 
 , plainly of some "They shall not see life." He 
 
 said with a significant emphasis " I say unto 
 
 you that many shall seek to enter in and shall 
 
 not be able" (Luke xiii. 24), and it is written 
 
 (Luke xix. 27) : " But those mine enemies which 
 
 would not that I should reign over them bring 
 
 !; hither and slay before me." 
 
 We come next to the types and shadows of 
 
 ^ the Mosaic economy and we err greatly, - we 
 
 imagine thatthere are no instructive intimations 
 
 
30 
 
 there. We find e. g*, that there were some sins, 
 viz., presumptive sins, which were incapable 
 of expiation, and this is the germ of the truth 
 that there are some sins which shall not be 
 forgiven, either in this world, or in that which 
 is to come. - 
 
 If we pass on to the Psalms and Proverbs we 
 find such passages as these " I shall be innocent 
 from the great transgression." (Psl. xix. 13.) 
 " Salvation is far from the wicked." (Psl. cxix. 
 155.) " The wicked is driven away in his wicked- 
 ness, but the righteous hath hope in his death." 
 (Prov. xiv, 32.) 
 
 The prophets also speak the same language. 
 Isaiah says (xxxiii. 12) : " The people shall be 
 as the burnings of lime, as thorns cut up, shall 
 they be burned in the fire." — Who among us 
 shall dwell with the devouring fire? Who 
 among us shall dwell with'everlasting burnings? 
 He says again in a passage which Archdeacon 
 Farrar evidently does not like, and which is as 
 evidently referred to by our Saviour in the New 
 Testament. " They shall go forth and look upon 
 the carcases of the men that have transgressed 
 against thee : for their worm shall not die, 
 neither shall their fire be quenched and they 
 shall be an abhorring to all flesh." (Is. Ixvi. 24.) 
 See also Dan. xii. 2. " Many of them that sleep 
 in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to 
 everlasting life and some to shame and ever- 
 lasting contempt." 
 
31 
 
 These are strong testimonies. They speak of 
 death and exclusion from the presence of the 
 Lord. To an unsophisticated mind they convey 
 the idea of eternal duration. But this is ques- 
 tioned, and we reply that all the remaining scrip- 
 tural representations confirm this view. * 
 
 Take for example the representations of the Ixyrd 
 Jesus Christ himself He did not speak as a Uni- 
 versalist when he was here upon earth. His 
 countrymen, with the exception of the Sadducees 
 believed in the doctrine of eternal punishment. 
 But on no occasion did he correct them for 
 erroneous views on this subject. I am aware 
 that Archdeacon Farrar has questioned the 
 truth of the statement, that the Jews believed in 
 eternal punishment, but there is full and decisive 
 evidence on this point. The Chaldee paraphrast 
 interprets it to mean "the Gehenna of eternal 
 fire." Lightfoot, vol. xi., p. 107. 
 
 Josephus gives the doctrines of both the Es- 
 senes and the Pharisees : — "The Essenes like 
 th^ G-reeks allot to bad men a dark and tempes- 
 tuous den, full of never ceasing punishments (timo- 
 rion adialeipton). De Bello, Judacio ii., 8, 
 
 The Essenes say that bad men are restrained 
 by the fear of suffering immortal punishment 
 (athanaton timorian) De B., J., 11, 8. 
 
 The Pharisees hold " that souls are incorrupt- 
 ible, (apthartous) but that the souls of good men 
 are only moved into other bodies, whereas the 
 
 ijr 
 
82 
 
 souls of bad men are subject to eternal punish- 
 ment (timoria aidio) De B. J., 11, 8. 
 
 Again Aut. xviii., 1 — 3. That there is in hu- 
 man souls an immortal force, that to some there 
 is assigned "eternal imprisonment (eirgmon 
 aidion. — 
 
 Also in his so-called book " De Machaboeis " 
 it is written " The judgment shall assign thee 
 to an eternal fire (aionio puri) and to torments 
 which shall not leave thee for all eternity (eis 
 holon ton aiona), and in his discourse concern- 
 ing Hades he says " allotting to the lovers of 
 wicked works eternal punishment. To these 
 belong the unquenchable fire, and that without 
 end, and a certain fiery worm, never dying, and 
 not destroying the body." * 
 
 The book of Judith also gives evidence of the 
 early Jewish opinions on the subject, xvi. 17, 
 "The Lord Almighty will take vengeance on 
 them in the day of judgment, and they shall 
 feel them and weep forever." The question is thus 
 placed beyond dispute, and we learn from these 
 quotations the sense in which our Lord's words 
 are to be understood where he says " Some shall 
 enter into life everlasting and others shall go 
 away into everlasting punishment." >i 
 
 Consider also how frequently and emphati- 
 cally he expressed himself on the subject. 
 He said to Nicodemus that he must " be born 
 Again or that he could not enter the kingdom." 
 
88 
 
 He declared that "they (meaning that they only) 
 that hear shall live " ; that some " shall come 
 forth to the resurrection of damnation " ; that 
 there is both "a broad and narrow way," and that 
 " few there be that find it " ; that there are some 
 who " have never forgiveness "and some who 
 shall be " denied before the angels of 6-od "; that 
 there is one who " shall destroy both body and 
 soul in hell " and some who shall " lose their own 
 soul " ; that there are some " who shall die in 
 their sins " and some who " shall be thrust down 
 into hell " ; that there are some who shall be 
 commanded to " depart from him" and some who 
 shall be " miserably destroyed." He said on one 
 occasion " How can ye escape the damnation of 
 hell ? " on another " If a man abide not in me 
 he is cast forth as a branch and is withered, and 
 men gather them and cast them into the fire 
 and they are burned." — No man ever yet saw a 
 withered branch restored, much less a withered 
 branch after it was burned. — He said of Judas 
 that he was the " son of perdition " and that he 
 was " lost." He said moreover to the eleven on 
 the summit ot Olivet, ere he ascended to the 
 Father, that it was of the very essence of the 
 Grospel which he commissioned them to preach 
 to teach this doctrine " Gro ye into all the world 
 and preach the G-ospel to every creature, he that 
 believeth and is baptized shall be saved and he 
 that believeth not shall be damned." 
 
