tihvavy of t1\e t:heolo0icd ^^mimxy PRINCETON • NEW JERSEY PRESENTED BY Rufus H. LeFevre ia^'Mxj.Aug'JuStis P^ahniia .T. THE DOCTRI — OF Universal Restoration CAREFULLY EXAMINED. — BY' v/ BISHOP J. WEAVER, D. D. **He that believeth and is baptized sJtall he saved; but he thai believetk fiUfi sJiall be d^unned?' Mark xvi. i6. DAYTON, OHIO: UNITED BRETHREN PUBLISHING HOUSE. 1878. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1878, BY REV. W. J. SHUEY, In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C. CONTENTS. PAGE. Preface , 6 Introduction 9 CHAPTER I. Proposition II CHAPTER n. Holiness 23 CHAPTER HI. Salvation 39 CHAPTER IV. God the author of sin 51 CHAPTER V. Depravity and regeneration 62 CHAPTER VI. The divinity of Christ , 79 CHAPTER VII. Vicarious atonement 98 CHAPTER VIII. Pardon, remission, justification Il6 CHAPTER IX. Life a probation, man a moral agent 134 CHAPTER X. All punishment corrective ..•»..*..••• 158 IV CONTENTS. CHAPTER XI. God's attributes, their harmony and perfection i8i CHAPTER Xn. The second coming of Christ 202 CHAPTER Xni. A distinction of character in the resurrection 218 CHAPTER XIV. A future general judgment 237 CHAPTER XV. The righteous and the wicked separated at the day of judgment 255 CHAPTER XVI. The future state of the wicked 267 CHAPTER XVII The future state of the wicked — continued 288 CHAPTER XVIII. The rich man, Lazarus, and Judas 303 CHAPTER XIX. Hades, sheol, Gehenna 318 CHAPTER XX. Sin an infinite evil 332 CHAPTER XXI. Bible doctrine concerning the devil 341 CHAPTER XXII. Brief comments on the principal texts of scripture, usually relied upon by Universalists to prove their doctrine ....; 356 PREFACE. For a number of years past my attention, in one way and another, has been directed to that system of belief denomi- nated Universalism ; or, Universal Restoration. I have ex- amined a number of libraries, private and public, but have never found a book that pursued that course of reasoning which to my mind most successfully exposed the errors in that system. Books against Universalism have been written ; many of them very able in their way of treating the subject. If they failed in anything it was in not presenting the " theology of Universalism," as taught by its authors, in a clear and full light. We can best judge of the truth or falsity of a system when we know the principles upon which it rests. Universal- ism claims to be "a system of divinity— a tree of life." I have examined a number of books written by Universalist authors, and from them I have obtained their system of be- lief. In this review of the doctrine of Universalism I have stated clearly and distinctly their theory, and then my objec- tions. This will bring before the mind and eye of the reader the "theology of Universalism," and the theology of the evangelical churches. It is not pretended that all the arguments in this book are original with the author. Many of them have appeared in various forms, but not in the order in which they are presented in this VI PREFACE. book. I have not, however, intentionally used any man's language without giving credit. It will only be just to myself to say that I have only had fragments of time which I could devote to the preparation of this book ; being constantly pressed with other duties and responsibilities, which were altogether foreign to that of book-making. I trust, however, that under God the ear- nest inquirer after truth may find much in this unpretending volume to strengthen his faith in the great and fundamental doctrines of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The competent critic will no doubt find many defects in this book ; but perfection is not claimed. The most that is claimed is this: a plain man in a plain way presenting plain truth. INTRODUCTION. Upon all questions relating to our future life we have but one source of definite and trustworthy information. '•'Man dieth and wasteth away; yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he ?" In the word of God alone is found an an- swer to this ancient and most important question. Science tells us many precious truths respecting this life, but noth- ing respecting the life to come. She stands profoundly silent at the grave of mortals, with her light, so luminous along the whole path of life, casting not a ray beyond the tomb. If we consult human experience, we shall meet with no better success. Into every realm of human endeavor shines the light of human experience, in every duty is its aid af- forded ; but upon the shore of time mortals can not stand and, with the telescope of experience, peer out upon the eternal ocean which lies beyond. No one has ever launch- ed out into that rr.ysterious realm, and brought back to our eager ears the story of his experience. All the lessons of experience known in this life relate to this life. If we turn to reason, we shall find our anxieties awakened and stimulated, but not satisfied. Reason points with in- definite finger to a future existence for man, but it discov- ers nothing respecting the condition of that existence. In regard to the condition of that future life, and the in- VIU INTRODUCTION. fluence of human conduct in determining or affecting that life, reason has nothing of certainty to declare. Wherever we turn all is silence and darkness respecting the hereafter, until upon our darkened vision the light of revelation shines. By this, and by this alone, may we learn of the future world to which we are all hastening, and of our liabilities and possibilities in that future world. Having therefore no other source of information, respect- ing either the future life or its relation to the present life, God's word alone should be the man of our counsel and the ground of our faith. To all its declarations we should give attention, accepting them without doubt or hesitation. As the scientist looks into nature, so should we look into revel- ation — to discover what is there taught. The true scientist accepts the truths discovered in the realm of his researches, however fatal they may be to his own pre-conceived opin- ions or speculations. The mechanic measures a stick of timber, not to determine how long and thick he desires it to be, but to discover how long and thick it actually is. No preference or opinion or necessity of his own is permitted to influence his decision in the least. In a like spirit of passive recipiency should we study the word of God. With strictest care should we guard against the folly and wicked- ness of injecting into its declarations any of our own pref- erences or opinions. Nor may we with wisdom turn away from or close our hearts against any unwelcome declarations of scripture. Our fallen nature is sadly unfitted to respond joyfully to the awful truths of God. Experience proves that we instinct- ively turn away from all unpleasant truths ; but in temporal matters we do not follow these promptings of our nature. In every sphere of worldly endeavor men consider careful- INTRODUCTION. IX ly the liabilities and dangers they must meet. We should not be less prudent in matters of eternal moment. The importance of this thought may be more manifest when we remember that the truths of revelation, like those of nature, are facts entirely and forever unaffected by our acceptance or denial. "Though ye believe not, yet he remaineth faithful: he can not be false to himself." Ahab and Jehoshaphat turned wrathfuUy away from the unwel- come prophecy of Micaiah, and cast the faithful prophet into prison ; but they only rushed into the ruin he proclaim- ed, and to which they closed their infatuated eyes. There may be a rock in our path, and by closing our eyes against it, by refusing to see it, we may be hurled to death against its unyielding form. We may deny the existence of a fearful precipice that yawns just before us, until we are dashed to pieces at its rocky depths. What is thus so man- ifestly true in nature is equally so in spiritual matters. Truth is entirely and forever unaffected by our faith or un- belief. The result of our denial of any of the stern decla- rations of the Bible will be our sad realization of their truth- fulness. Millions of denials can not remove nor in anywise change one revealed truth. We should also remember that the Bible does not create but declares truth. It is a revelation — a revelation of truth. When the Bible declares, "The wicked shall be turned into hell," it is not so declared that it may be true, but because it is true. As the watchman, with his glaring red light, warns the flying train of danger, because a bridge has been swept away, so God in his infinite mercy warns man of the awful consequences of sin. The Bible does not create those awful consequences, but kindly points them out. I once heard a Universal- ist preacher say, "If I believed in future endless punish- X INTRODUCTION. ment, I should hate the Bible!" How manifestly unrea- sonable ! Do we not rather love and cherish the faithful friend who cries out to us of any great danger to which we are exposed ? Far more wise, as all must admit, is this statement : " If I am in danger of being forever lost I can never cease to be thankful to God for warning me of that danger." We should examine this subject with the greatest possible care. We can better afford to lightly consider any other subject. The learned Dr. Hawes has wisely said : " If there be but one chance in a million of our falling into a misera- ble eternity, and there be any means by which that chance may be lessened, he is an infatuated man who does not at- tend to them." I commend this volume, because it is a faithful and can- did appeal to the word of God. It presents to us, in their own words, the teachings of Universalist authors, and com- pares those teachings with the plain truths of the Bible. It is the product of many years of careful study. Its author, having engaged in several public discussions with distin- guished Universalists, is able to speak understandingly of their doctrines. The work is adapted, by its clearness of argument and simplicity of language, to the minds of the masses. May the blessings of God so attend it, that mul- titudes who peruse its pages shall take warning and flee from the wrath to come. E. S. CHAPMAN. Universal Restoration. CHAPTER I. Proposition. — "Do the Scriptures of the Old and New Testa- ments teach the ultimate holiness and salvation of all men ? " All questions whicli relate to the future exist- ence of man must be settled by a direct appeal to the word of God. Men may speculate and theo- rize about the hereafter, but at last they must come to the Scriptures for a satisfactory solution. " If a man die, shall he live again ? " Is the soul immortal, or does it die with the body? Is the future destiny of man directly or indirectly af- fected by what he may do in this life? Is man a moral agent? Is sin predicable of matter or mind? These are questions of vast importance, and can only be settled by the word of God. Of the millions of our race who have gone away from us, not one has returned to tell us what there is bevond this life. All nations, whether civilized or uncivilized, barbarian, Scythian, bond 12 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION or free, have very generally believed that there was something remaining for man after this life. But no man, however learned he may have been, has ever been able to go beyond the veil and give a satisfactory answer to the ten thousand questions which are continually suggested to the mind. We must look to the word of God for an answer ; if it is not to be found there, it can not be found anywhere. The doctrine of Universal Restoration — as set forth in the proposition at the head of thi« chap- ter — we propose to investigate in the light of divine revelation. And here the question to be considered is not what men may desire, think, or believe, bat, "Do the scriptures of the Old and I*^ew Testaments teach the ultimate holiness and salvation of all men?" All Christians will agree that the Scriptures teach, in unmistakable language, that all who believe and obey the gos- pel of Christ will ultimately be holy and happy. But this is not the point in controversy. The question when reduced to the last analysis is this, ''Do the Scriptures of the Old and 'New Testaments teach the ultimate holiness and sal- vation of those who live and die in sin?" If the Scriptures teach this, then they must also teach, when, where, and by what means they will be made holy. If it be said that they shall be CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 13 made holy in death, then, by what means ? Will the mere dissolution of the body change the moral character of the soul? If it be said, they shall be made holy in the resurrection, then we ask again, by what means? Will the mere physical power of God, exerted in the res- urrection of the body, purify the soul ? Does the word resurrection imply that anything more will be raised up than dies? This would nat- urally suggest another question : What becomes of the soul between the death and resurrection of the body? Of necessity, it must be some- where. Where is it, and what is its condition? In the investigation of the " Theology of Uni- versalism," it will be necessary to notice partic- ularly that the ultimate holiness and salvation of all men, as affirmed by the advocates of this doctrine, does not rest upon the interpretation of a few passages of Scripture, but upon a sys- tem of doctrine differing widely from that held and taught by the great body of evangelical Christians. It involves a denial of the doctrine of depravity, the moral agency of man, justifi- cation by faith, regeneration, the divinity of Christ, vicarious atonement, and a future gen- eral judgment. If these fundamental doctrines be true, then the doctrine of Universalism can not be true. It is our purpose to show that 14 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION TJniversalism is in direct conflict with the plain teaching of God's word. That there may be a clear and distinct un- derstanding of the proposition we propose to investigate, we will state it in the following or- der: If the Scriptures teach the ultimate holi- ness and salvation of all men they must, in clear and unmistakable terms, teach one of five things : First, that all men are made holy in this life; or, second, that all who are not made holy in this life Avill be made holy in death; or, third, those who are not made holy in this life, nor in death, will be made holy in the resurrection; or, fourth, all who are not made holy in this life, nor in death, nor in the resurrection, will be made holy between the death and resurrec- tion of the body; or, fifth, that all who are not made holy in this life, nor in death, nor in the resurrection, nor between the death and resur- rection of the body, will be made holy some- time after the resurrection. I can think of no other possible supposition. But do the Script- ures anywhere teach that all men will be made holy, either here or hereafter? Universalists themselves, as we shall hereafter show, admit that men die in their sins. We do not wish to anticipate a subsequent argument, but will afiirm in this connection that there is not a single CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 15 passage in the Bible whicli teaches that any man Avill be made holy after this life. Affirma- tions supported by a process of fallacious rea- soning are not enough to prove the ultimate holiness and salvation of all men. The Bible must teach it in language so plain that the wayfaring man, though a fool, shall not be mis- taken. In matters that relate wholly to this life we can, perhaps, aflbrd to be mistaken; but in ques- tions which involve the endless destiny of an immortal soul we can not attbrd to run any risk. If there ever was a question of solemn moment submitted for the consideration of man, it is that whicli relates to his future destiny. The Bible is allowed to be a plain book, es- pecially in that which relates to the salvation of the soul. But if the doctrine of the Universal Restoration of all men be true, the great ma- jority of Bible readers have been led astray; the sacred writers, and even Christ himself, em- ployed such terms, and used such figures and illustrations, that thousands of the best men and ablest scholars the world has ever had have been deceived, and led into error on all the fundamental doctrines now held and taught by evangelical churches ; men who have read the Bible through on their knees, and prayed daily 16 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION for light to understand the sacred truth, and in the end died in the fulhiess of hope, were all false teachers, blind leaders of the blind, if the doctrine of Universalism be true. It will be proper also to notice, in this open- .ng chapter, that the doctrine of Universalism has undergone several radical changes. It was one thing under John Murray, another thing under Mr. Winchester, and quite another thing under Hosea Ballon. The advocates of this strange doctrine are not, and never were, agreed on fundamental principles; and many of their authors and teachers are altogether uncertain as to the time when this Universal Restoration is to take place. I will give a few extracts from their ablest advocates. Walter Balfour, in his Inquiry, pages 54, 55, 80, 81, and 140, plainly denies the immortality of the soul. He says, "The Scriptures which the Jews had in their hands were opposed to such a popular opinion, for they taught nothing about immortal souls." Again he says, "The Scriptures nowhere speak about an immortal, immaterial soul." Dr. Priestly, in his Letters on Revealed Religion, says that "man was made wholly — and not in part only — of the dust of the ground." Hosea Ballon, in his Lectures, page 369, teaches the same sentiment. Mr. CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 17 Pingree, in his debate with Mr. Rice, says that the soul is something more than mortal, but could not tell what that something more was. Mr. Eogers, in his Pro and Con of Universalism, does not pretend to know whether the soul is immortal or not. He thinks there are some passages of scripture* which seem to favor the doctrine of the soul's immortality. From these extracts it is evident that they are not at all agreed respecting the immateriality of the soul. Mr. Murray believed in the divinity of Christ, and punishment after death. Mr. Ballou re- modeled the system ; denied the divinity of Christ and all future punishment. Mr. Pingree, in his debate with Mr. Rice, page 290, says: "Some Universalists believe in a limited punishment after death, and others do not." Some believe that a full and perfect retribution takes place in this world, and others maintain that a just retribution does not take place in time. Hosea Ballou taught that all men would be made holy in the resurrection. Rev. Paul Dean taught that in the resurrection some will come forth to shame, and be sent back to punishment. Mr. Winchester believed that some would be pun- ished perhaps for millions of years. Mr. Pin- gree believed that all would be made holy in the resurrection. Thus we have Unitarians and 18 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION Trinitarians — some who believe in the immor- tality of the soul, and some who do not. Some believe in a future general judgment, and others do not. Some teach that all will be made holy in the resurrection, and others say it may not be for millions of years. Mr. Page, in an ar- ticle in the Encyclopedia of Religious Knowl- edge, says : " A difference of opinion in regard to the duration of punishment has not disturbed the harmony of the denomination generally, nor is it regarded as sufficient cause for breach of fellowship." Let it be particularly observed that all these Universalists claim that the Scriptures do most clearly teach the ultimate holiness and salvation of all men; and yet scarcely two of them agree on fundamental doctrines. With them it would seem to be of little consequence whether a man believes that the soul is mortal or immortal; whether men will be punished after death or not ; whether Jesus was divine or human ; whether the doctrine of vicarious atonement is true or false. They seem only to agree upon one thing, which is, that some time, in some way, and by some means, all men will be made holy and happy. ^ow, if we know anything that remains for man after this life, the Bible must reveal CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 19 it ; for in no other way can we know anything about the hereafter. If the pure in heart shall see God, the Bible must say so. If the life to come is in any way affected by the acts of this life, the Scriptures must inform us. If those who live and die in sin are to be made holy in death, or in the resurrection^ or between the death and resurrection of the body, or some time after the resurrection, the word of God must so teach us. The Scriptures do say that "the pure in heart shall see God;" that "whoso- ever believeth and is baptized shall be saved;" and, "he that shall endure to the end, the same shall be saved." All this is very plain* ]^o man who believes the Bible at all has any dif- ficulty in understanding and believing these plain declarations. But observe that the Bible, in language just as plain and explicit, says, "He that believeth not shall be damned/' "He that soweth to his flesh, shall of the flesh reap corruption." "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." " The unbelieving, the murderer, the idolater, the liar, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." But we are told — notwithstanding these plain declara- tions — that all men, the wicked, the unbeliever, the murderer, the liar, will some time be made 20 UNIVERSAL MSTOUATION holy and happy. It may he in death, or it may be in the resurrection^ ot it may not he for milliong of years aftei* the resurrection of the bodyi Who that believes in the future exist- ence of man can risk his eternal all on such uncertainties ? Matthew Hale Smith, who for many years preached the doctrine of Universalism, after re- nouncing it wrote a book entitled, "Universal- ism not of God.