34 
 
 Now, when we think on these things and re- 
 flect that they were spoken to a people who be- 
 lieved in the immortality of the soul, and in the 
 eternity of penal sufferings beyond the grave,we 
 cannot but acknowledge the force of such testi- 
 mony on the orthodox side. We ought to con- 
 fess that they were calculated to confirm the 
 Jews in the popular belief that there was no 
 escape from the final condemnation of the pit. 
 
 The teaching of the apostles fully agrees with 
 that of their Divine Master; The great burden 
 of it everywhere is salvation for the lost. It 
 matters not to what Epistle we turn we find its 
 author speaking as if the orthodox doctrine were 
 true. St. Paul says solemnly to the Gralatians, 
 "I tell you that they which do such things 
 shall not inherit the Kingdom of Grod." 
 " Whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also 
 roap, he that soweth to the flesh shall of the 
 flesh reap corruption, but he that soweth to the 
 spirit shall of the spirit reap life everlasting." 
 Is it possible that a stronger illustration could 
 have been used ? Is it in the nature of corrup- 
 tion to purge and improve that which is the 
 sucject of its power ? Or did any one ever see 
 corruption restored ? • 
 
 We read also of those " who shall be punished 
 with everlasting destruction from the preseJnce 
 of the Lord and from the glory of his power,", 
 and as if the apostle anticipated the objection 
 
85 
 
 which so many urge at the present day he puts 
 this pertinent enquiry, " Is God unrighteous 
 who taketh vengeance ? " and says, " G-od forbid, 
 for then how shall God judge the world ? " To 
 which we may add the testimony of the loving 
 John who says that the " Smoke of their tor- 
 ment ascendeth up forever and ever." (Eev. xiv. 
 11.) Thus the apostolic testimony also endorses 
 the popular belief. Couple it then with that of 
 the Saviour's and with the argument derived 
 . >from the legal and covenant necessities of the 
 case, and the conclusion seems to be irresistible 
 that the Scriptures affirm the orthodox doctrine 
 with a frequency and a power which cannot 
 consist with restoration principles and is abso- 
 lutely inexplicable, taken as a whole, except 
 upon the basis of its absolute truth. 
 
 This will appear still more strongly if you 
 turn to a passage in the epistle of the Hebrews 
 vi. 4, where the apostle says " It is impossible 
 
 . . .to renew them again to repentance." 
 The force of these words cannot be evaded by 
 any of the ordinary methods. They cannot be 
 explained away in a figurative sense. It is 
 stated plainly that in the case of some, recovery 
 is impossible, observe, impossible here^ where the 
 Spirit is confessedly available, much more im- 
 possible there, where His gracious influences are 
 withdrawn. . * 
 
 Now, could there be stronger language than 
 
 /' 
 
36 
 
 this? Surely we have iu this passage what 
 Archdeacon Farrar says he has been searching 
 in vain for, viz. : "an indisputable voice of 
 Revelation to guide us." If this be not one, 
 what more indisputable could be desired. This 
 is the case of persons upon whom every divine 
 influence has been exercised, and without effect. 
 Can any other influence be exerted which is 
 likely to prove more effectual ? If the Almighty 
 himself is unable to persuade men to repent- 
 ance, who, or what, can hope to be more 
 successful ? The very idea of such a possibility 
 is subversive of the first principles of morality 
 and religion. It is blasphemous in the extreme. 
 The thing as Grod the Holy G-host declares it to 
 be — is impossible. 
 
 There are besides many indirect testimonies 
 which strongly corroborate the ortliodox view, 
 such as, that some are " without Grod " in the 
 world, and " without hope " (a flat contradiction 
 to Eternal Hope) ; that there are some for who;raL 
 the atonement will not avail, and some for 
 whom neither prayers nor entreaties will be of 
 any use — that both Grod and the righteous 
 approve of this retributive treatment, and that 
 the incorrigibly wicked continue to grow worse 
 and worse, together with many others of a similar 
 import, and when we take these in conjunction 
 with those which have gone before, and consider 
 their cumulative force, they constitute an argu- 
 
// 
 
 ment which cannot easily be broken. They are 
 just the kind of allusion which we might expect 
 to meet with, if the orthodox doctrine be true. 
 They are quite inexplicable if it be not true, and 
 coming as they do from so many portions of 
 Grod's Word, and uncontradicted as they are by 
 others of an opposite character, they seem per- 
 fectly incompatible w^it]^ any other theory than 
 that the doctrine is true. 
 
 Y. I propose now to reply to some popular 
 objections proceeding from the Univeralists on 
 the one hand, and Annihilationists on the other. 
 It is objected that the passages quoted do not 
 teach the doctrine in question. The terms in the 
 original, it is said, are capable of a different 
 interpretation. The G-reek word " Aionios " 
 does not always mean unending, " Krisis '^ does 
 not always mean " eternal" judgment. " Kolasis" 
 means positively corrective punishment. 
 
 To which we reply — It is true that " Aionios " 
 is used sometimes of limited duration, but it is 
 no less true that it is also used in such a way as 
 to preclude this idea. It is used of the duration 
 of Grod the Father, Eom. xvi. 26. It is used of 
 the glory of God the Father, 1 Peter v. 10. It 
 is used of the life that is in the Son, Eom. vi. 
 23 (see the G-reek) ; 1 John v. 11. It is used of 
 the glory that accompanies the salvation that is 
 in Christ Jesus, 2 Cor. iv. It. It is used of the 
 duration of the Eternal Spirit, Heb. ix. 14. It is 
 
38- 
 
 used also of the life of the Blessed, John x. 28 ; 
 Heb. V. 9. The question, therefore, as to whether 
 it signifies a limited or an unlimited duration 
 when it is applied to future punishment, must 
 be determined by the general considerations 
 already adduced, as well as by those which are 
 yet follow, and to my mind there are two whose 
 force cannot be evaded, and which, therefore, 
 settle the question beyond all controversy. The 
 first is, that the terms of the original covenant 
 of works require it — without perfect obedience 
 the sinner cannot be released. The second, that 
 the Jews must have so understood the words of 
 the Lord and His apostles ; and therefore our 
 Lord and His apostles must have intended them 
 to be so understood. 
 
 The same observations apply to all the terms 
 used by our Blessed Lord and His apostles with 
 reference to this subject. " Krisis " in like 
 manner is used sometimes to mean a lesser 
 judgment, but it does not follow that it is, there- 
 fore, always so used — e.g., in Matt, xxiii. 33 or 
 Mark iii. 29. With as much reason it might be 
 said that the word " sentence " used most 
 frequently in English to signify words arranged 
 in a certain order, without any reference what- 
 ever to loss of life, can never mean a judicial 
 sentence involving loss of physical life ; or, 
 that because the English word " hang " in nine 
 hundred and ninety-nine cases, perhaps, out of 
 

 every thousand of its tiso, implies the mere 
 harmless suspension of a coat or some such 
 thing, it can therefore never mean to hang in a 
 punitive sense — to kill by suffocation — yet Arch- 
 deacon Farrar says that because there are only 
 fifteen places out of more than a hundred in 
 which our translation has deviated from the 
 proper renderings of "judge " and " condemn" 
 into " damn " and its cognates, this single fact 
 ought to be decisive to every candid mind. 
 Indeed! The mind unquestionably may be 
 candid, but it would be far from logical. It is 
 Scarcely logical to say that because a word is 
 used in one hundred and eighty-five cases in 
 a certain sense, it must, therefore, be so used 
 in every case. 
 
 "We now come to the word " Kolasis " (Matt. 
 XXV. 46) of which it is said that it means correc- 
 tive punishment — chastisement with a view to 
 improvement. Suppose it to be so, for the sake 
 of argument. It has been already shown that 
 even if men could be sanctified by means of 
 punishment, it would not avail (in consequence 
 of past imperfect obedience) to deliver them 
 from condemnation — it would not entitle them 
 on the terms of the covenant, to the reward of 
 eternal life. 
 
 But is it true to say that punishment is in its 
 nature corrective ? The answer is, yes, but not 
 in the sense intended by the Universalist. 
 
' 40 
 
 *' Kolasis " in its original signification refers to 
 the pruning of a tree ({castigatio quce luxuriantihus 
 arboribus adhibetur, et qua velut supplicio eoercerentwr, 
 et reprimuntur), and the question arises here 
 whether the corrective idea expressed by the 
 word applies to the tree which is pruned, or to 
 the branch which is cut off? We say it applies 
 to the tree which is thereby benefited. Univer- 
 salists say it applies to the branch which is 
 cut off. 
 
 It is objected that " even if the Bible does 
 teach the doctrine, we cannot believe it. Such 
 teaching is overruled by other considerations.'* 
 But we are dealing with those who regard the 
 authority of the Bible as supreme. There can- 
 not, therefore, be any overruling considerations. 
 It is objected — e.g., that eternal punishment 
 would be unjust — o finite sin cannot merit an 
 eternal punishment. This objection is founded 
 on the erroneous suppositions, first, that future 
 punisnment relates only to the guilt of sin, 
 omitting all considering of its demerit ; and, 
 secondly, that it relates only to the sins of this 
 life. As regards the first point it is needless to 
 repeat that this would be to grant the gift of 
 life to sinners on lower terms, denied to others. 
 In other words, it would be unjust not to con- 
 tinue the punishment as long as the terms of the 
 covenant respecting obedience are unfulfilled ; 
 and as regards the second, we reply in the 
 
'i^v 
 
 41 
 
 words of Leibnitz : " No single sin is in- 
 finite, but if the sinner in another state 
 continues to sin as long as he exists this will 
 give to his sins the character of infinity." Let 
 no one imagine that sin is limited to this side 
 of the grave. It is written " He that is unjust 
 let him be unjust still ; and he which is filthy, 
 let him be filthy still (Eev. xxii. 11). Our Blessed 
 Lord said (John viii. 24) " Ye shall die in your 
 sins," and if the reading of Mark iii. 29, now gene" 
 rally received, be adopted. He said also " He that 
 blasphemeth against the Holy Grhost hath never 
 forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal sin." 
 
 It is objected further — there will be another 
 probation. We answer there is no evidence of 
 any, and no reason for it ; if there ought to be 
 another, then there ought to be another still, 
 and so on ad inflnitum. This theory seems to 
 ignore the fact that there are some who are 
 incorrigibly wicked, and to suppose that Grod 
 would consign them to " the place of torment " 
 before they became incorrigible, which is 
 certainly putting dishonour upon God. But the 
 Scriptures expressly declare there shall be none. 
 It says that " now " is the day of salvation. It 
 assumes that our present probation is adequate, 
 and shall be final. Its solemn warnings and its 
 tender entreaties hinge upon the thought that 
 all hope of mercy for the sinner dies with his 
 physical death. 
 
42 .' ' 
 
 But it is objected agaiu — the law will be 
 relaxed. We answer it is fai from probable, in 
 the light of the life and death of Christ ; rather 
 than that it should be relaxed in the least degree, 
 the Father sent the Son to fulfil its utmost 
 requirements. Has He then another Son to send? 
 or will the Son of Man consent to die again for 
 the ungodly ? Not so long as the words remain 
 that " death hath no more dominion over him." 
 
 This answer might suffice, but when it is said 
 He relaxed it once by the very admission of the 
 Saviour as our substitute, why then can he 
 not do so again ? It becomes needful to furnish 
 a more detailed reply. The objection betrays an 
 ignorance on the subject and a confusion of 
 thought which it may be feared is widely 
 prevalent. 
 
 Our business then will be to show that the 
 admission of a substitute was not a relaxation 
 of the demands of the law, but on the contrary, 
 a means of upholding its demands to the letter, 
 and making it honourable. 
 
 The objection proceeds on the supposition 
 that the demands of justice for penal satisfaction 
 are essentially personal and that, therefore, a 
 substitute cannot be admitted. But it is said, 
 if Grod is able to substitute one person for 
 another, why can he not dispense with punish- 
 ment altogether ? 
 