*' On pages ninety-four and ninety-five he says, "Universalism has no fixed character. It is not the same in any two periods of time. It is a child of many parents. At one time it teaches that men are to be saved from hell) and at another that men were never ex- posed to hell. It teaches at one time that Christ, by his death, made a vicarious atone- ment ; at another, that his death was simply that of a witness to the truth. We are told by one father that men will be saved, because Christ has ransomed them, or paid their debt; by another, that men are adequately punished, and are saved on the ground of strict retributive justice; and by still another, that the resurrec- tion is to do the work and prepare men for heaven. At one time men are thought to be justly exposed to endless punishment; at an- other, endless punishment is regarded cruel and CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 21 unjust. With some, Christ was divine; with others, he was simply a man. The explanations of scripture adopted by the sect are equally con- tradictory. Two or three different and contra- dictory interpretations attend the same text. When one of the explanations does not remove a scriptural difficulty out of the way of Uni- versalism, another is adopted, and then another. Thus the twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew is, by Mr. Murray, referred to the judgment. Accord- ing to Mr. Ballon, it shows that sinners are to be cast into the love of God. And Mr. Balfour is very certain that it refers to the valley of Ilinnom." There has never been a Christian since the days of Jesus Christ who did not believe that all who believingly obey the gospel will be saved. Upon this they all are agreed; there is not a dissenting voice. All Christians, in all time past, have taught that men ought to obey the gospel of Christ. Universalists very gener- ally teach this. But they teach more than this. They teach that all men — whether they obey the gospel or not— shall ultimately be holy and happy. The infidel or skeptic is as sure of heaven as the most devout Christian. But does this appear in the teachings of the Bible? If it wer^ true that all men are to be made holy 22 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION and happy, it would certainly be written some- where in language so plain that all would see it. But in turning to the sacred Scriptures we read that " the wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God;" " the smoke of their torment shall ascend for- ever and ever;" "these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal." Now, if Christ and the apostles were all Universalists, is it not most remarkable that they should have used language that would lead the great mass of Bible students astray. "The patriarchs knew it not. Inspired men of old wrote of the misery of the damned. The chosen people of God, instructed by his inspired prophets, have ever believed that eternal death is the doom of the wicked." CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 23 CHAPTEE II. HOLINESS. TJiiiversalists, though diflering widely from each other on fundamental principles, neverthe- less believe and teach that all men will ulti- ynately be made holy and happy, but deny that any man can be made holy in this life. Mr. Thayer, in his Theology of Universalism, page 229, declares that no man is perfect here; that all will need a spiritual change in the res- urrection. On page 228 he says, ''The saving power of Jesus over the soul is not limited to this world, nor is it surrendered at the death of the body." ''If it be asked," he says, "how Christ is to save men after death, the answer is, By the same means and in the same way as before death." On page 205 he says, "But it may be said that all men are not saved in this life; that thousands die in ignorance, un- belief, and sin. This is true; and it is not af- firmed by our argument that all men, or any^ are perfectly saved in this world." Mr. Rogers, in his Pro and Con of Universalism, page 57, 24 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION says, " XJniversalists maintain that God's love is as strong beyond as on this side of the grave ; and what it fails of accomplishing here, it will infallibly accomplish hereafter." Here, then, we have the ''Theology of Universalism" on the doctrine of holiness, or Christian perfection: (1.) ISTo man can be perfect in this life. (2.) All will need a spiritual change in the resur- rection. The best of men fail in many things. (3.) Christ will save men after death by the same means and in the same way as before death. Matter and mind are things altogether dis- tinct and opposite in their nature. This be- ing the case, it will be necessary for us to de- termine something of the nature of sin. Is sin predicable of matter or mind? We answer that it must be predicable of mind, and not of mat- ter. Matter is not capable of hating God nor loving him ; therefore, " sin and holi- ness are predicable only of the affections of the mind, and not of matter." "With these fjicts before us, we must adopt one of four concbi- sions. First: The soul immediately after death, or in death, is made holy; or, second, it enters the future world unholy, and conse»queutly mis- erable ; or, third, the soul is made holy in the resurrection; or, fourth, it dies with the body. There can be no fifth supposition. "We propose CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 25 now to examine these four suppositions accord- ing to the teachings of Universalist authors. First. " The soul immediately after death, or in death, is made holy." This can not be true, for the following reasons: (1.) Mr. Thayer says, page 229, " The spiritual change of the resurrection is necessary to the completeness and happiness of every soul." Again he says: "All men are saved, in a greater or less degree, after death." The meaning is, that no man is or can be made holy until the resurrection. This same doctrine is taught by Mr. Pingree and Mr. Bal- lon. J^ow, if all men were made holy in death, or immediately after death, they would need no such spiritual change in the resurrection. Hence, according to Universalism, the soul is not and can not be holy in, nor immediately after death. (2.) Universalists teach that all men must be punished to the full extent of the law. Those who do not receive that punish- ment in this life must receive it after death. Mr. Thayer, page 317, says, "No repentance can save from the just penalty of the violated law." On page 229 he says: "Christ saves men after death by the same means and in the same way as before death." But how docs Christ save men here? On page 316 Mr. Thayer says, "The sin is punished and for- 26 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION given; the penalty of transgression is inHicted, and then the sinner is forgiven." For these reasons, then, it is impossible for the soul to be made holy in or immediately after death. The soul must be punished to the full extent of the law before it can be forgiven. Second. The soul enters the future world unholy, and consequently miserable. Mr. Thay- er, page 205, says that "it is true that thousands die in ignorance, unbelief, and sin," and that no man is ^jerfectly saved in this loorld. But how will we harmonize this with " The- ology of Universalism ? " Mr. Thayer, page 302-303, declares that " the present is a state of retribution, and not of probation ; " that the penalty due to sin is inflicted here. " The thing done," he says, "is our reward or our punishment, our heaven or hell." He further teaches that no man is rewarded or punished in the future world for anything he may do here. " The present is a state of retribution, and 7iot of j^rohation.'''' How is it, then, as Mr. Thayer admits, that thousands die in ignorance, unbe- lief, and sin?" If every man finds his heaven or hell in what he does, and if this is a life of retribution, and not of probation, then every man must be fully rewarded or punished in this world; and it can not be true that "thousands CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 27 die ill ignorance, unbelief, and sin." What ! men fully rewarded or punislied in this world for all they do, and yet dia in ignorance, unbe- lief, and sin ? How can that be ? But to show still further that Universalism is a system of self-contradictions, we will consider this in con- nection with another idea. Let me state the points clearly and fairly. ''This is a life of retribution, and not of probation." Men find their heaven or hell in what they do. '' The thing done is its own reward; there is no other — there can be no other." But notwith- standing, " thousands die in ignorance, unbelief, and sin." What is the nature of that sin in which men die, if all men are fully rewarded or punished in this life for all they do ? Third. The soul is made holy in the res- urrection. This can not be. (1.) Because Mr. Thayer says, '' Christ saves men after death, the same as before death." How does Christ save men before death? '' They are pun- ished, and then forgiven." Will men be pun- ished in or by the resurrection? If men are fully rewarded or punished in this life, what are tliey punished for after death? (2.) Some men died five thousand years ago; some will die but one year before the resurrection; but all these will have to remain unholy till the resurrection, 28 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION for Mr. Thayer .says, '' Every soul will need a spiritual change in the resurrection;" none are perfect here. Hence, Koah must wait until the resurrection, when he, with his brethren who died outside of the ark, will be made holy to- gether. Paul desired to depart and be with Christ, which he said was far better. He further stated that to be ''absent from the body" was to be ''present with the Lord.'' Present with the Lord, where ? ]N'ot in heaven, surely. He was mistaken, if Universalism is true. He might be absent from the body, but could not be present with the Lord. He must wait until the resurrec- tion. Fourth. " The soul dies with the body." This can not be true for the following reasons : (1.) Universalists teach that the saving power of Jesus over the soul is not limited to this world; that Christ saves men after death by the same means and in the same way as before death, which he could not do if the soul dies with the body. (2.) If the soul dies with the body, then punishment must cease. How then will those be punished who die in sin? What then is the condition of the soul between the death and resurrection of the body ? Is it dead or alive; happy or miser- able ? Is it in heaven or in hell ? If, as Universalists affirm, Christ saves men CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 29 after death by the same means and in the same way as before death, then they must have the Bible, the influence of the Spirit, and the preach- ing of the gospel; for all these are in some way connected with the salvation of men here. But how does Christ save men here? Mr. Thayer says, '' Christ does not save men from any pun- ishment due to sin." On page 317 he declares that "no repentance can save from the just pen- alty of the violated law." Then those who die in sin must be punished to the full extent of the law. But no man can be punished in the world to come for what he does here ; for this is a life of retribution, and not of probation. " The thing done is its own reward; there is no other." Respecting a spiritual change in the resurrec- tion, I submit the following thoughts: There is nothing in the word that indicates a change of anything more than the body. It comes from the latin re, again, and surgere, to rise, — simply to rise again. Hence, nothing will be raised up but the body, and nothing w^ill be changed but that which is raised up. Paul speaks of the raising up of the body, and of changing the vile body; of putting off the corruptible and putting on the incorruptible ; but it is nowhere said that the moral character of the soul will be changed in or by the resurrection of the body. There is 30 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION but one possible ground upon which to claim a spiritual change in the resurrection, and that is, that the soul dies with the body. But this they dare not say, for Mr. Thayer says that 'Hhe saving power of Jesus over the soul is not lim- ited to this world, nor is it surrendered at the death of the body." Again he says that "Christ saves men after death by the same means and in the same way as before death." Then, by some means, those who die in "ignorance, unbelief, and sin," must be made holy between the death and resurrection of the body. But this can not be, for Universalists teach that all men will be made holy in the resurrection. And this can not be, for they teach that " Christ saves men after death by the same means and in the same way as before death." * '•'• To show still further that Universal ism is utterly at variance with reason and revelation, and, indeed, with itself, I will give two or three extracts from Mr. Thayer's works. On page 210 he says: "The resur- rection is a moral and spiritual change— the anantasis, or raising up of the soul.'^ On page 219 he says : "Now the Savior says that the resurrec- tion works such an entire changein man, so purifies and exalts his soul, lifts him so entirely out of the earthly into the heavenly that he becomes, by this very anastasis (resurrection), or transformation, a child of God. ()/' cmu-ie this establishes the fact that the resurrection has to do with more than the body." The fact stated by this author is that the resurrection is a moral and spiritual change ; that it has to do rcith more than the body ; it is a raisiiiff up of the sotd. Now if this be true, the soul must die Avith the body. If this is not what he means, what are we to understand by th J raising up of the soul ? And what does he mean when he declares that the resurrection has to do with more than the body? 'But if he does not mean that the soul dies with the body, then where is it? and what is its condition ? Mr. (xuild, author of 'The Universalist's Book of Reference," page 334, says : "The change to be effected by the resurrection is something more than a mere physical change.'' But what more can it be? In the same connection he says: "As in the earthly man (Adam) all die phys- ically and morally, even so in Christ shall all be made alive physically and morally." But when are all to be made alive physically and mor- CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 31 But let US turn away from these self-contradic- tions to the plain teachings of the word of God. The doctrine we are seeking to confute by this argument is this : no man is or can be perfect in this world. The best of men necessarily fail in many things. All will need a spiritual change in the resurrection. This monstrous doctrine shuts the gates of heaven against all the Old and I^ew Testament saints. 'No matter how pious they were, they are outside of heaven, and must remain there, among the vile and vicious, until after the resurrection. The worst men that ever lived, who died in unbelief and sin, will enter the kingdom of glory all the same and just as soon as the most pious and devout. But do the Script- ures warrant us in the belief that any man can be made holy in this life? Universalists say no; but what saith the word of God ? ''How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein ? " (Rom. vi. 2.) Paul speaks else- where of those that are dead in trespasses and sin, but they had been quickened, made alive, and were now dead to sin. Hence the question, "How ally? Mr. Guild says, in the resurrection. Then all men will remain physically and morally dead till the resurrection. But where are they and what is their condition between death and the resurrection ? They can not be in heaven, unless we admit that morally dead souls are there. They can not be in hell, for Universalists say there is no such place. Where, then, are they? But Mr. Guild says, page 90 : "Man- kind are as much rewarded and punished here as they ever will be." How is it, then, that men will remain morally dead till the resurrec- tion ? Is not moral death the effect of sin ? Yes ; Mr. Guild says, pagre 334, "that moral death is the result of sin, which every man commits." 32 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION shall those dead to sin continue to live in it? Can a man be dead and alive at the same time?" " The phraseology of this verse," says Dr. Clarke, "is common among the Hebrews, Greeks, and Latins. To die to a thing or person, is to have nothing to do with it or him ; to be totally sepa- rated from them." This is the true state of every real Christian. He is dead to sin, — separated from it, — and does not and can not live in it, as long as he is dead to it. " Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Matt. v. 48.) " That ye may stand perfect and complete in all the will of God." (Col. iv. 12.) "Ye are com- plete in him." (Col. ii. 10.) " But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be 'perfect and entire^ wanting nothing." (James i. 5.) These words are very emphatic — jperfect, complete, entire, God is perfect in all his attributes, so we are to be perfect as men. Mr. Thayer says that no man is or can be perfect in this life — none are perfectly saved in this v^orld. If men can not be made free from all sin while here, it is certainly very strange that Christ and the apostles should have employed terms which, taken in their connection, can mean nothing less. " If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature; old things have passed away; behold, all things are become new." Can a man CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 33 be in Christ, " complete in him," and still not be saved from all sin? JSTever. '' Having therefore these promises, dearly be- loved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear, of God." (II. Cor. vii. 1.) ''Cleanse ourselves from all iilthiness of the flesh." What can this mean, but to cleanse ourselves from all sins that are done against the body, such as fornication, drunkenness, etc.? But this is not all. We are to cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the spirit — all impure and unholy passions and de- sires. Nor is this all. After having cleansed ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, we are to perfect holiness in the fear of God. We must seek for and obtain all the fullness of God, for which the apostle elsewhere prays. !N^ow, when a man shall have cleansed himself from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, and has perfected holiness in the fear of God, if he is not saved from all sin he never will be. " But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation ; because it is Avritten, Be ye holy; for I am holy." (I. Peter i. 15, 16.) God is eternally holy, and can not look upon sin with any favor. He calls upon and com- mands us to imitate him in this. "I am holy," therefore, ''be ye holy." "The pure in heart shall 3 34 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION see God." All therefore that would see — possess — God must be holy — holy in heart and life. "And the very God of peace sanctify you whol- ly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." (I. Thes. v. 23.) The word wholly can mean nothing less than entire, to all intents and purposes, that " as sin hath reigned unto death, even so may grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord." " Sanctify you wholly, ^^ your whole spirit, soul, and body, comprehending every- thing that constitutes man and manhood. All this is to be sanctified and preserved blameless to the end. IlTow, when a Christian is thus sanctified wholly, and when his whole spirit, soul, and body are preserved blameless unto the end, what spiritual change will he need in the resurrection other than the change of the body from a natural to a spiritual body? Add to this the language of Paul in Heb. xii. 14 : " Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord." Here we are commanded to follow peace and holiness, live a life of continued sanctification, for without holiness no man shall see the Lord. If it were necessary, we coald give scores of passages in addition to those already given, teach- ing not only the necessity of holiness, but also CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 85 that that state is to be attained in this life* Of the many passages that bear on this subject, not one can be found that teaches that any man who dies in unbelief and sin will ever be made holy. Universalists affirm that all men will ultimately be made holy. At the same time they admit that thousands die in unbelief and sin, and yet they can not adduce a single passage that teaches that any man will be made holy after death. We are sometimes referred to I. John i. 8 : " If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves^ and the truth is not in us." This is the same in signification with verse 10. " If we say that we have not sinned we make him a liar." For " all have sinned." " All have gone out of the way." The scope of the apostle's reasoning is simply this: If we say that we have not sinned, we virtually say we need no Savior. If we have no guilt, no sinfulness, we need no pardon, and hence no cleansing. But this is not the fact. " All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." But is there no remedy? Is there no way to be reconciled to God? Must all live and die in this sad condition? ITo, there is a remedy. "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unright- eousness." John proceeds on the ground that sin exists in the soul after two modes or forms : 86 UNIVERSAL UESTOHATION 1. In guilt, which requires forgiveness or pardon; 2. In 'pollution, which requires cleansing. If, from • a deep sense of our guilt and pollution^ we humbly confess our sins to God, he w^ill not only pardon the guilt of sin, but cleanse the soul of its pollution. In this argument We have considered the follow- ing points : 1. According to tTniversalist authors no man can be holy in this life. 2. All men, however pious they may be, will need a spiritual change in the resurrection. 3. That Christ will save men after death in the same way and in the use of the same means as before death. In answer to these propositions we have shown : I. That sin is predicable of mind, and not of matter. Hence the mere dissolution of the body in death can not change the moral character of the soul. II. That there were only four possible suppo- sitions. (1.) The soul immediately after death is made holy; or (2.) It enters the future world un- holy and miserable; or (3.) All will be made holy in the resurrection ; or (4.) The soul dies with the body. Neither one of these supposi- tions, according to Universalist authors, can be true. This we have abundantly shown. III. That a spiritual change in the resurrection is contrary to the nature of the resurrection, and CAKEFULLY EXAMINED. 37 not implied in the word. Only that will be raised up and changed which dies. IV. That there is not a single passage of script- ure that teaches that any who die in unbelief and sin will be made holy in death, or after the death of the body. Y. That the Scriptures do teach, in plain and unequivocal language, that holiness is attainable in this life. In closing this chapter we invite special atten- tion to the following points : I. What becomes of the soul between the death and resurrection of the body? Does it go im- mediately to heaven ? This can not be true unless it is made holy in or immediately after death. And this can not be true, for Universalists teach that all will need a spiritual change in the resur- rection. Where, then, is the soul, and what is its condition ? II. If this life is a state of retribution and not of probation, as Universalists assert, then all men are fully rewarded, or fully punished in this life. Wliat then remains to be changed in the resur- rection? Men are either holy or unholy when they die. But they can not, if Universalism be true, be unholy when they die ; if they are, then men are not fully punished and rewarded in this life. If sin, or its effects, go beyond this world, 38 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION then this life must be a state of probation and not *' of retribution. But the effects of sin must go be- yond this life, for Universalists teach that Christ saves after death the same as before, and that all will need a spiritual change in the resurrection. The " Theology of Universalism," as taught by Mr. Thayer and others, is a system of self-con- tradictions from the beginning to the end. CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 39 CHAPTER III. SALVATION. The doctrine of salvation by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is, perhaps, the most important doc- trine in all the range of human thought and in- quiry. Is the salvation of the gospel present and future, or present only? From what are men saved, and how are they saved ? These are ques- tions of vast moment, and demand careful inves- tigation. That there may be no misunderstand- ing and no misrepresentation, I will state clearly and distinctly the views of Universalist authors. Mr. Ballou in his lectures, page 14, says : " The common doctrine, which teaches us that Christ Jesus came into this world to save us in another world, is contrary to all the representations which are found in the Scriptures.'' On page 13 he says, " There is no intimation of saving sinners from any pun- ishment to which they were exposed, nor from any condition that they were not already in." Accord- ing to Mr. Ballou's doctrine there was no salva- tion wrought out by Christ but what is realized in this world. Yet they talk about the ultimate sal- 40 * UNIVERSAL RESTORATION vation of all men. If, as Mr. Ballou affirms, Christ did not come into this world to save men in another world, how will they be saved in a future world? Mr. Thayer, in his " Theology of TJniversalism," page 191, says that in " the character of the sal- vation Christ was sent to work out in the soul of man, there is no allusion to deliverance from the wrath of an angry God, or the penalties of the divine law." On page 204 he says, " Salvation is moral and spiritual ; it is not exemption from the just retribution of wrong, but redemption from the wrong itself." Here, then, we have set forth the character of universal salvation: (1.) It is not a salvation that extends into the future world. (2.) It is not deliverance from any punishment due to sin. (3.) It is not deliverance from any ex- po sedness to punishment hereafter. From what, then, does this salvation deliver us? l^ot from death, for all men die. ItTot from any exposedness to punishment hereafter. N'ot from any punish- ment due to sin in this world, for, according to the teachings of Universalist authors, all men must be punished for their sins — punished to the fallest extent of the law. From what, then, does this salvation deliver us? What must be the character of that salvation which delivers from sin and the bondage of sin, and yet does not save CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 41 from the punishment due to sin? The salvation of TJniversalism does not deliver men from any punishment due to sin in this world, nor from any exposedness to punishment in the future world; therefore it must be a salvation from nothing. But what is the meaning of the word salvation ? Webster defines it to be, "The act of saving; preservation from destruction, danger, or great calamity." All the lexicons, commentators, and critics, so far as I know, agree in defining the word to mean deliverance from evils to which men are exposed; and, as we shall see, the sacred writers used it in this sense. Universalists admit that thousands " die in un- belief and sin J' They are not even saved in the sense of universal salvation. What, then, is their condition ? When, where, and by whom will they be saved ? Mr. Ballon says, " Christ did not come into this world to save us in another world." Then all who die in " unbelief and sin" can never be saved. It is exceedingly difficult to under- stand upon what grounds Universalists can claim the ultimate holiness and salvation of all men. Admitting as Mr. Thayer does, that thousands die in unbelief and sin, — and then Mr. Ballon comes in and affirms that Christ did not come into this world to save men in another loorld, — we are driven to one of two conclusions, either 42 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION that those who die in sin will not be saved at all, or if saved, it will be through some other savior than the one offered in the gospel. There is not a passage in the Old or New Testament that teaches that any man will come to Christ for salvation after death. Mr. Thayer, in discoursing further on the na- ture of salvation, page 191-2, says, " The salva- tion which Jesus sets forth in his prophetic testi- timony, as the work on which he was sent of the Father, is spiritual salvation, the enlightenment of the mind, the purification of the heart, and the peace and comfort of a perfect faith in God." N^ot a word about deliverance from the just pen- alty of the violated law, Kot a word about de- liverance from any exposedness to punishment after death. But thousands die who have not ex- perienced this spiritual salvation; they know nothing about the purification of the heart and the comforts of a perfect faith in God. They die in unbelief and sin. "Where are they, and what is their condition? '''No repentance," says Mr. Thayer, '' can save them from the penalty of the violated law." Query : Are men first punished and then saved, or are they first saved and then punished? If they are first punished to the full extent of the law, from what are they then saved? Or if they are first saved, for what then are they punished ? CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 43 But we will turn to the word of God and learn if possible what meaning the saered writers gave to the word salvation. They must have known the proper sense in which to use that word. " And Moses said unto the people, Fear ye not, stand still, and see the salvation of the Lord." (Exodus xiv. 13.) Here it is clear that the word is used in the sense of deliverance from danger. God saved them from their enemies and the perils of the sea. ^' Eight souls were saved by water." (I. Peter iii. 20.) Saved from the deluge. They were not first drowned and then saved, nor were they first saved and then drowned. They were simply saved — delivered from dauger. I invite special attention to two passages of Scripture. " Much more then, being justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him." (Rom. v. 9.) " And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come." (I. Thes. i. 10.) It is very evident that the apostle in the first of these passages refers to the judgment of God against sin. ''Saved from wrath," etc. Delivered from the punishment due to sin. Mr. Thayer, in his " Theology of Univers- alism," when commenting upon this passage, felt its force. He says, page 89, " The word ' wrath ' here may be supposed to refer to the judgment 44 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION of God against sin ; but even if it do, it is not the judgment or punishment of sins already com- mitted that is meant." This is the merest as- sumption. Reason and common sense are against any such rendering. " Saved from wrath." ITot saved in it, nor by it, but from it — from the judg- ment of God against sin. In the second passage Paul not only speaks of deliverance from wrath, but from the " wrath to come.'' Mr. Thayer says, page 189, "It is singular that it has so long been taken for granted that salvation is deliverance from punishment, from the penalty of the divine law, from hell in the sense of endlesss torment, from the consequences of sin, instead of from sin itself." It is and has been taken in that sense by the Christian church. (1.) Because the word itself as defined by lexicons, commentators, and critics, means nothing less than deliverance from evils to which men are exposed. Where there is no danger there can be no salvation. (2.) The sacred writers used the terms saved and salvation in the sense of deliverance from danger. " Saved from wrath.'' (3.) Christian teachers have al- ways failed to see how any man could be saved from sin itself, and yet not delivered from any punishment due to sin. That would simply be no salvation at all. Mr. Thayer, page 191, says, " There is no deliverance from the wrath of God CAEEPULLY EXAMINED. 45 or the penalties of the divine law." But Paul says there is. Mr. Thayer squarely contradicts the apostle. iTniversalists teach that Christ saves from sinfulness, ignorance, &c. But the Script- ures say he sades from shu He not only saves from a sinful nature, but from the consequences of sin. '' We are saved from lorath through him.'' " But he that endureth to the end shall be saved." (Matt. x. 22.) " But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." (Matt, xxiv. 13.) Saved from what ? I^ot from death, for all men die. ITot from any punishment due to sin, for ITniversalists say that no man can be saved from suffering the just penalty of the law. iSTot from endless punishment, for ITniversalists teach that there is no such thing. From what, then, will those be saved that endure to the end ? The simple meaning of the passage is this : Those who hold fast faith and a good conscience to the end of life shall be saved — delivered from the de- struction that shall fall upon the wicked. Paul, in Heb. v. 9, says that Christ is the '' author of eternal salvation.''' But if the doctrine of endless punishment is not true, the doctrine of " eternal salvation" can not be true; for when that to which men are exposed ceases, then the idea of deliverance from it must cease also. Can a man be eternally saved from nothing? 46 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION Suppose that Christ had not come into the world at all, what would have been the result? Universalists teach : (1.) Christ did not come into the world to save men from any punishment due to sin. Every one must suffer the penalty of the violated law. (2.) Christ did not come into this world to save us in another world. In what way, then, is the race of man benefited by the advent, suffering, and death of Jesus Christ? If he had not come at all men would have lived, sinned, and suffered for their sins, and have gone to heaven at last. If not, why not ? This is pre- cisely what Universalists teach. Mr. Thayer says that man was created with a liabilit}^ to sin ; that this life is not a probation, but a state of ret- ribution; every man must suffer for his own sins, and all will go to heaven at last. Could it have been otherwise if Christ had not come at all ? I repeat what I said before, that TJniversalism is a salvation from nothing; or in other words, there is no salvation in it. John represents the saints in heaven as singing with a loud voice, ^' Salvation to our God, which sitteth upon the throne, and to the Lamb." That is a strange song for the saints to sing if the doctrine of TJniversalism is true. Christ is a mighty Savior. He saves to the utter- most all that will come unto God by him. He saves from sin, its guilt, pollution, and consequences. CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 47 Mr. Guild, author of the " Universalist's Book of Reference," page 288, says, "It is nowhere said in the Bible that Jesus Christ came to this world to save men in another." On page 289 he says, " The Bible nowhere informs us that salva- tion consists in being saved from the penalty of God's law, nor from deserved punishment, nor from a place of endless punishment." On the same page he says, Christ " nowhere informs us that he came to save any man from any danger to which he was exposed in another world." Mark these quotations carefully. What is the nature of sal- vation as defined by this author. Page 289 he says, "The salvation of- the gospel consists in being saved from darkness, from unbelief, from sin and all its evil consequences." iTow, let me ask, Is not the punishment for sin some of its "evil consequences?" Our author affirms that salvation does not "consist in being saved from the penalty of God's law, nor from deserved pun- ishment." And on the very same page he says it saves "from sin and all its attendant evil conse- quences." Can any man put these affirmations together and make sense out of them? On page 291 Mr. Guild says, " The difterence between the believer and unbeliever is simply this: the believer is now saved, the unbeliever is to be saved." Saved from what? Why, our 48 • UNIVERSAL RESTORATION autlior says, as already quoted, that "the salvation of the gospel consists in being saved from dark- ness, unbelief, and from sin and all its attendant evil consequences." But when, where, and how are the unbelievers to be saved? He says the believer is saved, the unbeliever is to be saved. Now, I want to put two or three things together; no, I will put them side by side, for an angel could not put them together. Mr. Thayer, on page 205, admits that ^Hhousands die in ignorance, ■unbelief, and sin." Mr. Guild says, "The unbe- liever is to be saved." And on page 288 he says, "It is nowhere said in the Bible that Jesus Christ came to this world to save mankind in another." ]^ow, I want to know when those unbelievers who die in ignorance, unbelief, and sin are to be saved ? They are not saved here, for if they were they would not die \\i ignorance, unbelief, and sin; and as Jesus Christ did not come into this world to save men in another, we can reach but one con- clusion, they never can be saved. In this argument the following points have been considered : 1. Universalists teach that salvation is no de- liverance from any penalty due to sin; that every man must suffer for his own sins to the full ex- tent of the divine law. "No repentance," says Mr. Thayer, page 317, "can save from the just CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 49 penalty of the violated law." And on page 274 he says, "The thing done is our reward, or our punishment, our heaven, or our hell." 2. Universalists teach that salvation is not a deliverance from any exposedness to punishment in the world to come. Mr. Ballou says, "Christ did not come into this world to save men in an- other world." To show the unreasonableness and untruthful- ness of these assumptions I have shown, 1. That according to the very best authority the word salvation signifies deliverance from danger and great calamity, and that the sacred writers did use it in that sense. 2. I presented a number of passages in which the word salvation occurs, where it signifies de- liverance from the punishment due to sin. " Saved from wrath," and from the wrath to come. 3. That a salvation from sin necessarily in- cludes a deliverance from the punishment due to sin. That if a man were saved from sin he could not be punished for it; or if he were punished for it, he could not be saved from it. I. That if salvation is not a deliverance from any punishment due to sin in this world, nor from a]jy exposedness to punishment in the world to come, it is a salvation from nothing; and hence 50 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION the race of man is in no way benefited by the sufferings and death of Jesus Christ. There are only two possible suppositions. First, men are saved through the merits of their own sufferings ; or second, they are saved through the merits of Christ's sufferings and death. If. we say they are saved through or by the merits of their own sufferings, then the sufferings and death of Jesus Christ availed nothing. If we say they are saved through or by the merits of Christ's suffering and death, then the doctrine of Univers- alism, which teaches that all men must be pun- ished to the full extent of the divine law, must be false. The doctrine of Universalism can hardly bo ex- amined without using language and employing illustrations that will sound harsh and unkind. Yet I am constrained sometimes to call things by their right name. Universalism, as set forth by their own teachers, is a Christless system. They deny, as we shall show, all the fundamental doc- trines held by evangelical churches. It is infidel- ity in its most dangerous form. CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 51 CHAPTER IV. GOD THE AUTHOR OP SIN. # UiiiversaUsm is not only a system of self-con- tradictions, but of glaring absurdities. In this chapter we shall show, from their own authors, that they make God the author or cause of sin, and hence deny also the free agency of man. Mr. Ballon in his " Treatise on the Atonement," page 31, says, "Bntthe ground we shall take is that natural evil owes its origin to the original constitution of our animal nature, and that moral evil or sin owes its origin to natural evil." Here we have sin proceeding from natural evil, and natural evil owing its origin to the original con- stitution as God made it. If this does not make God the author of sin, then language has no mean- ing. Again, on page 36-41 he says, "If it should b3 granted that sin will finally terminate for good in the moral system, it will then be necessary to admit that God is its first cause, or we can not say that God is the author of all good." I win now give three extracts from the "Pro 52 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION and Con of Universalism," by George Kogers, to wiiich I invite special attention. On page 81 he says, " The Scriptures are most satisfactory, most philosophical upon this point (the origin of sin) ; they teach that ' of God are all things;' they represent Jehovah himself as saying, '1 form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil; I the Lord do all these things.' " On page 286 he says, '"So then,' exclaims the Arminian objector, 'the author really seems bent on proving that as Jehovah foreknew the exist- ence of sin he must also have designed it.' Yes, such is really my purpose." And on page 287 he says^ "Having, then, as I think, established the conclusion that absolute foreknowledge implies foreordination, I proceed to notice the objections which seem to lie against it. I have already considered the most formid- able of these, namely, that it makes God the au- thor of sin. And I now ask how, on any ground, IS THIS TO BE AVOIDED? I ASSERT MOREOVER THAT IT IS PLAINLY SCRIPTURAL." Mr. Rogcrs, in these passages, clearly and plainly teaches that God is the author of sin, and asserts "that it is plainly scriptural." Mr. Thayer, pages 19, 20, says, "It is plain, then, that God, as the creator of mankind, when CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 63 he determined upon the nature of their physical and moral condition on earth, determined that it should be such as involved the liability to physical and moral evil, and consequently, as the apostle says, he made man subject to vanity (sin) or im- perfection." The wayfaring man, though a fool, can not fail to see how plainly the teachings of XJniversalists contradict the word of God. In Gen. i. 26, 27, it is declared in very plain language that God made man "in his own image." In Eccl. vii. 29, Sol- omon says, " God made man upright." But Uni- versalists assert that man was created with a liability to sin; that he was made imperfect; that sin was produced from physical causes, proceeding from the original constitution of man as it came from the hands of God, and hence God is the author of sin. Mr. Thayer, page 25-31, argues in this wise: " If there had been no sin we should have known nothing of Jesus the * Christ. If there were no sin we should lose sight of half the glory of God, If there had been no sin, and if man had been perfect in the beginning, then we should have knovrn nothing of the virtues of charity, forgive- ness, faith," &c. According to this author the most glorious thing in the universe is sin. One is led to pity the angels that never sinned. Poor, 54 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION ignorant creatures, they do not know half as much of the glory of God as we do. This is a monstrous idea. Sin, that blinds the eyes, be- numbs all the finer feelings of the sOul, insults God, drives man into every hateful vice, curses and blasphemes the very name of God, turns out, according to Universalists, to be a most glorious thing. The "Pro and Con of Universalism " not only makes God the author of sin, but encourages men to sin. On page 103 he says, '' God does will its (sin's) existence, for the present, and with reference to some future jyurpose of good,, it were the essence of folly to deny, for otherwise it would not be." On page 312 he says, "The tiger is loose, (by which I would jDersonate sin and misery,) wheth- er by appointment or permission you must see that the divine character is equally concerned in the event. Shall it roam and make havoc among God's offspring forever? Or shall it be destroyed, the wounds it has inflicted be healed, and the sub- jects of its violence be brought to see by experi- ence that, all things considered, it was better for them to have suffered from its fury for a time that THEREBY their HAPPIJSTESS might be EI^- HAjN^CED FOR ETEROTTY." God is the author of sin, and it were better for men to suffer from its fury for a time. Why? CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 55 Because thereby their happiness will be enhanced for eternity. What a monstrous idea ! " Who, then, would not desire as much sin as possible, seeing it is 'for our hereafter advantage,' and will result in greater good than we could have possibly experienced without its means." If, then, as these Universalist authors teach, man was made imperfect and possessed of such nature as invoked the liability to physical and moral evil (this Mr. Thayer affirms, pages 19, 20) ; and if it be true, as Mr. Ballon affirms, that sin pro- ceeds from physical causes inherent in the human constitution, then God is the author of sin. It will be proper in this connection to introduce another idea which stands immediately connected with the foregoing. If man was created with a liability to sin, and if sin proceeds from physical causes inherent in the constitution as it c%me from the hands of God, then man is not a free agent, on which account he can not be held responsible for feelings and acts which necessarily proceed from his physical constitution. Mr. Rogers, in his " Pro and Con of Universalism," page 300, says, " Believe me, reader, it is not possible to avoid the conclusion that all events take place agreeably to the unalterable decree of Jehovah." Mr. Bal- lon, in his " Treatise on the Atonement," page 38, says, " Man is de^^endent in all his volitions, and 56 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION moves by necessity." On page 36-41 lie says, " If it should be granted that sin will finally ter- minate for good in the moral system, it will then be necessary to admit that God is its first cause, or we can not say that God is the author of all good!'' Mr. Rogers, page 255, says, ^' Sin pro- ceeds wholly and altogether from our animal nature'' Universalists having embraced the erroneous doc- trine which makes God the author or cause of sin, are forced to deny the free agency of man. John defines sin to be the transgression of law. !N"ow, if God made man imperfect and gave him such a constitution as involved the liability to sin, and if sin proceeds wholly and altogether from our animal nature, and if all events take place agreeably to the unalterable decree of Jehovah, and if man is dependent in all his volitions and moves by necessity, then who is responsible for sin ? If man was made imperfect and moves wholly by necessity, then God must be responsible for his acts. It would be unjust and cruel to hold man responsible and punish him, either here or here- after, for feelings and actions which necessarily proceeded from his physical organization as God made it. Let us look at this erroneous doctrine in the light of reason, love, and justice. (1.) God is the author or cause of sin, for he gave man such CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 57 a coustitutioii as involved the liability to sin, and sin proceeds wholly from our animal nature. (2.) Man is dependent in all his volitions and moves by necessity, and hence can not avoid sin. (3.) Mr. Rogers, in his "Pro and Con of Universalism," page 61, says, "It is a thousand times declared in his (God's) word, in one form or another, that sin is utterly odious to him." And yet God is the author of it, and made man so that he could not avoid sin, and then punishes him to the full extent of the divine law for every sin he commits. Thus we have a system which teaches that God is the author of sin ; that he hates sin, and yet made man so he could not avoid sin, and then punishes him be- cause he sins I now affirm that if man sins from any physical, mental, or moral necessity, if he was created imperfect, with a liability to sin, and if he is de- pendent in all his volitions and moves by necessity, he is not and can not be responsible for any of his acts, and it would be the most glaring injustice to punish him for anything he does. As well might you fling up a stone in the air and then curse it for coming down. The God of the Bible is not the God of Universalism. Without intending to cast any reflection on the intellignce or honesty of the Universalist authors, I can not refrain from expressing my utter astonishment that any class 05 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION of intelligent men should have fallen into such glaring absurdities as to mak6 God the author of sin, and then declare that he punishes man for doing what he could not avoid. It is a reflection upon the wisdom, goodness, and justice of the Almighty. Kow, let us examine this question in the light in God's word. God made man perfect. " And God said. Let us make man in our image, after our like- ness. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." "And God saw evBvy thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." Genesis i. 26, 27, 31. If we turn to II. Cor. iii. 18, we may learn what that image was. "But we all, with open face be- holding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by tiie Spirit of the Lord." So in the Epistle to the Colossians, iii. 10: "And have put on the new man, wliicli is renewed in knowledge after the imar/c of him that created hira." "l^ow as the divine nature could not exist in forms and fashions, the word image must allude to knowledge, righteousness, and holiness;" and it is evident that the apostle used it in this sense. Solomon, in Eccl. vii. 29, says, "Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright ; but they have CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 59 sought out many inventions." "Whatever evil may be now found among men and women it is not of God, for God made them all upright." God created man a moral agent, endowed him with the power of volition, and holds him respon- sible for his acts. "Whatsoever, a man soweth that shall he also reap." Man being a free agent did of his own free will violate the law of God, and thereby brought sin with all its consequences into the world. God neither created sin directly nor indirectly caused it to be. Man alone is re- sponsible, and his future destiny depends upon his acts in time. " For wo must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ; that every one may re- ceive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." II. Cor. V. 10. If God is the author or cause of sin, and if man is not a free agent, then I invite special attention to the following points: (1.) Why is God angry with the wicked every day ? (2.) Wliy does God hate all workers of iniquity? (3.) Why does God have no pleasure in wickedness? (4.) Why punish man here or hereafter for doing what he could not help ? (5.) Why bring such dreadful calamities on man for committing sin ? Because God overrules evil and makes even the wrath of man to praise him does not prove that 60 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION he is the author of sin. The brethren of Joseph were none the less guilty, although God overruled it for good. Those that crucified the Son of God were just as guilty as though no good had come of it. Peter charged them of being guilty of this heinous crime. We are sometimes referred to Isaiah xlv. 7 : ''I form the light, and create dark- ness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." But it is nowhere said that God created sin. The word evil does not always mean sin. It is written that God repented of the evil he said he would do unto the ^N^inevites. Are we to understand that God. repented of the sin he was about to commit against them ? If, as these Universal ist authors teach, sin was designed for a good end and will enhance our happiness for eternity, then the more we have of it the better. But how is sin to enhance our hap- piness for eternity, since these same authors bold- ly teach that this life is not a probation, but a state of retribution; that every man has his heaven or hell in what he does? There is but one conclu- sion, which is this : Sin must continue to exist through all eternity. In closing this chapter I will give one more ex- tract from a Universalist author, Mr. Guild, page 311: ''Sin in man has its origin in the flesh or in his animal nature, and this animal nature is destined CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 61 to be destroyed. N^otliing but the spiritual nature of man can survive the tomb." If sin has its origin in the flesh or animal nature, then it can be nothing more than a physical evil. But on page 334 the same author says, "Moral death is the result of sin, which every man commits." How can this be, if sin is nothing more than a physical evil ? Will some one please explain ? 