 The answer is, — The law is not relaxed in 
 
-" '■ ' " " '■' 4S ■ ' ■ ' '^ ^^, 
 
 such a case. Its righteous demands remain the 
 same whether they are made upon the sinner in 
 person or upon his accepted substitute. There 
 is no abatement whatever in respect of either 
 the precept or the penalty, consequently, in no 
 sense can the admission of a substitute be con- 
 strued into a relaxation of the law. This is 
 evident if it be admitted, that a legal one- 
 ness is all that is required to satisfy the 
 claims of law. The substitute is in all respects 
 legally one with the person in whose place he 
 stands, and a satisfaction made by him secures 
 the legal ends in view as fully as if it were 
 made by the sinner in person. 
 
 How can this be it is urged ? the sufferings 
 of the Saviour were not equivalent in duration. 
 The penalty inflicted on the sinner is eternal. 
 That incurred by the Saviour was only tem- 
 porary. Notwithstanding the satisfaction made 
 • by the sinner was equivalent. 
 
 To prove this it will be needful to revert 
 to fundamental principles, and call attention 
 once more to the demands of the covenant under 
 which the Saviour acted. In the case of the 
 sinner it demanded merit for demerit and death 
 for guilt. Merit alone would not suffice to 
 satisfy without death, nor would death and the 
 removal of guilt by death be sufficient without 
 merit, but both combined constitute all that 
 can be required either of the sinner in person 
 
44 
 
 or an accepted substitute. If, therefore, it were 
 possible in the case of the sinner that merit 
 should be presented, it would only remain to 
 take away the guilt by the act of death, and 
 the sinner would be immediaiely released. On 
 the other hand, if the sinner presented the 
 death and thus took away the guilt, it would 
 still remain that he should present the merit, 
 and it would follow that he should remain 
 under death till that condition should be fulfilled. 
 Now the Saviour did present the merit — a per- 
 fect unbroken obedience — consequently, it only 
 remained for him to take away the guilt by 
 death, He, therefore, did not become subject to 
 the eternal element at all. He left no duty 
 unfulfilled. But the sinner did not present the 
 merit. He therefore suffered the death, and he 
 must continue *to do so until the merit be 
 produced. 
 
 Hence it appears that the difference in the 
 duration between the suffering of the Saviour 
 and the sinner was owing to the difference 
 between a sinless person and a sinner. It arose 
 from the counterbalancing difference in the 
 degree of merit. The sinner being unable to 
 show merit remained subject to the curse and 
 will remain so as long as his inability to produce 
 it lasts. The Saviour on the other hand possess- 
 ing the merit, was under obligation to do no 
 more than remove the guilt, which in his case, 
 
45 
 
 by reason of his perfect obedience, was the full 
 penalty required. 
 
 There is therefore no ground for the asser- 
 tion that the law was relaxed in the Saviour's 
 case. So far from this being the case, the 
 truth is, that the Saviour's intervention was the 
 method adopted by Grod to prevent the relaxation 
 of the law in effecting the restoration of the 
 sinner. Under these circumstances we hold 
 that there is not a vestige of hope as regards any 
 future relaxation. If Grod relaxed not the law 
 for His Son neither will He do it for us. If He 
 spared not His own Son, neither will He spare us. 
 
 Notwithstanding, many cling to the idea 
 that some relaxation will be made — in particular, 
 that merit or a continuous obedience will not 
 be required — but where is the evidence of this? 
 On the Lord's- side this would be a departure 
 from the terms of the covenant which • His 
 immutability forbids, and which would scarcely 
 consist with the declaration to the young ruler 
 —Luke X. 28, " This do, and thou shalt live." 
 On the contrary, it will be required for all time 
 from us, as it was required of the Saviour in 
 H is fulfilment of the covenant on our behalf. 
 It is expressly declared that Christ saves by his 
 obedience or merit as well as by His sufferings. 
 " By the righteousness of one the free gift came 
 upon all." (Eom. v. 18,) " That righteousness 
 might be imputed to them also." (Rom. iv. 11.) 
 " By the obedience of one shall many be made 
 
- 46 - 
 
 righteous." (Eom. v. 19.) Therefore to those 
 who do not accept this " gift of righteousness '* 
 (Eom. V. lY) it only remains that they shall 
 work it out for themselves. 
 
 We come now to another objection, and a still 
 more plausible one — viz. : that God is love, and 
 therefore l^e cannot punish men for ever — no 
 matter how they have failed. But " our Grod is 
 a consuming fire," and if it be said His infinite 
 love forbids eternal punishment, it may be 
 said also that His infinite fire necessitates it. 
 If it be a difficulty to conceive how he could 
 punish man on account of his love, it is no less 
 a difficulty to conceive how he could fail to do 
 so on account of His fire. 
 
 Let us consider this objection a little more 
 closely. It is said " the severity of the punish- 
 ment is too great — it is rebuked by the mis- 
 givings of even human hearts, and shall mortal 
 man be more just than G-od, or at any rate more 
 pitiful ? — you condemn, it is said, your own 
 doctrine by your reluctance to receive it — it 
 needs no further condemnation." 
 
 But we demur to these conclusions. We say, 
 in the first place, that we cannot measure the 
 course of divine action in relation to sin by 
 a human standard. Even though we might 
 judge aright for the Lord in other matters not 
 relating to sin, yet it would be extremely unsafe 
 to say the least, that as regards the punishment 
 
of transgression, we should rely on our power 
 to do so. We should probably lay down laws 
 for the love of Grod which he could only obey 
 at the expense of some other attribute. la our 
 desire for tenderness towards the sinner we 
 might go so far as to betray a lurking sympathy 
 with sin,' or at least an utter ignorance as to its 
 true nature and proper deserts. 
 
 I am aware that when we argue in this way 
 it is described as "hard reasoning." It is 
 thought strange that we should seek to 
 establish the infinity of Grod's wrath rather than 
 the infinity of His love. But this is scarcely 
 a true representation of the facts. "We seek 
 not to establish one infinity rather than 
 another. We hold that both must stand together 
 and that no one infinity can swallow up and 
 nullifv another. If. God's wrath be infinite, 
 SO also is His love, as is undeniably demonstrated 
 in the history of the Cross. If any persist in 
 thinking otherwise — if they entertain the blas- 
 phemous that Grod is unrighteous who taketh 
 vengeance — we cannot meet the imputation 
 better than by the repetition of the solemn 
 declaration — " As I live, saith the Lord, I have 
 no pleasure n the death of the wicked that he 
 dieth." Whatever may be our imperfect, not to 
 say impious, imaginations on the subject, it is 
 evident that the punishment of the impenitent 
 however protracted it may be, can in nowise 
 
. . 48 , . , ^ 
 
 affect the justice, love, or mercy of Him whose 
 mercy " reacheth unto the heavens," and who 
 declares on oath that he has no pleasure in it. 
 