62 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION CHAPTER V. DEPRAVITY AND REGENERATION. Universalists deny the doctrine of a spiritual regeneration; or in other words, they deny that regeneration is a change of the moral constitution of man, and hence also they deny the doctrine of hereditary depravity. Mr. Thayer, in his '' Theology of Universal- ism," page 151-2, says, "The plain doctrine of the Scriptures, direct and inferential, is tluit of the entire rectitude of human nature. Every mortal brought into existence is placed on the same moral level with Adam and Eve, equally innocent and pure. . . . The man of to-day is created as pure as the first man." I am utterly at a loss to know how to harmon- ize Universalism with itself. In the preceding chapter I showed from Universalist authors that they make God the author of sin; that man was created imperfect; that sin proceeded from his original constitution as it came from the hands of God. l!Tow in this quotation from Mr. Thayer CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 63 he claims 'Hhe entire rectitude of human nature;" that Adam and Eve loere innocent and pure. ''The man of to-day is created as pure as the first man." But was the first man pure ? E'ot if Universalism be true. When they undertake to make God the autJior of sin they must assume that man was created imperfect, but when they want to disprove tlie doctrine of depravity they claim that " the doctrine of the Scriptures, direct and inferential, is that of the entire rectitude of hu- man NATURE." Let me point out another contra- diction. In the preceding chapter I showed that Mr. Rogers and Mr. Ballon both denied the free ageiu;y of man. Mr. liogcrs, page 290, says "the notion of a free will is a chimera," and on page 300 lie says "that it is not possible to avoid the conclusion that all events take place agreeably to the unalterable decree of Jehovah." Mr. Ballon says, "Man is dependent in all his volitions and moves by necessity." The teachings of Univer- salism necessarily must lead to this conclusion; and yet Mr. Thayer says, page 153, that man "is free to choose good or evil ; and he is capable of goodness, virtue, and obedience, by nature, of his own free loiliy But how is he free to act, since God has fore-ordained that all men shall be saved? Men must go to heaven whether they will or not. The infidel who says there is no heaven, the athe- 64 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION ist who says there is no God nor heaven, must nevertheless go to heaven, because God has deter- mined that he shall go there. And yet Mr. Thayer says he is free to choose good or evil. The doctrine of Universalism is full of self- contradictions from the beginning to the end. But notwithstanding the eitbrts of Universalist authors to disprove the doctrine of hereditary de- pravity, and a spiritual regeneration, the word of God most plainly and positively teaches it. Do the Scriptures teach Avhat Mr. Thayer affirms, name- ly, "that the man of to-day is created as pure as the first man?" What was the moral state of the first man? Solomon says, "God made man upright." In Gei). i. 26, 27 it is said, ''God creat- ed man in his ouni image^'' and in verse 31 it is written that " God saw everything that he had made, and behold it was very good.'' Mr. Thayer says, "Every mortal brought into existence is placed on the same moral level with Adam and Eve, equally innocent and pure." Again he says, " The man of to-day is created as pure as the first man." Then every one brought into existence has the image of God ; they are not only good, but very good. Do the Scriptures warrant us in this belief? If the entire rectitude of human nature be true, the Bible must teach it. Come, let us see. "For CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 6^ all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." (Rom. iii. 23.) "By one man sin enter- ed into the world, and death by sin ; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." (Rom. V. 12.) "The Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe." (Gal. iii. 22.) In these passages we have the following facts set forth: 1. "All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." 2. "By one man sin entered into, the world, and death by sin." 3. "The Scriptures con- clude all under sin." IvTow if death is the result of sin, — and Paul affirms that it is, — and if death is universal, — which is also affirmed, — then sin is as universal as death. ''Death passed upon all?" Why so ? Because, Paul says, ''all' have sinned J^ All have not committed actual transgression. The simple meaning of these scripture verses is this : When Adam sinned the whole race of man was involved. As sure as death passed upon all, all were included in the fall. "The Scriptures conclude all under sin." "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." (Ps. li. 5.) What possible sense can be given to this passage on the hypothesis of man's natural innocence ? But in the face of this plain declaration of God's word, 66 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION Mr. Thayer says that " every mortal brought into existence is placed on the same moral level with Adam and Eve, equally innocent and pure." The man of to-day is created as pure as the first man." Was the first man " shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin?" Mr. Thayer flatly contra- dicts the word of God. Whom shall we believe ? " To will is present with me ; but how to per- form that which is good I find not. For the good that I would, I do not : but the evil which I would not, that I do. 'Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwell- eth in me." (Rom. vii. 18-20.) Here the apostle declares that he could will that which was good, but how to perform that good he found not. I^ow if every man that comes into the world is inno- cent and pure, and if the doctrine of entire recti- tude of human nature be true, it is certainly very strange that the apostle could not find in himself the natural and moral power to do good. But he explains why he could not do that which was good. ^' It is no more I that do it, but sin that divelleth in ?ne." What is this indwelling sin ? It can not be the power of volition. Paul said he could will, but could not perform. The case stands thus : Paul could see and acknowledge the good, but the soul was so completely fallen that it had not the moral power to do what he CAREFULLY EXAMtNfiD. 67 saw and knew to be right. "It is no more I tliat do it, but sin that dwelleth in me." " The will is right but the passions are wrong." " My will is against it; but sin that dwelleth in me has pos- sessed itself of all my carnal appetites and pas- sions, and domineers over my soul." Nothing but the grace of God would give Paul or any other man power to do good — to obey the law of God. And this grace is given to all who ask in faith. " The carnal mind is enmity against God t for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." (Rom. viii. 7.) There is in man a natural and strong bias to do evih The carnal mind, which can mean nothing else than the soul of man in a natural state, is enmity against God. It is opposed to God and everything that is good. It is enmity in itself; it is not, and can not be subject to the law of God. Whence comes this enmity? Is it hereditary, or is it a creature of education? If it is a creature of education, why do all men go astray? If all men come into the world pure, and if the doctrine of the entire rectitude of human liature be true, is it not singularly strange that all should take the same course? Would it not be most reasonable to expect that some would love and obey God from the beginning? But 68 liNIVEHSAL lll^BTolUTlON such is not the fact, '' they have all gone out of the way." But why ? Because " the carnal mind is enmity against God : for it is not suhject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." The doctrine of hereditary depravity, or the fall of Adam, is further proved by such passages of scripture as clearly describe the corrupt and unrenewed mind and heart of man. " The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked." (Jeremiah xvii. 9.) "Foolish heart." (Exodus [xxxv. 5.) "A proud heart." (Proverbs xxi. 4.) "Impenitent heart." (Komans ii. 5.) " God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (Genesis vi. 5.) "And were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." (Ephesians ii. 3.) Here we have a "deceitful," "foolish," "proud," and " impenitent heart." It is not strange that every imagination of the thoughts of such a heart should be evil continually. The inherent depravity of the human soul is clearly proved by those scriptures which describe the nature and urge the necessity of regeneration. "Except a man be born again he can not see the kingdom of God." " Ye must be born again." Mr. Fletcher makes the following just remarks on this point: "In every religion there is a principal CAREFULLY EXAMINED. ()9 truth or error, which, like the first link of a chain, necessarily draws after it all the parts with which it is essentially connected. This leading principle in Christianity, distinguished from deism, is tlio doctrine of our corrupt and lost estate ; for if man is not at variance with his Creator, what need of a mediator between God and him? If he is not a depraved, undone creature, what necessity of so wonderful a restorer and Savior as the Son of God? If he is not enslaved to sin, why is he re- deemed by Jesus Christ? If he is not polluted, why must he be washed in the blood of that im- maculate Lamb ? If his soul is not disordered, what occasion is there for such a divine physician ? If he is not helpless and miserable, why is he perpetually invited to secure the assistance and consolations of the Holy Spirit? And in a word, if he is not born in sin, why is a new birth so absolutely necessary, that Christ declares, with the most solemn asseverations, without it no man can see the kingdom of God?" A denial of the doctrine of hereditary depravity necessarily includes a denial of the doctrine of a spiritual regeneration or a change in the moral nature of man. Mr. Thayer, on page 182-3 says, "Regeneration does not imply a change in the moral constitution of man, but a change of opin- ion and character of the desires and aims of life; 70 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION a conversiou from unbelief or wrong belief , and wickedness to faith and truth and holiness. This change is not wrought in a moment by a super- natural power, but is the result of a proper use of divinely appointed means, accompanied by the blessing of the Holy Spirit." On page 172 he says that the doctrine which the Savior urged upon JSTicodemus "required no change in his moral constitution, nor does it in ours, but a change of opinion and action." And on page 174 he says that regeneration "is the work of slow and steady growth. It is the product of months and years of watching and praying, of struggling and effort, of battles and victories." Here we have the doctrine of regeneration as taught by TJniversalist authors, l^o change of the moral nature, or constitution of man, but a change of opinion and character — a mere con* version or turning around. There is no super- natural power employed in this work. It is no sudden change, but is the product of months and years of watching and praying. It would be ex- ceedingly diihcult to form any conceptions of the nature of regeneration as taught by Universal] st authors. The Scriptures abound with illustrations and positive declarations concerning a growth in grace, but not in a single instance is there a word CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 71 said about growing into regeneration. The very notion of such a thing is preposterous. Dr. Lee gives in substance the following objections to the notion of a gradual regeneration. (1.) The per- son going through this work of months and years would, during its progress, be neither £t for heaven nor hell ; for he would " be neither a saint nor a sinner. (2.) There would be a time when he would have no distinctive character. There would be a time in the history of every person regenerated, when they were half regenerated. Suppose that during the progress of this work of months and years, the person should die, would not "such a one make a strange specter in per- dition with Grod's renewing work half finished upon him?" And would not such a one make an equally strange spectre in heaven ? The word of God, which must settle all such questions, is directly against the notion of a grad- ual regeneration. As to the nature of regener- ation, it will be proper to note that it implies and includes a change of heart, mind, will, disposition, and feeling. '' There are no new powers of mind or affections of the soul created, but the soul, with all its powers and affections, is renewed and turned from wrong to right." Justification and regeneration are concomitant, that is, they occur at the same time. They are 72 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION separate and distinct in nature, but not in time. When God accepts (justifies) a penitent believer through the merits of Jesus Christ, he renews (regenerates) his moral nature by the power of the Holy Ghost. Justification is a work done for us, while regeneration is a work done in us. Jus- tification changes our relation to God, removes the guilt of sin, and delivers from the punishment due to sin. Regeneration changes our moral nature, takes away the love of sin, and plants in the heart the principles of love and obedience. It is a re- newal of our fallen nature by the operations of the Holy Ghost. "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name : which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John i. 12, 13.) To be born of God is neither more nor less than to be changed and renewed by the Holy Ghost. Paul, in Titus iii. 5, speaking of the same work, calls it "the renewing of the Holy Ghost." Jesus says they are born, not of blood, — or bloods, as the orig- inal has it, — not by natural generation, not by the will of man, but of God — by a supernatural power. It is more than a mere turning around — more, vastly more, than a change of opinion. By natu- ral birth we are the sons of natural parents, so by CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 73 being born of God we are the sons of God. By natural birth we partake of the nature of our parents, bone of their bone and iiesh of their flesh. By a spiritual birth we partake of the divine na- ture communicated to us by the Spirit ; and this same Spirit which renews our moral nature brings us iiHo the family of God. It is called the Spirit of adoption. (Rom. viii. 15.) The Spirit by which our nature is changed, and by which we are adopt- ed into the family of God, is the self- same Spirit that " beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God." "Except a man be born again, he can not see the kingdom of God. . . . Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God." (John iii. 3, 5.) If it should "be urged that the Lord meant water bap- tism when he uses the expression, "born of water," it is evident that he intended that it should be un- derstood as meaning nothing more than an out- ward sign of the inward work of grace wrought in the soul by the Spirit. This is clearly implied in the sixth verse : "That which is born of the flesh is flesh ; and that which is born of the Spirit is spir- it." The whole scope of the Savior's discourse was to convince ITicodemus of the absolute necessity of a spiritual regeneration. " Ye must be born aorain." Outward forms and ceremonies, however 74 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION valuable in their places, will never suffice for this inward work. The soul must partake of the divine nature; and this can only be accomplished by a complete renewal of the whole moral nature of man. ^'Born of the Spirit." "The kingdom of God is spiritual and holy; and that which is born of the Spirit, resembles the Spirit; for as he is who begat, so is he who is begotten of him. Therefore the spiritual regeneration is essentially necessary, to prepare the soul for a holy and spir- itual kingdom." "Even when we were dead in sins, hath quick- ened us together with Christ. . . . And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus." (Eph. ii. 5, 6.) To quicken is to give life, to cause to live. The words "together with Christ" have reference to the resurrection of Christ. As God had raised Christ from the dead, so they were raised by a spiritual resurrection into a spiritual life. God had given them as complete a resurrection from the death of sin to a life of righteousness as he had given to the body of Christ from the grave. The Scriptures represent men, while in a state of na- ture, as being dead in sin ; dead in their souls ; dead toward God. They must be quickened, raised up, and made alive to God. This is regen- eration. It is instantaneous and complete. CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 75 "And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holi- ness." (Eph. iv. 24.) "And have put on the new man, which is renewed ^in knowledge after the image of him that created him." (Col. iii. 10.) " For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works." (Eph. ii. 10.) These passages, if they teach anything at all, teach the doctrine of an entire moral change. God's work- manship, created not in, nor by, hut unto good works. This new creation was produced or wrought in us hy the power of God. This be- getting, quickening, renewing, and creating anew all comes from God, and is the work of the Holy Spirit. Pat on the neio man. This implies that we must have a new nature. "Which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness." The whole image of God is to be traced upon the soul. That as Adam was created in the image of God, so we are to be created anew in the same image. In other words, as the image of God was lost to the soul by the fall in Adam, it is to be restored to the soul complete by regeneration or the re- newing of the Holy Ghost. "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature." (II. Cor. v. 17.) "There is there- fore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus." (Eom. viii. 1.) "A new 76 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION creature." "There is no condemnation to tliem wliicli are in Christ Jesus." Why? Be- cause they have passed from death unto life. They are new creatures. Their whole moral nature has been changed, and the image of God has been restored to the soul, ^ow if regener- ation is what Universalists say it is, a mere change of opinion or turning about, without any change of the moral nature, and if it is the work of months and years, as they assert it is, then a man may be months and years in being born again ; months and years in being created- in Christ Jesus; months and years in getting into Christ Jesus; months and years in putting oft' the old man and putting on the new man; months and years in being quickened ; months and years in being born of the Spirit. But some men do not commence this work until near the close of life, only a few hours before they die. When and how will they be changed? Then, again, some men do not commence at all. They die as they live. When will they be regenerated ? It can not take place in death, unless men are months and years in dying. It can not occur in the resurrec- tion, unless the dead are months and years in beino^ raised from the dead. The whole notion of a gradual regeneration is preposterous. It is con- trary to all the representations of the word of God. CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 77 la this argument the following points have been established : (1.) Man is fallen from his original state. (2.) All men in consequence of the fall are depraved. "All have sinned and come short of the glory of Grod." "All have gone out of the way." " All we like sheep have gone astray." "All are under the condemnation of the law." "We are born in sin." " The carnal mind is enmity against God." (3.) It has been shown from plain, unambiguous passages of scripture that regeneration implies and includes a change of our whole moral nature, wrought in the soul by the power of the Holy Ghost. "Born again." "Born of the Spirit." "Renewed by the Holy Ghost." " Created anew unto good works." "Quickened." "Anew creature." "Putting off the old man," "Putting on the new man." All these passages teach as plainly as language can teach anything, that regeneration is a renewal of our fallen nature. (4.) It has been shown that reason and common sense are opposed to the notion of a gradual regeneration. There can be no medium ground between life and death. . How then can the ultimate holiness and salva- tion of all men be established upon a basis which stands diametrically opposed to the plain teachings of God's word. In the " Theology of Universal- ism," as set forth by Mr. Thayer, the author denies 78 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION human depravity and a spiritual regeneration. He argues in favor of the absolute rectitude of the moral man, and a gradual regeneration. In this chapter we have shown that both these notions are contrary to reason and the word of God, and that therefore the doctrine of Universalism must be false. Universalism has a system of doctrine peculiar to itself, in which they deny almost every fundamental doctrine as held and taught by the orthodox churches. It is therefore the more im- portant that we should carefully examine the foundation of their whole theory. If the ulti- mate holiness and salvation of all men be true, it is true according to their method of interpreting the Scriptures. They commence by denying the doctrine of depravity and the necessity of a spir- itual regeneration. The reader is therefore asked to carefully review the scripture arguments pre- sented in this chapter in proof of human deprav- ity and a spiritual regeneration, and therefore against the '' Theology of Universalism." CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 79 CHAPTER YL THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST It has been clearly demonstrated that " man — by worshiping — becomes assimilated to the moral character of the object lohich he worshipsJ^ The history of all nations abundantly proves this propo- sition. The worshiper will seek to cultivate in himself the very principles he attributes to the object of his worship. It is therefore all-impor- tant that the worshiper should form correct no- tions of the object or being he worships. Those who charged the Savior with being an austere man would worship him as a being rough, harsh, stern, and vigorous, exercising authority where he had no right so to do. God, by the mouth of David, speaks of those who thought he was alto- gether such a one as themselves. If they would worslnp him at all, it would be with the feelings and reverence of those who worship a man. They would not in thought or desire rise one particle above the object they worship. "To become as- similated to the image of the object worshiped must be the end of desire with the worshiper." 80 UNTVBRSAL RESTORATION Those who believe that Jesus Christ was verily and truly God, will worship and obey him as though he were God. Those who believe that he was only a man, will worship and obey him as though he were a man. Our purpose in this argument is to show that Universalists deny the divinity of Christ, which the Scriptures on the other hand abundantly establish. In denying this fundamental doctrine of Christianity, they present Christ to a lost and ruined world as a being whom it is unsafe to trust and obey. In- deed, they hardly know where in the scale of being to place him. In order to place this subject clearly and dis- tinctly before the eye and mind of the reader, we will quote from a few Universalist authors. Rev. I. D. Williams, in his '' Exposition of Universal- ism," page 11, says, "We can acknowledge no other being as God, but him alone. Hence with the sentiments of the polytheists, who believe in many gods, the pantheists, who believe that all is God, and the Trinitarians, who believe in three Gods in one, and one in three, we have no fellow- ship or communion." On page 13 he says of Christ, " He claimed no higher title than the humble one, the ' Son of man,' and if he claimed no more for himself, it is a misguided disciple that claims it for him." CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 81 Mr. Pingree, in his debate with Mr. Rice, page 229, says, " I have already shown what we (Uni- versalists) believe on that subject: we do not call him a mere man." The Bible says that Christ was a man ; that he was endowed with ^ all power in heaven and in earth,' and consequently that he was something more than a mere man. Mr. Thayer, in his " Theology of Universalism," page 103, says, ^' Constantly he is spoken of in the Bible as something more than man." On page 107 he says, ''He (Christ) is not God, nor an angel, nor an archangel, nor a man, in the ordinary defi- nition and understanding of that word." Again, on page 108 he says, "While we believe in and rejoicingly acknowledge the pre-eminence of Christ in all things, we reject the doctrine of his deity or his equality with God." From these authors — and others, from whom we might quote if necessary — it is perfectly clear that Universalists deny the doctrine of Christ's supreme divinity. Can any man, whether learned or unlearned, tell us what they do believe concern- ing the person and character of Christ ? He is not God, nor an angel, nor an archangel, nor man, but something more than a mere man. What is that something more ? Is it a created or uncre- ated something ? Is it a God-nature or a man- nature? We can form some conceptions of the 6 82 XTNIVERSAL RESTORATION character of God from the nature of his works — "the heavens declare his glory;" we can form some conceptions of the characters of men and angels; hut of a being that is neither God, nor man, nor an angel, and yet something more than a mere man, we can form no conceptions at all. It would be a sin to worship, and unsafe to obey and trust in any such being. But we will turn to the word of God, and see if we can find out what sort of being Christ is. Whatever he is the Scriptures must inform us. He is called God. " Thy throne, God, is forever and ever : a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom." (Hebrews i. 8.) This is a quo- tation from the forty-fifth psalm. ]N"o one in read- ins: this psalm would doubt for a moment that David meant the everlasting God. Paul in the above quotation applies the language of the psalm- ist to Jesus Christ; therefore, Jesus Christ must be God. "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, God, is forever and ever : a scepter of righteous- ness is the scepter of thy kingdom." The most sound divines have ever been of the opinion that these words were addressed by God the Father unto God the Son. If Christ is not God, why did the sacred writers call him God ? "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given : and the government shall be upon his shoul- CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 83 der: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." (Isaiah ix. 6.) Of whom does the prophet speak ? Surely no man will deny that this language refers to Jesus Christ* Could such language as, ^'The mighty God, the everlasting Father," be applied to any being less than God ? And yet it is applied to Jesus Christ. Therefore, Jesus Christ must be God. If the writers of the Old and Kew Testament intended to affirm the divinity of Jesus Christ, they could not have selected any words that would more clearly establish that fact. If they did not intend to affirm this, they were very unfortunate in the use of terms. If in reading a book you should find such words as, "The mighty God, the ever- lasting Father," you would not think of any being less than the very eternal God. " Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth : for I am God, and there is none else. I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear." (Isaiah xlv. 22-23.) This text upon its very face concerns Christ. It has imme- diate reference to gospel times. " I am God, and there is none else." " Unto me every knee sliidl bow, and every tongue shall swear." In Philip- 84 UNtVERSAL RES'tOKATlON plans ii. 10 Paul declares that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, and every tongue confess^ To show still further that the prophet refers to Christ, we will quote from Romans xiv. 10-12: "But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at naught thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ. For it is written^ As I live, saith the Lord,, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall con- fess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God." In this text we are assured that we shall all stand before the judg- ment-seat of Christ; that every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess to God. To pi'ove this, Paul quotes from Isaiah xlv. 23 : " Thus clearly affirming that Hhe Lord' spoken of by Isaiah is no other than ^ Christ,' and that Christ is God." In further proof of the deity of Christ, we will quote his own language. "Before Abraham was, I am." (John viii. 56-58.) This language not only proves the pre-existence of Christ, but his eternal Godhead. God said unto Moses, "I AM THAT I AM." (Exodus iii. 14.) "Before Abraham was, I am." In this the Savior uses this very language in reference to himself, which expresses nothing more and nothing less than the name of the true God. Turn to Revelation i. 17, 18, "And w^hen I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 85 right hand upon me, saymg unto me, J^'ear not; I am the first and the last : I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for-evermore." Who was it that said to John in this passage, "Fear not; I am the iirst and the last?" It was Jesus Christ and none other, for he immediately adds, "I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore." Kow turn to Isaiah xliv. 6, '' Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his Redeemer the Lord of hosts ; I am the Iirst, and I am the last ; and besides me there is no God." It is perfectly clear that he who says, / am the first and the last, is Jehovah, for in the last sentence he says, "Besides me there is no God." But Jesus Christ, in Revelation i. 17, 18, says, "1 am the first and the last." From this we can reach but one conclusion, which is this, that Jesus Christ must be God. "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." (Rev- elation i. 8.) Alpha and Omega are the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet. The natural meaning of the first sentence in this text is this, "I am from eternity to eternity;" for he immedi- ately adds, " I am the beginning and the ending — the author and cause of all things." He not only declares himself to be the first and the last, the 86 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION beginning and the ending, but says that he, the first and the last, is the Almighty — the all-powerful. Thus Jesus Christ declares himself to be the very eternal God. Jesus says, " I am the root and the offspring of David." (Revelation xxii. 16.) He is the root of David as to his divine nature, and he is the offspring of David as to his human nature. In other words, he is David's God, for he is the Creator of all things, and " without him was not anything made that was niade." Thus we have in Christ's own words the repeated dec- laration that he is God. Rev. I. D. Williams, whose language I quoted in the opening of this chapter, says that Christ "claimed no higher title than the humble one, the 'Son of man.'" ]S'ow while it is true that Jesus Christ did speak of him- self as the "Son of man" and the offspring of David, he also claimed for himself a mnqh higher title; he claimed that he was the "I AM;" the "first and the last; "the "beginning and the end- ing;" the " root of David ; " the "Almighty." In I. Timothy iii. 16, Paul, when speaking of Christ, says emphatically tliat he was "God manifest in the flesh." I. John v. 20 says of Christ, " This is the true God, and eternal life." In both these passages Jesus Christ is called God, and in the latter he is called the " true God." Mr. William- son says that as Christ claimed no more for him- CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 87 self than the "Son of man," ''it is a misguided dis- ciple that claims it for him.^'^ Both Paul and John must have been misguided disciples, for they did claim for Christ more than the ^'Son of man." They claimed that he was God, the " true God, and eternal life." We will examine but one more passage in this connection. " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning wdth God. All things were made by him; and without him w^as not anything made that was made." (John i. 1-3.) In the fourteenth verse John says, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." In the first verse we have the fact stated, "the Word was with God, and the Word was God." And this Word, that was in the beginning, that was with God, and that was God, was made flesh and dw^lt among lis. "All things were made by him." This Word was in the beginning, which proves that Jesus Christ, who is this Word, was no part of creation, for he was before creation. "All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made." "And the Word was made flesh." Dr. Clarke on comment- ing on this says: " That very person who was in the beginning, who was with God, and who was God (v. 1.), in the fullness of time became flesh. 88 UNIVEESAL RESTORATION became incarnate by the power of tbe Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin. Allowing this apostle to have written by divine inspiration, is not this verse (14), taken in connection with verse one, an absolute and incontestable proof of the proper and eternal Godhead of Christ Jesus." We will now pass to notice that the attributes, which alone belong to God, are ascribed to Jesus Christ. 1. Eternity. It will hardly be denied that this is one of the essential attributes of Jehovah. In Isaiah ix. 6, the prophet, in speaking of Christ, calls him the '' everlasting Father," which literally signifies the " Father of Eternity." *' Out of thee (Bethlehem) shall he come forth, unto me that is to be ruler in Israel ; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." (Micah v. 2.) Of whom does the prophet speak? By turning to Matthew ii. 3-6, it will be seen that he is speaking of Christ, " whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting J^ "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to ever- lasting, thou art God." (Psalms xc. 2.) Who formed the earth and the world ? John i. 2 says, when speaking of Christ, that "all things were made by him ; and without him was not any thing made that was made." Then he existed before CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 89 the mountains were brought forth and before the earth was formed, even from everlasting to everlast- ing. "Christ formed the earth and the world, therefore Christ is God from everlasting to ever- lasting." In Isaiah xliv. 6 Jehovah says, " I am the iirst, and I am the last ; and besides me there is no God." In Revelation i. 17, 18, Jesus said to John, '^ I am the first and the last," — the beginning and the ending, the Alpha and the Omega, l^ow, if God alone is from everlasting to everlast- ing, if he is the first and the last, then Jesus Christ must be God, for these very perfections are ascribed to him. Dr. Lee when speaking of the eternity of Christ presents it in this forcible manner: "He who created all things must have existed before anything was created. He who existed before anything was created must have always existed. But Jesus ' Christ did create all things, and he existed before anything was created, therefore Jesus Christ is eternal." 2. Omniscience. God alone is omniscient. If Jesus Christ is omniscient, then Jesus Christ must be God. What do the Scriptures teach? "And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?" (Matt. ix. 4.) "But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man ; for he knew what was in 90 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION man." (John ii. 24-25.) " Thou, Lord, which know- est the hearts of all men." (Acts i. 24.) IsTo created being can know the thoughts of man. No created being can know, what is in man. When Jesus asked Peter for the third time whether he loved him, Peter said, "Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee." Peter must have been one of Mr. Williamson's " mis- guided disciples," for in this positive declaration he attributes to Christ a perfection that no being less than God ever possessed. It is said in John vi. 64, that " Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should be- tray him." How could he know all these things if he were not omniscient? And if Jesus Christ is omniscient he must be God. 3. Omnijneseiice. This perfection or attribute is ascribed to Christ. Lideed our Lord himself laid claim to it. Jesus said, "Lo, I am, with you alway, even unto the end of the world." (Matt, xxviii. 20.) "Where two or three are gathered to- gether in my name, there am I in the midst of them." (Matt. xvii. 20.) Ministers of the cross of Christ have always believed that Jesus would go with them. Evangelical Christians in all time past have expected the presence of Christ, whenever and wherever they met in his name. How could they expect his presence if he is not omnipresent? CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 91 Since tliuusaiids of such assemblies are gathered together at the same time, how could Christ fulfill his promises if he were not omnipresent? Thou- sands of ministers are now at work in the Master's vineyard, scattered all over the land. Each claims the [)romise, " Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." " Christ can not be in [Jnitarian assemblies and in Unitarian worship, according to their theory. They can have no present Christ; none in their preaching; none in tlieir worship; none in their joys; none in their sorrows ; none in life, and none in death. If their theory be true, their's must be a Christless journey to the tomb." 4. Omnijjotence. This attribute is essential to the nature of an infinite, independent, and perfect being. It implies almighty power. Does Jesus Christ claim this? "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Al- mighty." (Rev. i. 8.) I will now quote two very important passages. " In him dwelleth all the full- ness of tlie Godhead bodily." (Col. ii. 9.) " For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead ; so that they are without excuse." (Rom. i. 20.) Dr. Clarke says, " By the Godhead, 92 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION or Deity, we-are to understand the state or being of the divine nature, and by the fullness of that Deity, the infinite attributes essential to such a nature. Bodily signifies, truly, really, not only efii'ectively, as God dwells in good men, but suh- stantially, or personally .^^ IlTow, as it was by this eternal power and Godhead, that all things were created, and as all the fullness of this Godhead bodily dwelt in Christ, and as omnipotence is an essential attribute of the Godhead, therefore Jesus Christ is omnipotent; and if omnipotent, he must be God. In further proof of the omnipo- tence of Christ, I will quote two passages. " All things were made by him ; and without him was not anything made that was made." (John i. 3.) " By him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth." (Col. i. 16.) Could any being not omnipotent create the universe ? If we turn to Genesis i. 1, we have this fact clearly stated. " In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." John and Paul afiirm that Jesus Chvi^t creaied all things; all things in heaven and in earth: and. ivithout him, loas not anything made that was made; therefore, Jesus Christ must be God. 5, Immutability. Ko being in the universe can claim this perfection but God himself. If Jesus Christ is immutable he must be God. The only question then, is this : Do the Scriptures warrant CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 93 US ill the belief that Jesus Christ is immutable? " Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to-day, and forever." (Hebrews xiii. 8.) Paul, in speaking of Christ, says, "And, thou, Lord, in the begin- ning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands. They shall perish, but thou remainest : and they all shall wax old as doth a garment : * * but thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end." (Hebrews i. 10-12.) This last text is a quotation from the one hundred and second psalm, and is spoken to Jesus Christ. From these two passages it is per- fectly clear that the sacred writers believed that Christ was immutable. Thus far in the argument it has been proved from plain, unambiguous passages of scripture, that Jesus Christ was " called God ; " that '^eternity, ^^ omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, and immut- ability were all ascribed to him ; hence, " If Jesus Christ were not God the writers of the ISTew Testament discovered great injudiciousness in the choice of their words, and adopted a very incautious and dangerous style." In further proof of the de- ity of Christ I shall add two more arguments. The works ascribed to Christ are such as no being but God could perform. '*A11 things were made by him ; and without him was not anything made that Vas made." (John i. 3.) Verse 10. 94 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION "He was in the world, and the world was made by him." ''For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or domin- ions, or principalities, or powers : all things were created by him, and for him : and he is before all things, and by him all things consist." (Col. i. 16, 17.) 'Now add to these passages Genesis i. 1 — "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" — and you have it proved as clearly as lan- guage can prove anything that Jesus Christ must be God. Dr. Clarke, in commenting on Colossians i. 16, 17, submits the following thoughts: "Four things are here asserted. 1. That Jesus Christ i»«» the Creator of the universe; of all things visible and invisible; of all things that had a beginning, whether they exist in time or in eternity. 2. That whatso- ever was created was created for himself; that he was the sole end of his own work. 3. That he was 'prior to all creation, to all beings, whether in the visible or invisible worlds. 4. That he is the preserver and governor of all things, for by him oil things consist J^ It must be admitted that creation requires nothing less than unlimited power — abso- lute omnipotence. ITow, if Paul and John under- stood the terms they used in the foregoing pas- sages, they certainly intended to ascribe to Jesus Christ whatever power was required t5 create the CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 95 universe. And as no being possesses that power but God, we are forced to the conckision that Jesus Christ must be God; for '^all things were made by him,,' ^ — all things, in heaven and in earth; " and loithont him loas not any thing made that was made;" for "he is before all things." Jesus Christ is not only the Creator of all things, but he is the object of divine worship. It is idolatry to worship any being but God himself. When John was on the island of Patmos, and an angel appeared to him, he was so overpowered by his presence that he fell down and was about to worship him; but the angel said, "See thou do it not: for I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy breth- ren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book : worship God." ISTow add to this the saying of Christ himself, '^ Then saith Jesus unto him. Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." (Matthew iv. 10.) It is written in Deuteronomy vi. 13, and x. 20. It is written in Exodus xx. 3-5. From these pas- sages it is perfectly clear that God is the only object of religious worship. Kow if the Scriptures teach that Jesus Christ is to be worshiped, then it proves, beyond all question, that he must be God. ''And behold, there came a leper and worshiped him, saying. Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me 96 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION clean." (Matthew viii. 2.) "And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, say- ing. All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshiped him." (Matthew xxviii. 9.) " And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven. And they worshiped him, and returned to Jerusa- lem with great joy." (Luke xxiv. 51, 52.) ''And again, when he bringeth in the first-begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship himy (Hebrews i. 6.) " To w^orship any creature is idolatry; and God resents idolatry more than any other evil. Jesus Christ can be no creature, else the angels who worship him must be guilty of idolatry, and God the author of that idolatry, who commanded those angels to worship Christ." From these passages it must appear to every candid mind that Jesus Christ is the object of worship, both for men and angels. And from Revelation v. 11-13, it appears that he is wor- shiped by all the hosts in heaven. In summing up upon this argument I wish to state that I have sought to make this point par- ticularly clear, for the whole system of Christianity proceeds upon the idea that Jesus Christ is verily and truly God. If we reject this we must reject the doctrine of vicarious atonement; and if we reject the doctrine of vicarious atonement we must CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 97 reject the doctrine of justification by faith. In fact, it sweeps away every fundamental doctrine of our holy religion. If Universalism be true, we have nothing left but some sort of created Savior. He is not God, nor an angel, nor a mere man. He is something ; no one can tell who nor what. But in this argument it has been shown that Jesus Christ is God. God manifest in the flesh; the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last; the root and off- spring of David ; the mighty God, the everlasting Father; the Creator and upholder of all things. Let it be distinctly understood that the ultimate holiness and salvation of all men, as held and taught by Universalists, goes upon the presump- tion that Jesus Christ was a created being; some- thing more than a mere man, and something less than God. They hold that this created Savior came into the world and suffered and died for some purpose, but not in our stead; not as our surety; not to render satisfaction to the law; not to relieve us from any of the penalty due to sin ; not to save us from the guilt of sin. For what, then ? Universalists themselves must answer, if it is answered at all. With their view of the char- acter and mission of Christ, the humble believer, and penitent, might well exclaim, "They have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him." 7 100 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION meaning when he says, To be carnally -minded is deathJ' According to Mr. Ballon, then, to believe in the vicarious sufferings of Jesus Christ is car- nal-mindedness. What is it then to believe in mere human suffering; that is, that the sinner himself can, by suffering, render satisfaction to the law? Again let it be asked. For what and for whom did Jesus Christ suffer ? Mr. Thayer, in his Theology of Universalism, page 136, says, "The death of Christ is not vicari- ous; he did not suffer as our substitute." On page 138 he says, " The constant declaration is that Christ offered himself a sacrifice for sin, and not as a substitute to release man from punish- ment." This is a very remarkable declaration, that Christ offered himself a sacrifice for sin and yet does not release man from any of the punish- ments due to sin. We must suffer for our sins all the same as if Christ had not died at all. I will give another quotation from Mr. Thayer, page 135, "It is plain," he says, "that though Christ does not, as our substitute, save us from punish- ment by suffering for us, yet he saves us from sin, by leading us away from it into the paths of life and peace." Let it be observed that the author most emphatically denies that Christ died as our substitute; yet he saves us from sin — that is, he leads us away from sin. But how does Christ CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 101 save men from sins already committed ? He will lead those away from sin who will allow them- selves to be led by him. But thousands do not follow Christ; they live in sin every day, and finally die in sin. How does he save them from past sins? I have been careful to state the exact views of Universalist authors on the doctrine of vicarious atonement. Universalism promises salvation to the whole race of man, and yet denies the only foundation upon which salvation can be reached. If the sufferings of Christ were not vicarious, if he did not render satisfaction to the law, the hope of the world dies. To settle this question we must appeal directly to the word of God. Let it be dis- tinctly understood that if the doctrine of the vica- rious sufterings of Christ be true, the whole system of Universalism falls to the ground. Universalism goes upon the theory that every man must sufier the full penalty of the law. This, the author of the " Exposition of Universalism^^ says, is " one of their peculiar doctrines," which, of course, in- volves a complete rejection of the glorious doctrine of " vicarious atonement J^ Before entering directly upon the scripture argument, I wish to state clearly and distinctly that for God to forgive sin without a satisfaction does not accord with any of his perfections. It is against his holiness, his 102 UNIVERSAL RESTORATrON justice, hisVisdom, and his veracity. "JSTor does it comport with the great love and affection of God to his Son Jesus Christ, said to be his beloved Son, the dear Son of his love, to send him into this world in the likeness of sinful flesh, to be vilified and abused by the w^orst of men, to be buffeted, lashed, and tortured by a set of miscre- ants, and to put him to the most cruel and shame- ful death, if sin could have been forgiven without all this, by a hint, a nod, a word saying, 'Thy sins are forgiven thee, and thou shalt be saved? '" Where is the greatness of this love if salvation could have been secured in any other way? If God could forgive sin without any satisfaction being rendered to the law, why all the suffering and anguish of his beloved Son? But what do the Scriptures teach concerning the work of Christ and the object of his mission into this world? "He shall save Ms people from their sins." (Matthew i. 21.) 