 But the tree is known by its fruits, it is said, 
 and to what purpose is it to say, that God is 
 love, if his actions fail to demonstrate the fact. 
 Oan he be truly said to have no pleasure in it if 
 he be Almighty, and yet permits the wicked to 
 perish everlastingly ? 
 
 Is Grod then to be held accountable for all 
 that He permits ? Is He responsible in par- 
 ticular for that which exists in opposition to 
 His will, e.g., Is He chargeable with all the 
 accumulated sorrows of this world and the 
 countless ills to which human flesh is un- 
 happily heir ? He says He does not afflict 
 willingly nor grieve the children of men ? He 
 might, as King Almighty, prevent it all by the 
 simple utterance of a word, or by the exercise 
 of his will ; but the fact is he does not, and if 
 the permission of the one be consistent with 
 his infinite perfections, why might not the other 
 also? Why should he be expected to pursue 
 a course in relation to future punishment, which 
 it is evident He does not pursue with reference 
 to present woe ? 
 
 But in addition to the sorrow and misery that 
 is in the world there is the sin which is the fruit- 
 ful source of it all. Is Grod then to be held 
 accountable for the sin as well as the sorrow ? 
 
 
He says he hates sir^and is " of purer eyes than to 
 behold iniquity," and yet he suffers the sin and 
 exercises long forbearance towards it ! We are 
 not called upon now to explain this, we merely 
 refer to it as an illustration, and say, that it affords 
 a very practical illustration of the truth, that 
 God can consistently permit what he does not 
 approve, and that we cannot reasonably affirm, 
 that endless punishment is impossible, unless we 
 base our belief on some better ground than the 
 love of Grod on the one hand, or his hatred of 
 sin on the other. 
 
 But look at the subject in another light. Study 
 it in relation to the angels which kept not their 
 first estate. So far as we know there is no deli" 
 verance for them. They are described as being 
 reserved in everlasting chains. Jude 6, and if 
 Grod's love be not incompatible with the endless 
 doom inflicted upon, them, why should it be 
 thought to be so, in relation to the punishment 
 threatened against us ? Universalists feel the 
 force of this, and therefore they hold that 
 sooner or later Satan himself will be associated 
 with men in the salvation of the cross. 
 
 We cannot think so, first, because there is not 
 
 the slightest evidence for it ; on the contrary, 
 
 the latest vision vouchsafed to us of the State of 
 
 the Evil one, represents him as further removed 
 
 than ever, from the happiness of the Blessed. It 
 
 reveals him to us as receiving at length the ful- 
 
 4 
 
50 
 
 ness of his righteous reward-*-as being cast into 
 the fire prepared for him, and tormented therein 
 day and night foi ever ? 
 
 But this is not all — it is impossible that angels 
 could participate in the salvation of the cross of 
 Christ. The Scriptures teach us that a Mediator 
 must possess the same nature with those for 
 whom he mediates. But Christ took not on him 
 the nature of angels. He took on him the seed 
 of Abraham, for " in all things it behoved Him 
 to be made like unto his brethren." In accord- 
 ance with this principle, angels are excluded. 
 The benefits of the Saviour's satisfaction are 
 limited to the nature which he assumed, and as 
 a necessary consequence any other sinful nature 
 not so assumed by a Redeemer, must remain for 
 ever without redemption. 
 
 Nor is this all. We can even see positive 
 reason why infinite love should dictate the end- 
 less retribution of the impenitent and the vile. 
 The love of God has exerted its utmost efforts for 
 their restoration from evil, and without avail. 
 It has uttered its voice in the streets and said, 
 " How long, ye simple ones, will ye love sim- 
 plicity, and the scorners delight in scorning, 
 and fools hate knowledge. Turn you at my 
 reproof, behold, I will pour out my Spirit upon 
 you, I will make known my words unto you " — 
 but all to no purpose. It has therefore resigned 
 the task as hopeless, and turning, away from the 
 
*' .■' ',r,. iv. ■, /. •;: 
 
 51 
 
 guilty to the good, Infinite love itself says that . 
 henceforth all its regards must be directed to 
 them. It must watch exclusively after their 
 peace and purity, their happiness and safety, and 
 to this end it is needful that the wicked shall be 
 excluded. The unholy and unclean must abide 
 in a place by themselves, rather I should say, 
 they must share the place prepared for the devil 
 and his angels. 
 
 Another objection is, that universal redemp- 
 tion implies univeral salvation. But this is a 
 fallacy. It supposes that redemption is a 
 synonym for salvation, which is not the case. 
 The saved are all redeemed ; i)ut the redeemed 
 are not all saved. Redemption is salvation 
 provided ; salvation is redemption accepted. 
 
 It may be urged fiirther that the argument 
 proves too much — all admit that men undergo 
 some penalties for sin. If, therefore, it is unjust 
 that those who have been redeemed by Christ, 
 as all have been, should suffer an endless punish- 
 ment for sin, it is manifestly unjust that they 
 should suffer at all. It is not possible that G-od 
 should adopt for a moment, a principle of action 
 which he could not righteously maintain for 
 ever. 
 
 It is objected by Annihilationists that the 
 terms " death " and " destruction " mean anni- 
 hilation e.g.^ Matt. X. 28, where it is written, - 
 *' Fear him which is able to destroy both soul 
 
■■■■". 6% ■■ . , 
 
 and body in hell." It is said the meaning is, to 
 annihilate both soul and body in hell. But this ^ 
 is not the case. The terms as used in Scripture 
 imply continued existence. They are often used "^ 
 in appeal to man's fear of suffering — "Destroy 
 this temple and in three days I will raise it up," 
 yet, though destroyed, that temple was not 
 annihilated. " In the day that thou eatest thou 
 shall surely^die," yet Adam lived in death. " The 
 world that then was, perished," (2 Pet. iii. 6), 
 yet we are living on it to the present hour. And 
 we read in Rev. ii. 11 that he that overcometh 
 shall not be hurt of the second death. Hurt or 
 injury would not be possible on the supposition 
 of annihilation, the word " hurt " (adikein) means 
 to inflict something that is felt, e.g., Luke x. 19, 
 " I will give you power ... so that nothing 
 shall by any means hurt you." From these 
 instances we see how groundless is the theory. 
 Many other proofs might be adduced, but let 
 these suffice. 
 