'Not from sinning merely, but from sin; and if from sin, from the evil and consequences of sin. A man can not be saved from sin and then punished for the sins from which he has been saved ; nor can a man be punished for his sins to the full extent of the law, and then be saved from them. " The Son of man came to give his life a ransom for many." (Matt. XX. 28.) For how many? Paul says, "He gave CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 103 himself a ransom for all." (I. Timotliy ii. 6.) The word ransom signifies the price paid for the release or redemption of a prisoner or captive. Dr. Clarke, in his comment on this latter text, says, '' The word used here, and applied to the death of Christ, signifies that ransom which consists in the exchange of one person for another, or the re- demption of life by life." Christ gave his life, that others through him and by him might have eter- nal life. We will examine another class of scriptures. *' God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." (Galatians iv. 4, 5.) How did Christ re- deem them that were under the law ? The same apostle tells us, in Galatians iii. 13. " Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." We are not to understand from this that Christ was changed into a curse, but took the curse of the law upon himself. In other words, he was " made an atonement for our sins ; for whatever was offered as an atonement for sin was considered as bearing the punishment due to sin." In II. Corinthians v. 21 the apostle says, *' He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin." Christ knew no sin, for he was " without spot, and blameless." He was pure and innocent. Yet 102 UNIVERSAL RESTORATFON justice, hisVisdom, and his veracity. ''Nor does it comport with the great love and affection of God to his Son Jesus Christ, said to be his beloved Son, the dear Son of his love, to send him into this world in the likeness of sinful flesh, to be vilified and abused by the worst of men, to be buffeted, lashed, and tortured by a set of miscre- ants, and to put him to the most cruel and shame- ful death, if sin could have been forgiven without all this, by a hint, a nod, a word saying, 'Thy sins are forgiven thee, and thou shalt be saved ? ' " Where is the greatness of this love if salvation could have been secured in any other way? If Grod could forgive sin without any satisfaction being rendered to the law, why all the suffering and anguish of his beloved Son ? But what do the Scriptures teach concerning the work of Christ and the object of his mission into this world? "He shall save liis people from their sins." (Matthew i. 21.) 'Not from sinning merely, but from sin; and if from sin, from the evil and consequences of sin. A man can not be saved from sin and then punished for the sins from which he has been saved ; nor can a man be punished for his sins to the full extent of the law, and then be saved from them. " The Son of man came to give his life a ransom for many." (Matt. XX. 28.) For how many? Paul says, "He gave CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 103 himself a ransom for all." (I. Timothy ii. 6.) The word ransom signifies the price paid for the release or redemption of a prisoner or captive. Dr. Clarke, in his comment on this latter text, says, " The word used here, and applied to the death of Christ, signifies that ransom which consists in the exchange of one person for another, or the re- demption of life by life." Christ gave his life, that others through him and by him might have eter- nal life. We will examine another class of scriptures. '' God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." (Galatians iv. 4, 5.) How did Christ re- deem them that were under the law ? The same apostle tells us, in Galatians iii. 13. " Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." We are not to understand from this that Christ was changed into a curse, but took the curse of the law upon himself. In other w^ords, he was "made an atonement for our sins; for whatever was offered as an atonement for sin was considered as bearing the punishment due to sin." In II. Corinthians v. 21 the apostle says, " He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin." Christ knew no sin, for he was " without spot, and blameless." He was pure and innocent. Yet 104 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION Paul says he was made to sin for us. The simple meaning of the passage is, that Christ was made a sin-ofiering, or a sacrifice for sin. In further proof of this, I will quote from Isaiah liii. 6. " All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way ; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." Also, from I. Peter ii. 24, " "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree." It would be little less than blas- phemy to say that our sins were imputed to him as though they had been his own. How then did he bear our sins in his own body? He met the claims of the law in our stead, and thereby '' bare the jpunishment due to our sins J' It would be exceedingly difficult to understand the meaning of the foregoing text if we reject the doctrine of vicarious atonement. How could Christ be made a curse for us? How could our sins be laid on him ? How could he bear our sins in his own body on the tree ? How could he be made sin for us unless he stood in our stead and became our surety? And if he stood in our stead and became our surety, then his sufferings were vicarious. Look again at the language used. " He gave himself a ransom for all." " God laid on him the iniquity of us all." " He was made to be sin for us." " He bare our sins in his own body on the tree." " He was made a curse for us." If CAEErULLY EXAMINED. 105 the words employed by the sacred writers in these passages do not establish the doctrine of vicarious atonement, I do not know what language they could have used to establish it. And if they did not intend to teach that doctrine, I know not why they should have employed such language. Now if, as Universalists teach, the sinner must suffer the full penalty of the law, if he can not by any possibility escape this punishment, then the suflerings and death of Christ availed nothing. Our Lord did not suffer for himself, for he was pure and innocent. He was the Lamb of God; without spot, and blameless. For whom, then, and for what end did he suffer? Paul answers this double question, "Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity." " He gave himself for us." He ''tasted death for every man." "He was wounded for our transgressions; he was bruised for our iniquities." "He was de- livered for our offenses." " He died for our sins, according to the Scriptures." As a matter of sim- ple justice the sinner could not have suffered more than the full penalty of the law, if Christ had not suffered at all. So, according to the "Theology of Universalism," the sinner is in no conceivable way benefited by the sufferings and death of Christ ; he must suffer the punishment due to sin all the same as if Christ had not come at all. 106 UNIVERSAL EESTORATION This view takes away the corner-stone of our justification by faith ; for if Christ in his death did not render satisfaction to the law, how then can God he just and justify him that believeth in Jesus? On what grounds are sinners justified? Is it on account of their own sufi:ering, or through the merits of Christ's suffering? If we say it is on the grounds or through the merits of their own suflering, then the sufferings and death of Jesus Christ availed nothing, and every man becomes his own savior. If we say it is through the merits of Christ's suffering and death, then Universalism falls to the ground. Daniel, when speaking con- cerning Christ, said, ''He shall be cut off*, but not for himself. " For whom, then ? Paul said, ^'Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures." But how are men benefited by the sacrifical offering of Jesus Christ? If it be admitted that the Lord Jesus rendered satisfaction to the law in man's stead, how may he be personally benefited by that atonement? To this inquiry the Script- ures furnish a most satisfactory answer. " There- fore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowl- edge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 107 and upon all tliem that believe; for there is no difterence : for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus : whom God hath set forth to be a propitia- tion through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness : that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." (Romans iii. 20-26.) In these verses there are several points that will demand attention. (1.) "We are taught clearly and positively that no man is or can be justified by the deeds of the law. The reason assigned by the apostle why no flesh could be justified by the deeds of the law is, that " hy the law is the knowl- edge of sin." If there had been no law there had been no sin. It is by the law that we know what sin is. If, therefore, no human being can be justi- fied by obedience to the law, how then can he be justified by sufiering the penalties of the law? (2.) We have God's method of saving sinners. It is not obedience to the law. It is not sufierino^ the penalties of the law. "What then? Is it the righteousness of God w^ithout the law ; that is, " without any right or claim which might result from obedience to the law." Ko man has any 108 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION right to claim justification as a reward of merit, which might result either from obedience to the law, or suffering its penalty. This righteousness of God is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all, and upon all that believe. (3.) All have sinned. All have gone out of the way. All are under the sentence of the law. All are equally helpless and guilty. InTo man has in his own hands a ransom for his soul. (4.) How then, or upon what grounds, can any man he justified? Paul answers in this wise, " Justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." But what is the nature of this redemption through which we may be justified? Paul, in Ephesians i. 7, says, "We have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace." It is evident that these scriptures, taken together, mean " the redemption of the soul by the price of the death of Christ." (5.) By the words redemptio7i and propitiation the apostle evidently refers to the vicarious sufferings of Jesus Christ; the price paid down for the re- demjotion of the souls of men. (6.) The apostle reaches his conclusion, which is this, that the infinite mercy of God, — his righteousness, — made manifest through the gospel, is to this eftect, that God can now be "just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." In this it is manifest CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 109 " that God designed to give the most evident dis- plays, both oi his justice and ?nerc]/, — of his justice, in requiring a sacrifice^ and absolutely refusing to give salvation to a lost world in any other way, and of his mercy in providing the sacrifice which his justice required. Thus because Jesus was an atonement, a ransom price for the sin of the world, therefore God can consistently with his justice pardon every soul that believetli in Jesus."" But if no satisfaction had been rendered to the law, God could not be just in giving salvation to any soul. And as man, poor, sinful man, was not able to make satisfaction to the law for his sins, God sent his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh, that he, by the grace of God, should taste death for every man. Kow if the sufterings and death of Jesus Christ were not vicarious, if he did not stand in our stead, and thereby become our surety, for what did he suffer? If man must suffer the full penalty of the laAV, and if, as Universalists assert, he can not by any possibility escape this punishment, in what way is the race of men benefited by the death of Jesus ? Could he have suffered more than the full penalty of the law, if Christ had not come at allY According to the theory of Universalists, how are we to interpret such passages as these, '* God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten 110 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life." "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor ; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man." " Taste death for every man.^^ All had sinned, and consequently all need- ed a Savior. Jesus died for all. Can any amount of mere human suffering satisfy the claims of a perfectly righteous law, and remove the guilt of sin, since the sufferer is himself the guilty party? Can an imperfect offering satisfy the claims of a perfect law ? The doctrine of vica- rious atonement rests mainly on the grounds that Jesus Christ was without sin. He was "without spot, and blameless." .It was not the deity in Christ that died, but the manhood; the perfect man, in which dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. There was in this perfect manhood an intrinsic value, owing in part to the fact that it was without sin, but more especially because it was sanctified by the divine nature that dwelt within. The gift was sanctified by the altar* Add to this the fact that this perfect sacrifice was of- fered through the eternal Spirit, and you have the whole trinity immediately and directly connected with the sacrifical offering of Jesus Christ. In order to understand more fully and clearly CAREFULLY EXAMINED. Ill the doctrine of vicarious atonement, it will be necessary to discriminate between atonement and redemption. These terms are often used synony- mously, but they are widely different in significa- tion. They sustain to each other the relation of cause and effect. The object of atonement is God, while man is the object of redemption. In other words, atonement is a sacrifice oflered to God, while redemption is a benefit conferred upon man. They difler also in design. The design of atone- ment is to make God propitious toward man; to be gracious and merciful, ready to forgive sins and bestow blessings. God never could be gracious toward man and bestow blessings upon him until satisfaction was rendered to the law. The design of redemption, coming to us as the effect of atone- ment, is to make us happy and blessed forever. The end of atonement was to the eftect "that God might be just, and justify him which belie veth in Jesus.'' Atonement takes effect by changing the relations of God toward the guilty, while redemp- tion takes effect by changing the relation of the guilty toward God. Hence, if there had been no atonement there could be no redemp- tion. Christ has redeemed us. But how? By paying a certain price. What was that price? Peter shall answer. "■ Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold." IIow then? 112 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION " With the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot." The price then was '' the precious blood of Christ.'' To whom was this price paid? To God. "What for? To satisfy the claims of the law. If this price had not been paid, God never could have been gracious to a lost and ruined race. Universalists have a great deal to say about the ultimate holiness and salvation of all men. But on what grounds do they plead for this? They reject the doctrine of vicarious atonement, and hence must reject the doctrine of redemption; for if the doctrine of vicarious atonement be not true there can be no such thing as redemption, no more than there can be an effect without a cause. Without wishing to speak unkindly of any who may have fallen into that belief, it is nevertheless true that the "Theology of Universalism " is a Christless theology. How do they expect to join with the blood-washed host that will stand near the throne and sing, " Unto him that loved us, and ivashed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Fa- ther; to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen." In the course of this argument the following points have been considered : 1. Jesus Christ came into the world to save CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 113 sinners from their sins, and consequently to save them from the punishment due to sin. By the grace of God he tasted death for every man. 2. Jesus Christ being made under the law, and being made a curse for us, thereby stood in our stead and became our surety. And being God, manifest in the flesh, he was able to render satis- faction to the law, so that God can now be just, and justify them which believe in Jesus. 3. That if the sufferings and death of Jesus Christ were not vicarious, if he did not render sat- isfaction to God, so that the penitent believer may be deUvered from the guilt of sin, and also the punishment due to sin, then the human family has in no conceivable way been benefited by the death of Christ. If Christ had not come at all, the sin- ner could not in justice have suffered more than the penalty of the law. 4. There is no merit in human suffering, since the sufferer is himself the guilty party. The law is perfect, hence nothing but a perfect sacrifice could satisfy its claims. 5. That the terms employed by the sacred writers to denote the work of Christ can admit of no reasonable interpretation, if the doctrine of vicarious atonement be not true, — such, for ex- ample, as these : " The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." "He came to save his 8 114 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION people from their sins." " He gave liimself a ran- som for all." " Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." "He hath made him to he sin for us." ^^Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree." "He tasted death for every man." "He died for our sins according to the Scriptures." " Redeemed with the precious blood of Christ." "By whose stripes we are healed." "He was cut off, but not for himself." To those who reject the doctrine of vicarious atonement, these scriptures must be unintelligible. 6. That atonement and redemption differ in object, design, and nature, — the one standing as the cause and the other as the effect. If the doe- trine of vicarious atonement be not true, there can be no such thing as redemption, no more than tJiere can be an effect without a cause ; therefore Universalism, by rejecting the doctrine of vicarious atonement, promises eternal salvation to the whole race of man without atonement or redemption. 7. That a rejection of the doctrine of vicarious atonement removes the only grounds upon which God can be just and justify them which believe in Jesus. In the work of atonement, by which satisfaction was rendered to the law, no injustice is done to any person or thing. No injury is done to Christ, CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 115 for he laid down his life. It was voluntary upon his part. " I have," said he, " power to lay it (my life) down, and I have power to take it." ^'He gave himself for us.'^ 'No injustice is done to God by the substitution of Christ. He was God's beloved Son, in whom he was well pleased. No injustice was done to the law. Indeed the law was magnified, and made honorable by the substitution of Christ, — " more honorable by his obedience to it, than by the obedience of the saints and angels in heaven," and vastly more honorable than it could have been made if the whole human race had been offered as a sacrifice. As it is, God is honored, the law magnified, and Jesus has become the author of eternal salvation. 116 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION CHAPTEK VIII. PARDON, REMISSION, JUSTIFICATION. In the two preceding chapters I showed, from Universalist authors themselves, that they deny the divmity or deity of Christ, and hence also reject the doctrine of vicarious atonement. In this ar- gument it is proposed to show that a denial and rejection of those fundamental doctrines necessa- rily involve a rejection of the doctrine of pardon or justification hy faith. If Christ were not divine, if he were not " God manifest in the flesh," he could not by a thousand deaths render satisfaction to the law ; and if satisfaction were not rendered to the law, it were impossible for God to he just and pardon the guilty. So it must be apparent to all that a rejection of one of these fundamental doctrines involves the rejection of all three. In the preceding chapter it was stated that Universal- ism promised eternal salvation to the whole race of man without either atonement or redemption; and now it is proper to state that it promises eternal life to all without atonement, redemption, or justification by faith. CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 117 It is no part of my purpose in the slightest degree to misrepresent the theology of Univer- salism. I shall state it fairly and fully, and then test it by the word of God. Rev. Paul Dean, of Boston, a noted Universal Restorationist, in an article prepared by himself, and published in the Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, says, "The diiference between Restorationists and Universal- ists relates principally to the subject of a future retribution. Universalists believe that a full and perfect retribution takes place in this world, while Restorationists maintain that a just retribution does not take place in time, but will be continued in the world to come." The author of the '' Ex- position of Universalism,'^ page 15, says, " Set it down as one of the peculiar doctrines of Univer- salism, that no man can, by any possibility, escape a just punishment for sin." Mr. A. C. Thomas in his controversy with Mr. Eby, page 25, says, "I believe that God will render to every man accord- ing to his deeds, — that is, according to his own deeds, — consequently I reject the doctrine of vicarious atonement." Mr. Thayer in his " Theology of Universalism," page 317, says, ''I^o repentance can save from the just penalty of the violated law." On page 316 he says, " The sin is punished and for- given-, the penalty of transgression is inflicted, and then the sinner is forgiven;" and on page 302 he 118 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION says, "The present is a state of retribution, and not of probation." This, then, is Universalism fairly stated, which I shall show, in the course of this argument, flatly and positively contradicts the word of God. If men suffer all that is justly due them on account of their sins, if they are fully punished for all their sins, as all these authors claim, then there is nothing to be forgiven. If you owe a man one hundred pounds and pay him the last farthing, it would be an insult to common sense for him then to say, I forgive you that bebt. If a man commits murder and is hanged by the neck till he is dead, the governor would not have much to pardon ; so if a sinner suffers the extreme penalty of the law there is nothing to forgive. But this is Univer- salism. You will remember that the author of the " Exposition of Universalism" says, " Set it down as one of the peculiar doctrines of Univer- salism, that no man can, by any possibility, escape a just punishment for sin." And Mr. Thayer says, " No repentance can save from the just pen- alty of the violated law." A man may repent and believe with all his heart, but he can not, by any possibility, "escape a just punishment for sin." Jesus " died for our sins, according to the Script- ures." "He tasted death for every man." "The iniquity of us all was laid upon him." " He bare CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 119 our sins in his own body on the tree." " He gave himself a ransom for all." But no matter for all this, the ^^ peculiar doctrine^' of Universalism is "that no man can escape a just punishment for sin." No rej^entaiice, hoivever sincere, can save from the just fenalty of the violated law. How utterly unreasonable is the theology of Universalism. Let us calmly consider it in the light of reason and revelation. The law of God is perfect, and demands perfect obedience from first to last. How can an imperfect and sinful creature render perfect satisfaction to a perfect law? If it were possible for man by suffering to meet and satisfy the claims of the law, there was no neces- sity for Christ's coming into the world to suffer and die. But suppose it were possible for a sinner at the age of thirty or forty years to commence to render perfect obedience to the law. That is just what the law demands. But how can he render this perfect obedience to the law, which would necessarily require all his time and power, and at the same time render satisfaction to the law for past offenses ? What does the law demand ? Jesus said, " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind ; and thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." To render perfect obedience to the law, such as is 120 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION required in these passages, will require the whole time, and all the powers of the heart, mind, and soul. Can a sinner do this? He cannot. Why? Paul says "the carnal mind is enmity against God; it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can he." It is therefore impossible for a sinner to render perfect obedience to the law of God. But even if this were possible, it is not pos- sible for him to do more than meet the present claims- of the law, — he can not do more than to love God with all the heart, mind, and soul. How then is it possible for him to meet the present claims of the law, and at the same time render satisfaction to the law for past offenses? It will be pertinent to the argument in this connection to state that a sinner can not receive the punishment due to sin until a space of time shall have elapsed after he has ceased to sin; and he can not cease to sin as long as he is under condemnation; for the carnal mind is not and can not be subject to the law of God. If the sinner is punished to-day for the sins of yesterday, he must be punished to-morrow for the sins of to- day; for while he is suffering for past sins he can not render perfect obedience to the law. 'No man can do more than meet the claims of the law each moment, which will require the combined action of his heart, mind, and soul. If a man when he comes to the line of accountability would CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 121 commence at that moment to love God with all his power, and never in thought, word, or deed com- mit an oftense, that is just what the law requires — nothing more and nothing less. But here is a man who has violated the law a thousand times. Suppose he should commence to -love God with all hib power ; how is he to render satisfaction to the law for past offenses ? The present claim of the law is perfect obedience. How then can any man meet this claim while he is rendering satisfaction to the law for past offenses? It is utterly impos- sible. There is but one hope for a lost and ruined world, and that hope is in God through the vica- rious sufferings of Jesus Christ. God can now be just, and justify all that believe in Jesus. Before entering directly upon the scripture ar^ gument, I will give the meaning of the word translated i^avdon and remission. The word is aphesis. Donnegan defines it, "remission of a debt, penalty, or punishment." Schrivellius de- fines it, " remission of something due, as of a fault or punishment." Bretschneider defines it, " re- mission of that which another owes me, as of debt or tribute." Graves, Greenfield, and Robin- son give the word substantially the same defini- tion. Webster and Johnson define the word forgive, "to pardon, not to punish." All these lexicons, which are reckoned among the best in the 122 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION world, agree that the word aphesis, translated for- giveness, jjardon, remission, means remission of a penalty due to sin. I^ow the first question that naturally suggests itself is this, What could have induced the sacred writers to employ words and terms that meant one thing when they intended to teach something very different? If the word used by them, and translated forgiveness, pardon, remission, was not intended to convey the natural and proper meaning of these words, why did they not employ such words as would express their meaning? But Universalist authors insist that no man can escape a just punishment for his sins. The sin is first punished, and then forgiven. No repentance can save from the punishment due to .sin. And yet the word used by the sacred writers means precisely what they (Universalists) say it does not mean. But Universalist authors are com- pelled to take this strange and unreasonable position ; for having denied the deity of Christ, and hence also the doctrine of vicarious atone- ment, they must of necessity deny the doctrine of pardon as held and taught by evangelical churches. But we will enter upon an examination of a few of the many passages that teach the doctrine of pardon, or the forgiveness of sins. " Therefore being justified by faith [not suffering], we have CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 123 peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." (Romans v. 1.) "Being justified freely by his grace [not by suffering] through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." (Rom. iii. 24.) " Who was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification." (Rom. iv. 25.) Justi- fication, in an evangelical sense, is an act of God's free grace whereby he pardoneth all our sins. It is a work done for us, whereby we are accepted as righteous through the merits of Christ. If any man could be found that never sinned, he might be justified by the law in a legal sense. But as all have sinned and gone out of the way, and are under the condemnation of the law, they must be restored, if restored at all, through the righteous- ness of another. Hence, to meet this case, Paul declares that Christ " was delivered for our offenses, and raised again for our justification." ""We are justified freely by his grace, through the redemp- tion that is in Christ Jesus." So, then, " God can now be just, and the justifier of them which be- lieve in Jesus." If to be justified does not mean to be delivered from the punishment due to sin, what then does the apostle mean by the use of that word, and especially in the connection in which he uses it? But we will take another class of texts, which speak of pardon and remission. Let it be observed 124 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION that we are dealing strictly with scripture terms, such as were employed by the writers of the Old and 'New Testaments — men who spake as they ivere moved by the Holy Ghost. "Let the wicked for- sake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts : and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him ; and to our God, for he ivill abundantly pardon.^^ (Isaiah Iv. 7.) Mercy and pardon are promised to all that will return unto the Lord. Instead of being threatened with punishment for their wickedness, they are promised abundant pardon. The condition upon which this abundant pardon rests is, that the wicked should forsake his ivay, and return unto the Lord. "And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all na- tions, beginning at Jerusalem." (Luke xxiv. 47.) But Mr. Thayer says that " no repentance can se- cure us against the punishment due to sin." Why then were the apostles commanded to preach it? Why connect, in one sentence, repentance and re- mission of sins? Of what were the people to repent? And in what way would they be bene- fited by their repentance ? If no man can escape a just punishment for all his sins, what remains to be remitted after the sinner shall have suffered the full penalty of the law ? Yet Jesus said to his disciples, Go and preach the doctrine of repent- CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 125 ance and the remission of sins ; preach it in my name ; preach it among all nations. But if Uni- versaliam be true there is nothing in it. Every man must be punished to the full extent of the law, whether he repents or not; then after he shall have suffered to the full extent of the law for every sin he has committed, he shall be pardoned. Pardoned of what? I will now invite special attention to a very im- portant text. " To him give all the prophets wit- ness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." (Acts x. 43.) It may be proper to state in this connection that repentance and faith mutually imply each other. There can be no such thing as evangelical repent- ance without faith ; for "he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." And there can be no such thing as saving or justifying faith without repentance. "Repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ," is the gospel plan for securing the remission of sins. In the text above quoted Peter declares that " whosoever believeth in him [Christ] shall receive remission of sins." "The phrase" (remission of sins), says Dr. Clarke, " means simply the taking away of sins ; and this does not refer to the guilt of sin merely, but also to its poweVy nature, and 126 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION consequences." If the ^^ remission of sins" does not imply the taking away of the guilt and conse- quences of sin, what does it imply? All the lexi- cons, Greek and English, so define the word ajph- esis, which is the word here used by Peter, and translated " remission^' In Ephesians i. 7, Paul when speaking of Christ says, " In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace," Add to this a parallel pas- sage in Colossians i. 14, ''In whom we have re- demption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins." In these passages it is declared that we have redemption through the blood of Christ; that is, the blood of Christ was the redemption price paid down, which satisfied the claims of the law. Without the shedding of blood there would have been no redemption nor remission of sins. If Universalism be true we have no redemption, and consequently no forgiveness of sins. A re- jection of the doctrine of vicarious atonement necessarily involves a rejection of the doctrine of redemption, and the rejection of these two funda- mental doctrines precludes the possibility of any man receiving pardon or the remission of sins. But this is Universalism, as held and taught by its authors. No ato7iement, no redemption, and no remission of sins. And yet they affirm that the CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 127 Scriptures teach the ultimate holiness and salva- tion of all men. Next we will examine Psalms ciii. 10-12, "He hath not dealt with us after our sins ; nor rewarded us according to our iniquities. For as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is his mercy toward tlieni that fear him. As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our trans- gressions from us." Two things are distinctly taught in these verses. (1.) That God did not apportion their punishment to their sins. He did not reward them according to their iniquities. But Universalists afiirm that God does apportion their punishment to their sins. '' Set it down," says the author of the "Exposition of Universal- . ism," " as one of the -peculiar doctrines of Univers- alism, that no man can^ by any possibility, escape a just punishment for his sinsJ' But the psalmist says they did escape this punishment; that God did not reward them according to their iniquities. Here Universalism flatly contradicts the word of God. (2.) The psalmist assigns the reason why they were not rewarded according to their iniqui- ties. " As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us." But how were their transgressions removed ? By punishment? Certainly not, for that would have been rewarding them according to their iniquities, 128 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION which the psalmist declares the Lord did not do. How then were their transgressions re- moved? There was no way hut by a free and full pardon. We will compare Universalism with a few more passages, to show how directly it contradicts the word of God. Mr. Thayer says, page 315, " We a7^e punished for sins already committed^ In Romans iii. 25, Paul says, "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God." Mr. Thayer says we are punished for sins already committed, and Paul says that through faith in the blood of Jesus we receive the remission of sins that are past. Whom shall we believe, Paul or Mr. Thayer ? They can not both be right To strengthen the language of Paul, — if indeed it needs any strengthening, — 1 will add the testi- mony of other witnesses. "He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (I. John, i. 9.) "Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is cov- ered." (Psalms xxxii. 1.) "But thou art a God ready to pardon, gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness." (Kehemiah ix. 17.) " And be ye kind one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another^ even as God for Christ's sake CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 129 hath forgiven you." (Ephesians iv. 32.) How- does God for Christ's sake forgive us ? Mr. Thayer says, page 316, *' The sin is punished and forgiven. The penalty of transgression is inflicted, and then the sinner is forgiven." And we are to forgive, one another, as God for Christ's sake forgives us; that is, if any person offends us or does us harm, we must first punish him all the law will allow, after w^hich we can forgive. This is Universalism. This is their theology. If men are punished for their sins before thej are or can he forgiven, then no man can come to Christ until after he has been fully punished for all his past sins. But some men continue to sin to the very end of life — die in a drunken stupor ; die blaspheming the name of God ; die infidels. When will they come to Christ? Do the Scriptures teach that any man will repent and come to Christ after death? I now afiirm that there is not a single passage of scripture in God's word which teaches that any man will come to Christ after death ; and I further affirm that there is not a single passage in the Bible that teaches that any man will be pardoned after this life. What then will become of those who live and die in sin? Mr. Thayer, on page 205, admits " that thousands die in ignorance, unbelief, and sin," and yet affirms that all will ultimately be holy and happy. But he has not a 130 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION single passage to sustain him in the belief that any will come to Christ after death. In this argument the following points have been considered : 1. That Universalists — according to their own authors — deny the doctrine of vicarious atonement; hence, also, the do.ctrine of redemption and the pardon and forgiveness of sins that are past. A denial or rejection of any one of these doctrines involves the rejection of all; hence Universalism rejects atonement, redemption, and the forgiveness of sins. 2. It has been shown that it is utterly impossi- ble for a sinner to reach the end of punishment for sin ; that no one, by any possibility, can meet the present claims of the law, and at the same time render satisfaction for past offenses. The present claims of the law are such as to require the com- bined exercise of the whole heart, mind, and soul. The past claims of the law were exactly the same, so that no man can meet the past and present claims of the law at the same time. 3. It has been shown, from numerous passages of scripture, that justification by faith — the pardon and remission of sins through the merits of Christ — is the uniform doctrine of the Bible. 4. It has been proved by the very best lexicons — Greek and English — that the word translated CAEEFULLY EXAMINED. 131 pal-don, remission, and forgiveness j means the re- mission or pardon of the penalty due to sin ; and hence, that the notion that a man mn^t suffer the full penalty of the law before he can be pardoned^ is not only not true, but can not possibly be true* 5. That without the shedding of blood there could be no redemption ; and if there were no re- demption there could be no forgiveness of sins, either past oi* present. 6. That a sinner can not, by suffering, meet and satisfy the claims of a perfect law, seeing that he is under its condemnation. I*To thing but a per- fect sacrifice could, by any possibility, meet the claims of a perfect law. 7. That simiers can be delivered from the guilt and punishment due to sin by paMon, and by par^ don only. 8. That God does not apportion punishment according to the number and magnitude of sins committed, but if the wicked will forsake his way and turn to the Lord he will have mercy upon him and abundantly pardon. 9. It has been shown that sinners can not re- ceive the punishment due for past sins until a space of time shall have elapsed after they shall have ceased to commit sin ; and they can not cease to commit sin as long as they are under the con- demnation of the' law; and they can not be deliv- 132 UNIVflRSAL HESTOIUTION ered from this condemnation only as they are re* ceived into Christ Jesus (Romans viii. 1) ; and they can not enter into Christ Jesus until they are new creatures (I. Corinthians, v. 17) ; and they can not be made new creatures until the claims of the law are fully met. Kow as iTniversalists reject the doctrine of vicarious atonement, which is the only conceivable way by which the claims of the taw could be satisfied, and as by the rejection of this doctrine they set aside the doctrine of redemp- tion and the forgiveness of sins; therefore, ac- cording to iJniversalism, no man ever will or can be saved* 10. It has been shown that the Scriptures no- vvhere Warrant us in the belief that any man will or can conie to Christ after death; and as Mr. Thayer admits that "thousands die in ignorance, Unbelief, and sin;-" therefore all who die in sin will never be saved. I will close this chapter in the language of one who for a number of years was a Universalist preacher. " Universalism talks of the death of Christ, but denies the atonement. It declares that Jesus tasted death for all; yet it affirms most boldly that Christ does nothing for men that they can not do for themselves. ^ ^ * It teaches that life is not a probation ; that no act of man can aflect in the least his future condition ; that all will CAREFULLY EXAMINED. , 133 be upon an equality in the next world, all start from the grave upon the same level, however they may have lived or died; that secret prayer is not a duty enjoined by its creed; that the Sabbath is an institution of expediency, and not of divine ap- pointment, and that all are hastening to the grave, and to a world beyond, in which no diiference will be made between the evil and the good, ' between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not.' The doctrine peculiar to Universalism is this : a gospel not essential to salvation ; a death for sinners with no redemption — no atonement in it; a denial of depravity, regeneration, and a life of holiness." All this I have shown, in the pre- ceding chapters, to be the peculiar doctrine of Universalism. 134 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION CHAPTER IX. LIFE A PROBATION — MAN A MORAL AGENT — THE FUTURE STATE CONDITIONAL. In this chapter it is proposed to show that this is a life of probation, that man is a moral agent, and that the future state of happiness is suspended upon conditions to be complied with in this life. All of this Universalists deny. Mr. Thayer, in his "Theology of TJniversalism," page 302, says, " The present is a state of retribution and not of probation." On page 304 he says, " This is not a state of probation but of retribution, and the pen- alty due to sin is inflicted here." On page 275 he says, " The thing done is its own reward, there is no other, and properly and logically there can be no other J^ Mr. George Rogers, author of the "Pro and Con of Universalism," page 300, says, "Believe me, reader, it is not possible to avoid the conclu- sion that all things take place agreeably to the unalterable decree of Jehovali." On page 290 he says, "You must see, reader, that the notion of a free will is a chimera.'''' Prom these extracts, and others of like character CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 135 which might be given, it is perfectly clear that TJniversalists deny the moral agency of man. They deny that this life is a state of probation, and hence, also, that the future life in any way depends upon his acts in this life. Mr. Thayer, page 274, says, "The thing done, the thought we cherish, what we are in ourselves ; that is, our reward or our punishment, our heaven or our hell." Every man then is fully rewarded or punished for all he does This must be true if this is a state of retribution ; and Universalists affirm that it is. How they can make this harmonize with that other notion, " that thousands die in ignorance, unbelief, and sin," I know not. It would seem that if this were a state of retribution, if every man found his heaven or hell in what he does here, all would die saints. But they say not. I will leave them to harmonize their own theology. They affirm th^^t in some way or other all men will be made holy and happy. The infidel, who takes pleasure in his lies, the drunkard, the thief, the murderer, and the miser will be just as well off in the end as the most pious. Paul gives a list of saints, some of whom were tortured, others had trials of cruel mocking, some were stoned, and others were sawn asunder. All this they endured by faith, in hope of a better resurrection; but in the end they will be no better ofl" than those who tortured and put 136 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION them to death, for, according to Universalism, every man finds his heaven or hell in what he does here. This is a state of retribution and not of prohation. I shall now proceed with the argument, which is to prove, from the word of God, that the future and eternal salvation of the soul is suspended upon conditions to be complied with in this life. In proving this doctrine it will also be established that this life is probational, and that man is a moral agent. In the first place, I wish to call special attention to the scriptural rule by which we are to be governed in interpreting all the promises and threatenings in the Bible. ♦"At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck it up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; if that nation, against whom I ^have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concern- ing a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it ; if it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them." (Jere- miah xviii. 7-10.) "But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 137 his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not he mentioned unto him : in his righteous- ness that he hath done he shall live. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God : and not that he should return from his ways, and live ? But when the righteous turn- eth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abomina- tions that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned : in his trespass that he hath tres- passed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. Yet ye say. The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal? When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive." (Ezekiel xviii. 21-27.) In these passages we have what may with pro- priety be denominated the decrees of God, by which his whole conduct toward the children of men is regulated. They teach as plainly as lan- guage can express anything, that the promises and threatenings of the Almighty are all con- 138 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION ditional, and when these conditions are not ex- pressed they are implied. The Lord told Jonah that he should go to I^ineveh, that great city, and say, Forty days and Nineveh shall be destroyed. Jonah went and preached as the Lord commanded him. !N"o conditions were expressed, yet that city was not destroyed. Why? Because they re- pented at the preaching of the man of God. This was the implied condition. The Lord told David (I. Samuel, xxiii. 