 VI. I now proceed to criticize Archdeacon 
 Farrar's exegetical notes. 
 
 Mark iii. 29, it is written : "He that shall 
 blaspheme against the Holy Grhost hath never 
 forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damna- 
 tion." The Archdeacon accepts the rendering 
 " eternal sin," but he cannot by this means 
 weaken the testimony. Eternal sin involves 
 Eternal punishment. The meaning is, " He hath 
 
not forgiveness during the age, i.e., the age 
 allotted for forgiveness viz., the present age (the 
 article is emphatic), but is in danger of eternal 
 sin (without the article.) 
 
 The excursus deals next with the terms aion and 
 aionios (see page 3Y). But in connection with them 
 the Archdeacon notices St. Augustine's argument, 
 viz., that etern a punishment must be endless, 
 because eternal life is endless, the same G-reek 
 term aionios being applied to both — Mat. xxv., 
 49, and says, " this is no argument at all (mark 
 the reason), because those who press it refuse to 
 apply it analogously to such texts as : " As in 
 Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be 
 made alive." I, however, am not among the 
 number. There is no difficulty with me ' in 
 applying it to this text in the fullest and most 
 unrestricted sense. The universality is com- 
 plete in both cases. The passage refers to the 
 general Resurrection, not to Eestoration. 
 
 The Archdeacon adds, " our sure and certain 
 hope of everlasting happiness rests on no such 
 miserable foundation as the disputed meaning 
 of a G-reek adjective." This is true of everlasting 
 happiness and no less true of everlasting punish- 
 ment, but I should hesitate to apply the terms 
 *' miserable foundation" to any word used by 
 God the Holy Ghost. 
 
 On the word " kolasis" (see page 39). The Arch- 
 deacon next says, "Unless my whole nature were 
 
utterly changed, I can imagine no immortality 
 which would not be abhorrent to me, if it were 
 accompanied with the knowledge, that millions 
 and millions of poor suffering wretches, some of 
 whom on earth I had known and loved, were 
 writhing in agony without end and without 
 hope." To which we reply, after premising 
 that the writhing in agony need not be under- 
 stood in a material sense, this argues a very 
 wide divergence between Grod's thoughts and 
 yours on the subject. But even if such diver- 
 gence of view as to the deserts of incorrigible 
 sinners, be compatible with vital faith in G-od 
 through Christ, as I believe it is, it cannot be 
 denied that it gives evidence of a weak and 
 imperfect faith which needs careful cultivation, 
 before it reaches that perfection which enables 
 us to say, " Eight eous and true are thy judg- 
 ments thou king of saints," or to express our- 
 selves in the words " It is the Lord, let him do 
 what seemeth him good" — 1 Sam. iii., 18. 
 
 But why it may be asked should such a con- 
 dition be more abhorrent to the Archdeacon 
 with reference to the next world than a similar 
 condition with reference to this^ ? How many are 
 sufferers here both in body and soul to the end 
 of their days ? And wh}' should they not be 
 there ? Or even if the contemplation of a life^ of 
 suffering be abhorrent to his mind, does this 
 destroy its reality ? Does this abhorrence of it 
 
wipe out its existence, and prove it to be the 
 groundless creation of a vivid imagination ? I 
 trow not, and if not, then we hold that it will 
 be of equally little avail to weaken the force of 
 evidence for the reality of that which is to come, 
 to quench the fires of G-e henna, and persuade 
 men that it is but the airy phantom of a dre am. 
 
 The next point to be noted is "If the doctrine 
 of endless torment be true, it is incredible that 
 there should be no trace of it in the entire Old 
 . Testament." 
 
 It seems scarcely credible that the Archdeacon 
 should make such a statement as this which 
 denies that there is any reference to the subject 
 in the first covenant of works or in the judicial 
 sentence, " Thou shall surely die," or in the 
 Psalms, the Proverbs or the Prophets. But as 
 already shown, there is such reference. The idea 
 underlies the whole of the Old Testament Econ' 
 omy. Of this death, the visible death of the body 
 is the visible sign and seal, and that the 
 patriarchs so understood it, is implied in the 
 emphatic repetition of the significant declaration 
 " and he died." 
 
 But strange to say the Archdeacon objects to 
 G-en. iii. 15, as supporting the orthodox view. He 
 asks " how can this be, if Satan triumphs by gain- 
 ing millions to be his slaves " ? The answer is 
 Grod reveals the fact, and if it be not understood, 
 Faith does not press the question, how. But to 
 
■ - 56 -^' '■'-■^/- 
 
 most minds there is no difficulty as to the " how " 
 of the matter, if they accept an illustration from 
 human victories . The greater the number of 
 captives, the greater the proof of the victory. 
 Satan is not to be regarded as a rival conqueror 
 to the Saviour, but as being himself subjected 
 with his captives to the irre;^ istible will of the 
 Son of Man. Victory does not imply the loyalty 
 of the conquered, nor does the captivity of the 
 conquered reflect upon the reality of the victor's 
 conquest. 
 
 The Archdeacon cites G-en. xii. 3, which says, 
 " In thee shall all the families of the earth be 
 blessed." Yes, blessed ; but not necessarily 
 saved. Moreover it is written "families" or 
 " nations" (Gren. xviii. 18), not all the individuals 
 of each family or nation. 
 
 He refers also to Psalm ciii. 9 — " He will not 
 always be chiding, neither keepeth he his anger 
 for ever. He retaineth not his anger for ever, 
 because he delighteth in mercy." This is the 
 language of the believer who accepts and rejoices 
 in God's method of putting away sin through 
 Christ. " He hath not dealt with us after our 
 sins," and " as far as the east is from the west» 
 so far hath he put away our iniquity." This 
 therefore, has no reference to the future. It is 
 not (as the context proves) an absolute, but a 
 relative truth. While we may affirm of God's own 
 people that he is not angry with them for ever, 
 
^ _ ' 61 ^' ■■■■: ' :. ■' '.:■ ■ , 
 
 because they have complied with his will, we 
 may affirm also of the wicked that he is angry 
 with them every day. 
 
 Psalm cxxxix. 8. " If I make my bed in hell 
 thou art there," yes, he is there to condemn. It 
 does not say that he is there to save. 
 
 Isaiah Ivii. 16. — " 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." The A 'chdeacaii applies this to the 
 state of the wicked hereafter, not only "without 
 ground, but in direct opposition to the context- 
 It is expressly said of the " humble and contrite 
 ones " and contrasts their state with that of the 
 wicked. It concludes with the words " The 
 wicked are like the troubled sea w^hen it cannot 
 rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt. There 
 is no peace saith my Grod to the wicked " ! ! 
 
 Isaiah xlix. 9. — " That thou mayest say to the 
 prisoners, ' G-o forth ' ; to them that are in dark- 
 ness show yourselves." Here again the context 
 points out the misapplication. This is a prophecy 
 of the release of spiritual prisoners during the 
 present G-ospel dispensation. It is similar to 
 the passage quoted by the Saviour in the syna- 
 gogue in Gralilee, of which he said : " This day 
 is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears." There 
 is not the shadow of a proof to show that it 
 refers to post Grospel times during which the 
 door of deliverance will be shut. 
 
Hosea vi. 1. — " Come and let us return unta 
 the Lord, for He hath torn, and he will heal 
 us. lie hath smitten and he will bind us up.'^ 
 The present is the day of healing. The Arch- 
 deacon must show that the passage applies to 
 
 a future state. He must show also that in that 
 future state sinners will be ready to say " Come 
 and let us return unto the Lord." This is a 
 necessary condition of being healed in any state. 
 
 Hosea xiv. 4. — " I will heal their backsliding, 
 I will love them freely." Yes, if they return ; 
 but the incorrigibly wicked will have no desire 
 to return. 
 
 John i. 29. — " The Lamb which taketh away 
 the sin of the world." He has taken it away ; 
 but redemption does not imply salvation here, 
 much less hereafter. Taking awdy the sin of 
 the world is not obliterating it from the universe. 
 
 John iii. 1^. — " God sent not his Son into the 
 world to condemn the world, but that the world 
 through him might be saved." Certainly; 
 because the world was already condemned — As 
 certainly he came that the world might be saved 
 — but what if the world would not be saved ? 
 " I would," said the Son of Man to Jerusalem, 
 " but ye would not ; therefore, your house is 
 left unto you desolate." 
 
 John iii. 35. — " The Father loveth the Son, 
 and hath put all things into his hand." Yes ; 
 but it does not follow that all the things given 
 
59 
 
 into his hand — e.g., Jerusalem, would be saved 
 from destruction. - 
 
 • 1 John iv. 14. — " The Father sent the Son ta 
 be the Saviour of the world." The Archdeacon 
 translates it the Saviour of the universe, but the 
 word is " Kosmos," and therefore means the 
 world — not the universe. 
 
 John xii. 32. — " I, if I be lifted up, will draw 
 all men unto me." Yes ; but not necessarily 
 with saving effect. All men are undoubtedly 
 drawn nearer to Grod and Christ, by the satis- 
 faction made upon the cross. The guilt and 
 demerit of sin are removed, and the door of 
 salvation is npw open,' but it does not follow 
 that all will therefore enter in. Or the mean- 
 ing may be " I will draw all nations unto me 
 (G-en. xviii. 18) as opposed to the single nation 
 of the Jews." In either case it does not imply 
 universal salvation. 
 
 Luke XII. 48. — " He shall be beaten with few 
 stripes." Yes ; but he shall be beaten, and there 
 is nothing to prove that " few in number " means 
 " short in duration." 
 
 1 John ii. 2. — "A propitiation for our sins, and 
 not for ours only, but also for the sins of the 
 whole world." Yes, a propitiation for them, but 
 not necessarily a forgiveness of them. 
 
 Acts iii. 21. — "The restitution of all things."^ 
 Yes* ; the new heavens and the new earth (Eev. 
 xxi. 1). To refer it to the restitution of all men 
 
would be to make G-od contradict himself, and 
 we may not expound one part of Scripture so 
 that it shall be repugnant to the other. 
 
 Eph. i. 10. — "That he might gather together 
 in one all things in Christ, which are in heaven 
 and which are in earth. This is limited by the 
 expressions " in Christ," " in Heaven " and " in 
 Earth." There is nothing to show that the 
 gathering will extend to things in Hell. 
 
 Phil. ii. 10, 11. — " That at the name of Jesus 
 every knee should bow, of things in Heaven and 
 things in earth, and things under the earth." 
 This does refer to things under the earth ; but 
 it is under the earth they bow, and hot in 
 heaven. 
 
 Col. i. 19, 20. — " By him to reconcile all things 
 to himself, whether they be things in earth or 
 things in heaven." Yes ; but you cannot extend 
 the reconciliation to things in Hell. 
 
 Eom. viii. 19-24.. — " The earnest expectation 
 of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of 
 of the sons of G-od." Yes ; but it says nothing 
 of the manifestation of those who are not the 
 sons of Grod. 
 
 Rom. V. 18. — "The free gift came upon all 
 men unto justification of life." Yes ; but the 
 " all " is limited in this verse by the context. 
 This is quite common in Scripture, e.g., " all men 
 came unto him," " all the world should be 
 taxed," " allJudea and allJerusalem," these must 
 
 V' 
 
61 
 
 from the nature of each case be limited. Such 
 limitation is always implied when other Scrip- 
 tures referring to the same subject require it, e.g*., 
 — It is everywhere taught that faith is necessary 
 to justification. "When, therefore, it is said 
 that ' all are justified,' the meaning must be "all 
 believers," because it ie vrritten, ' By him all that 
 believe are justified.' " So here, " all " cannot 
 be taken in an absolute sense. The man Christ 
 Jesus, a;t least, must be excepted, and therefore 
 in the light of the context, the meaning is, all 
 connected with Christ, are they upon whom the 
 gift came. 
 
 Eom. xi. 32. — " G-od hath concluded all in un- 
 belief that he might have mercy upon all." But 
 what if they would not accept the mercy ? 
 
 Rom. xiv. 9. — " That he might be the Lord 
 both of the dead and the living." Therefore the 
 dead must continue that he may be Lord of the 
 dead. 
 
 1 Cor. XV. 22. — " As in Adam all die, so in 
 Christ shall all be made alive." Universal 
 death is the result of Adam's conduct. So the 
 general resurrection is the result of the Saviour's 
 action, but the general resurrection does not 
 imply universal salvation- 
 
 1 Cor. XV. 25. — " He must reign till he hath 
 put all things under his feet." Yes ; but under 
 his feet, is not, exalted to heaven. 
 
 1 Cor. XV. 26. — " The last enemv that shall be 
 
62 > 
 
 destroyed is death." Yes, but destruction is not 
 extinction (see page 51.) The word rendered 
 destroyed means, " rendered powerless to harm." 
 
 1 Cor. XV. 28.—" That God may be all in all." 
 Yes, when the Devil, and Death and Hades are 
 cast out, and cast into the lake of fire. (Rev. 
 XX. 11-14.) ' ^ 
 
 1. Tim. ii. 4. — " Who willeth all men to be 
 saved. Yes ; but he does not obtain all that he 
 wills, as the cross of Calvary proves. Matt, 
 xxvi. 39. 
 
 1 Tim. iv. 10. — " God, who is the Saviour of 
 all men, specially of those that believe." Words 
 which draw a clear distinction between the 
 manner in which he is the Saviour of those 
 who believe and those who do not believe. In 
 him salvation is possible to those who do not 
 believe, during the present season only, but 
 salvation is actual to those who believe." 
 
 1 Tim. ii. 6. — " A ransom for all." Yes, but 
 not accepted by all. 
 
 Titus ii. 11-12. — " The grace of God is saving 
 to all men." The passage may also be translated 
 "The grace of God hath appeared to all men, 
 bringing salvation." But accepting the ordinary 
 translation, it is true in a possible, not in an 
 actual, sense — simply because it would make 
 God contradict himself 
 
 Heb. ii. 14. — " That he might destroy him that 
 had the power of death, that is, the devil." 
 
63 
 
 Destroy means to bring to nought, to render 
 powerless — it does not imply extinction. 
 
 Heb. ii. 8. — " Thou hast put all things in sub- 
 jection under his feet." Yes ; but universal 
 . subjection does not imply universal salvation. 
 
 Heb. ii. 9. — " That he should taste death for 
 every man." Universal redemption is taught 
 here, not universal salvation. 
 
 Rev. V. 13. — "Every creature which is in 
 . heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, 
 and such as are in the sea, and all that are in 
 them I heard saying, " Blessing, and honour, and 
 glory, and power, etc." Yes ; but as before, this 
 does not extend to things in hell. 
 
 Eev. xxi. 4-5. — " Grod shall wipe away all 
 tears from their eyes." Yes ; but it is from their 
 eyes, viz., the eyes of the saved ; " and there 
 shall be no more death among them ; neither 
 any more pain." Nothing here referring to 
 those in hell. 
 
 Rev. xxii. 3. — " And there shall be no more 
 curse " — among his servants, as the context 
 shows. 
 
 ^, Rev. XX. 14. — " And death and hell were cast 
 into the lake of fire." Yes ; cast out of the 
 earth, but not therefore extinguished. 
 
 Here the texts end. They teach universal 
 redemption, but give no countenance to uni- 
 versal salvation. The Archdeacon, however, 
 asks again whether the predicted triumph of 
 
64 
 
 Christ, and the universality of his kingdom are 
 consistent with the popular doctrine that only 
 the few are to be saved, and we answer, they must 
 be, provided the popular doctrine is based on 
 Christ's own words. For proof that it is so based, 
 it is only needful to quote again Luke xiii. 24 
 where it is written, that our Lord testified, 
 saying, "Many, I say unto you, will seek to 
 enter in and shall not be able." 
 
 But we answer again, the question is not 
 whether few or many shall be saved, but 
 whether there are any at all who shall not be 
 s aved. The orthodox position would be estab- 
 lished, if it could be proved that no more 
 than one only had made himself an heir of 
 everlasting destrviction, and that there is one, 
 at least, who shall reach this unenviable des- 
 tinction seems clear from what is said of the 
 " Son of perdition." 
 
 Even the Archdeacon himself seems un- 
 willingly to admit that there are some who are 
 in this unhappy condition. He frankly says 
 that he is unable to adopt the Universalist view 
 because, he says, there are one or two passages— 
 which seem to make it unwise to speak dog- 
 matically on a matter which God has not clearly 
 revealed. He does not tell us what these pass- 
 ages are — a course which is hardly consistent 
 with fairness, since he has given such publicity 
 to texts on the other side. But I wish to observe 
 
65 
 
 that by this admission, he manifestly gives up the 
 whole question. He acknowledges his position to 
 be unproved, as the very title of his book indicates. 
 Here then is a strong confirmation of the ortho- 
 dox view. If Archdeacon Farrar confesses his 
 inability to disprove it, there must be strong 
 reasons for believing it to be true. We recognize 
 them in what Christ says: "They shall not see 
 life" ; " They shall not be able to enter in." 
 
 On these two statements alone, I am willing to 
 lean the whole controversy. " Hath he said, and 
 shall he not do it. Hath he spoken, and shall 
 he not bring it to pass." Men may now, as of 
 old, prefer to listen to the voice of the charmer 
 who, with a plausible duplicity ,^nd devilish 
 malignity, endeavours, through means of some 
 weak, but otherwise worthy agent, to persuade 
 them that the words of the living G-od, the great 
 Creator " Thou shalt surely die " bear a mean- 
 ing the very opposite of that which they were 
 intended signify. But as surely as they allow 
 themselves to be influenced by that deceptive 
 voice, so surely shall they taste the bitterness of 
 their choice, as our first parents did ; and unless 
 they lay hold by faith on that eternal life, which 
 is so graciously offered to them and all mankind 
 in Christ, " without doubt, they shall perish ever- 
 lastingly."