10-13) that Saul would come to Keilah, and that he (David) should be delivered into his hands. No conditions were expressed. But David was not delivered into Saul's hands. Why? He arose and departed from Keilah. This was the implied condition. By this general rule, laid down by the Lord himself in the foregoing scriptures, we are to be goverened in interpreting the word of God. "When the wicked man turn- eth away from his wickedness that he hath com- mitted, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive." Does not this teach that man is a moral agent? Does it not also teach that the salvation of the soul is conditional? Read Acts xxvi. 20. Paul " shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judea, and then to the gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance." The doctrine of repentance CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 139 and turniiio: to God is the uniform doctrine of the Old and ^ew Testaments. But Mr. Thayer says, page 317, that "no repentance can save from the just penalty of the violated law." Mr. Guild, author of " The Universalist's Book of Reference," page 90, says, "Mankind are rewarded and pun- ished in this life." Again, "If, therefore, the justice of God is an active principle, mankind are as much rewarded and punished here as they ever will be^ On page 315 Mr. Guild says, when cofn- menting on II. Corinthians, i. 18-20, "l!To lan- guage can more clearly express the fact that in relation to these promises, as well as all other prom- ises of God, there are no huts, nor ifs, nor ands, nor conditions about it." On page 313 he affirms the same thing. Eight in the face of God's word, these authors teach that salvation is not con- ditional, that repentance will avail nothing, and that "mankind are rewarded and punished in this life all they ever will be. To show still further that the future eternal sal- vation of the soul is conditional, I will examine a few more passages. "And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto liim, if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." (Matthew xix. 16, 17.) "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; 140 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION but he that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark xvi. 16.) "Ye will not come unto me, that ye might have life." (John v. 40.) ''This is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life." (John vi. 40.) 'No language can be more explicit than that employed in these passages. They show most positively that man is a moral agent; that he can accept or reject salva- tion. "Whatever therefore is conditional may be lost ; that which is not conditional can not be lost. But Mr. Guild says ''there are no buts, nor ifs, nor ands, nor conditions about it." In this he flatly contradicts the words of Jesus. " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned/' Christ puts faith and obedience in the present tense, and the salvation and damnation in the future tense. But Mr. Guild says, page 90, that "mankind are as much rewarded and punished here as they ever will be ; " so that whether a man believes in Jesus Christ or not it will all be the same in the world to come. But is it possible that any man who professes to believe the Bible at all could hold such sentiments? We will see. On page 318 Mr. Guild, when commenting on Ephesians i. 9, 10, concludes by saying that " reference is had in the text not simply to those who were or would become CAREi^ULLY EXAMINED. 141 believers in this world, but to all mankind, whether believers or unbelievers^^' This is a plain and posi- tive declaration, that whether men believe in Christ or not, it will all be the same in the end. But Jesus said, "He that believeth not shall be damned." I will now take up another class of scriptures, which teach not only that salvation is conditional, but that there is danger of coming short of it. " Enter ye in at the strait gate : for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to de- struction, and many there be which go in thereat : because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that Hud it." (Matthew vii. 13, 14.) "We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain." (II. Corinthians vi. 1.) "But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest after I ha.ve preached to others, I myself should be a castaway." (I. Corinthians ix. 27.) These pas- sages confirm what I said before. Salvation is conditional, and therefore there is danger of losing it. If, as Mr. Guild says, "there are no but^?, nor ifs, nor ands, nor conditions about it," why did Christ urge the people to "enter in at the strait gate?" Why did Paul beseech his brethren not to receive the grace of God in vain; and why labor 142 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION to keep his body under ? This was all a work of supererogation. Whether they entered in at the strait gate or not, whether they took the broad or narrow way, whether they received the grace of God in vain or not, whether Paul kept his body under or not, it would all amount to the same thing in the end. There are " no conditions about it." This is Universalism. Having demonstrated the fact that salvation is conditional, and that there is danger of losing it, we will proceed to notice that sinners can and often do resist the means which God has employed to bring them to repentance and salvation. " Who hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed ? " (Isaiah liii. 1.) '' Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life." (John V. 4.) ''How often would I have gathered thy children together, but ye would not." (Matthew xxiii. 37.) " Then Paul and Barnabas said, it was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you, but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourself unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the gentiles." (Acts xiii. 46.) "Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do ye resist the truth." (II. Timothy iii. 8.) " Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God." (Ephesians iv. 30.) "Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost." (Acts vii. 51.) These scriptures teach in unmis- CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 143 takable language that men can and do resist the force of truth, and also the strivings of the Holy Spirit. ]N"ow if men do resist the power of truth, does it not prove that they are moral agents? Does it not imply the power of choice ; and does it not prove that salvation is conditional ? What- ever therefore is conditional may be lost. But if Universalism be true, there will be no difference in the end. Those who resist the truth and grieve the Holy Spirit of God, will receive just as bright a crown as those who believing obey the truth. Jannes and Jambres, who withstood Moses, and those of whom Stephen spoke, who did always re- sist the Holy Ghost, will be as happy in the end as the purest of God's saints. It will be proper in this connection to call special attention to a class of scriptures which teach that there will come a time when it will be too late to seek and obtain salvation. Bear in mind that in this chapter thus far it has been shown (1) that man is a moral agent. (2.) That salvation, pres- ent or future, is conditional. (3.) That there is danger of coming short of this salvation. (4.) That men can and do resist the means which God has employed to save them. But do the Script- ures teach that there ever will come a time when it will be too late to seek and obtain salvation? We will examine and see. " And the Lord said, 144 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION My Spirit shall not always strive with man." (Genesis vi. 3.) *' For this shall every one that is godly pray unto thee 171 a time when \ho\x mayest be found." (Psalms xxxii. 6.) "Seek ye the Lord while he may he found, call ye upon him while he is near." (Isaiah Iv. 6.) "Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded : * * * J also will laugh at your calamity ; I will mock when your fear cometh. * * ^ Then shall they call upon me, but I icill not answer; they shall seek me early, hut shall not find me." (Proverbs i. 24-26.) "For the grave can not praise thee, death can not cele- brate thee : they that go down into the pit can not hope for thy truth." (Isaiah xxxviii. 18.) "When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying. Lord, Lord, open unto us ; and he shall answer and say unto you, J know you not whence ye are." (Luke xiii. 25.) " Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me : and where I am, thither ye can not come." (John vii. 34.) 1^0 w if there is no possibility of being finally lost, and if it will never be too late to be saved, what could have induced the sacred writers to employ such language? " Seek the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near." Does not this clearly imply that there will be a time CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 145 w^hen he can not be found? " They shall call upon me, hut I will not answer." " They shall seek me early, but shall not iind me." Why ? Because they resisted the truth and grieved the Holy Spirit, and would not come to Christ until it was too late. ISTow do the Scriptures teach that those who resist the truth, set at naught the counsel of God and grieve the Holy Spirit until the day of their death, as thousands have done, that they, while in the grave or beyond it, will seek and obtain salvation ? I affirm that there is not a single text in the Bible that teaches any such thing. Your attention will now be invited to a class of scriptures which teach in the clearest possible lan- guage that the future destiny of man, whether of happiness or misery, depends upon his course of conduct in this life. Before entering directly upon the scripture testimony, I think it would be proper to give a clear and distinct statement of the views of Universalist authors. Mr. Guild, author of ^^The Universalist's Book of Reference," page 288, says, *'It is nowhere said in the Bible that Jesus Christ came to this world to save men in another." On pages 313 and 315 he affirms the future eternal salvation of all men unconditionally. On page 90 he says, " Mankind are rewarded and punished in this life." On ]3age 184 he says, " Men can not perform deeds in time and receive 10 146 UNIVERSAL RESTOKATION reward for tliem in eternity." Tliey must reap in the field where they sow. On page 185 he says, " God has in no place nor at any time informed his creatures that he would judge and reward them after they were dead, or in another world." On page 185 he says, "Both the righteous and the wicked are judged and awarded in the earth." If then, as Universalists teach, men are judged and awarded in this life, if they must reap in the same field where they sow, and if the future and eternal salvation of all men is unconditionally fixed, then it does not matter what they do in this life. It will all be the same in the end. There will be no difference between a good man and a bad man. Yesterday a man in cool blood murder- ed two of his children, and in less than an hour took his own life ; but no matter for that, he will be just as well off in the end as the most pious Christian. A man may steal, and rob, and defraud, and commit murder, and then cut his throat and go to heaven just the same as if he had been a Christian all his life. He may, with Paul, believe in Christ, or with Voltaire, reject him; he may, with John, believe the scriptures, or with Paine, curse them ; he may be an atheist, a deist, or a Christian, whichever he likes best, the end will be exactly the same. This is Universalism, and they CAREFULLY EXAMINED.. 147 dare not deny it. Mr. Guild says, "There are no buts, nor ifs, nor ands, nor conditions about it;" all men will ultimately be saved, whether they are believers in this world or not. But how are those to be saved in the future world that are unbelievers in this world? Mr. Thayer, page 205, admits that " thousands die in ignorance, unbelief, and sin." Mr. Guild, page 288, says that '' it is nowhere said in the Bible that Jesus Christ came to this world to save mankind in another." How then will those be saved in another world that are not saved in this ? They admit that all men are not saved in this life. Then they affirm that Christ did not come into this world to save man in the other. How then, I ask again, will those be saved in another world that are not saved in this ? We are forced to this conclusion, that the salvation of IJniversalism is a Christless salvation. We will now turn to the Scriptures, and see whether the future happiness and misery of men do not depend upon their conduct in this life. In this, as well as all other questions relating to the future destiny of man, the word of God must be the standard of proof and appeal. "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.''' (John iii. 16.) In this pas- sage faith in Jesus Christ is made the condition of 148 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION salvation. Those who do not believe shall perish. But what does the word perish mean ? It can not mean natural or physical death, for then it would prove that all who believe in Christ are not to die physically. But they do die, and hence the word perish can not mean natural death. The word perish is put in opposition to everlasting life. By connecting with this one or two other passages, it will assist us in comprehending its meaning. In John viii. 21-24 Jesus says to the Jews, "I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your bins : whither I go, ye can not come. * * I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins : for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." " He that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." (John iii. 36.) The unbeliever is to perish; he shall die in his sins; he shall not see life, and the wrath of God is to abide upon him. If Uni- versalism be true, the unbeliever that perishes, and that dies in his sins, who shall not see life, and upon whom the wrath of God abides, is to be treated in all respects the same as though he had lived by faith, and died in the Lord. It is strange that men in the face of such plain declarations of God's word would dare to say that the eternal destiny of man is unconditional; that the un- believer who dies in his sins will be just as well CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 149 off in the end as those who believingly obey the gospel of Christ. But this they affirm in spite of God's declarations to the contrary. They say to the scoffer, to the libertine, to the drunkard, to the robber, to the thief, to the murderer, and to all wlio blaspheme the name of God, Go on in your way, eat, drink, and be merry, for in the end you shall be just as well off' as the most devout Christian that ever lived. "For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption ; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting." (Galatians vi. 8.) Here we have the sowing and the reaping, seed-time and harvest. Two distinct classes of persons, the one sows to the flesh and the other to the Spirit. Then we have two seasons, the sowing-time and the harvest. Men do not sow and reap at the same time. Paul puts the sowing in the present tense, and the reaping in the future tense — he shall reap. In the ninth verse the apostle says, " In due season we shall reap," showing most conclusively that the reaping was in tlie future, and that a man should reap what he sowed. "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." But Universalist authors say it does not matter what a man sows in this life, it will all be the same in the future world. A man may continue to sow to the flesh till the day and 150 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION hour of his death, and then as a last and final act take his own life, and fare just the same as the good man, who by faith in Jesus Christ went through this world sowing to the Spirit. But what does the word "corruption" mean? It can not mean natural death, for then it would prove that those who sow to the Spirit would not die. But they do die. The most devout of earth die. What then does the w^ord coruption mean ? It is to be reaped in the future — "■shall reap corrwp- tion.^' It should be observed, also, that it stands in opposition to the words " everlasting life." If those who through this life sow to the Spirit shall reap everlasting life, then those who sow to the flesh shall reap everlasting death. If it is a fact, — that all men will fare alike in the world to come, — if Paul believed this, why did he say to his breth- ren, in the ninth verse, "Let us not be weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap if we faint not?" He might have said. If ye become wear}^ in well-doing try something else, the end will be exactly the same. No matter what a man sows in this life, the future will be the same. But can it be that men in the face of such scriptures can believe that all men will be saved. Mr. Guild, when speaking of the final ingathering of all into Christ, page 318, says that " reference.is had in the text (Ephesians i. 9, 10) not simply to those w^ho CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 151 were or would become believers in this world, but to all mankind, whether believers or unbelievers/* Can any language be more plain ? " All mankind, whether believers or unbelievers,^^ whether they be- come believers in this world or not, will be gathered into Christ at last. A man may sow the seeds of unbelief all his life, and die blaspheming the name of Jesus, but he will be saved all the same as Paul, who lived and died in the faith of the gospel of Christ. This is Universalisyn. To show still further that the future destiny of man is directly affected by his course in this life, I will call attention to a passage in I. Peter i. 3-5. "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." Heie we have the fact of an inheritance in heaven and an eternal salvation. For whom is this inheritance reserved? Peter says, for those " who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation." But are all men kept by the power of God through faith f Can it be said that the infidel, the atheist, and the blasphemers are 152 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION kept by the power of God through faith ? Let it be particularly observed that this incorruptible iuheritance is reserved for those, and for those only who are kept by the power of God through faith. But Ilniversalists say it is reserved for all alike, whether believers or unbelievers. Herein they contradict the plain word of God. E'ow turn to Matthew vi. 19, 20. "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal." In this passage we have three points settled. (1.) The future state of man is regulated to a large extent by his course in this life. (2.) That he may or may not lay up treasures in heaven. (3.) That the heaven spoken of in this place must be the future abode of the saints, for it is put in opposition to the earth. As a reason why men should lay up a treasure in heaven, the Savior adds, " For where your treas- ure is there will your heart be also." " An earth- ly-minded man proves that his treasure is below ; a heavenly-minded man shows that his treasure is above." Do the Scriptures anywhere teach that those who refuse or neglect to lay up a treasure in heaven, while on earth, may or can do so after CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 153 they have gone away from this world ? . But Uni- versalists say it will all amount to the same thing in the end. The miser who grinds the face of the poor, robs the widow and orphan of the last earthly comfort, and then dies grasping his bags of gold, will be just as sure of a crown of life as he who, like his Master, " went about doing good." To say the least, it is certainly very strange that if Jesus came into this world to teach Univers- alism he should have employed language and used illustrations such as would most naturally prove the very opposite. To strengthen the hearts of his disciples under persecution and trial, he said, "Rejoice and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in heaven; for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you." But Univers- alist authors say it is not so. 'No man will be re- warded in the world to come for anything he may have done here. Those that persecuted the dis- ciples will be just as happy and have just as bright a crown as the disciples themselves. " Except a man be born again, he can not see the kingdom of God." .(John iii. 3.) It does not matter whether the kingdom of God here means the kingdom of grace on earth, or the kingdom of glory hereafter; for if a man may not see the kingdom of grace in this world he will hardly see the kingdom of glory in heaven. Thousands die 154 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION who have not been born again, — they die in unbe- lief and sin ; but according to Universalism, they shall all enter into the kingdom of glory ; for ev- ery man is fully rewarded or punished in this life; every man finds his heaven or hell in what he does; there is no reward nor punishment beyond this. Jesus did say (Mark x. 29, 30) that those who had left all for his sake and the gospel's should receive a hundred-fold now in this time, and in the world to come eternal life. The Spirit told John to say that those who w^ere faithful unto death should have a crown of life. Paul fought the good fight of faith, and looked for a crown of life. This looks very much like a future reward. But Universalista say it is all a mistake. The worst man that ever lived will have just as bright a crown as Paul. In this chapter the following points have been set forth and established: (1.) The promises and threatenings in the Bible are all conditional. Where these conditions are not expressed they are always implied. (2.) Man is a moral agent, hence this life is a probation. (3.) The present and eternal salvation of man is conditional. (4.) Men are in danger of coming short of this salva- tion. (5.) Sinners can and do resist the means W'hich God has employed to save them. (6.) There will come a time when it will be too late to CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 155 seek aud obtain salvation. (7.) Future rewards and punishments depend upon the compliance or non-compliance with the conditions set forth in the gospel of Christ. (8.) The future reaping will be according to the sowing in this world. "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." (9.) Only those who are kept by the power of God through faith, shall enter into and possess the eternal inheritance. (10.) Men while on earth may or may not lay up treasures in heaven. (11.) Only those who have been born again shall see the kingdom of God. Do the Scriptures warrant us in the belief that those who reject Christ and all the means of grace while on earth can and will accept them after death ? Is it anywhere said that they will come to Christ after death? If those who believingly obey the gospel of Christ while on earth shall have everlasting life, then, in the language of Peter, I ask, "What shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?" In closing this chapter, I wish to invite special attention to a few points. If this is a state of retri- bution, — if all men are fully rewarded and pun- ished in this life, as Universalists teach, — then what is a man's moral status .in* death? If he has any character at all it must be purely nega- tive. IS'o thing that he did in life attaches to him 156 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION in death, for he has been fully rewarded for what- ever good he did, and fully punished for all the evil he did. He is neither a saint nor a sinner. In point of character he is nothing. It is not possible to avoid this conclusion on the assump- tion that this is a state of retribution and not of probation. But Mr. Thayer, on page 205, affirms that thousands die in ignorance, unbelief, and sin. How can this be, if, as he teaches on page 275. and 304, men are fully punished and fully rewarded in this life? Now I affirm that if this is a state of retribution, where men are fully rewarded and punished, they die without any distinctive charac- ter at all. They are neither saints nor sinners. On page 231, when treating on the resurrection, Mr. Thayer says, "Through this resurrection change, this uplifting into the image of God, all must pass alike, differing only in degree; saint and sinner, believer and unbeliever, Christian and pagan." What! saints and sinners, believers and unbelievers in the resurrection? How can that be? "Where did they get those characters? In this life, or in death, or between death and the resurrection? Another curious fact is, that in the resurrection there will be no diiference between a saint and a sinner ; all are to pass through this change alike. A saint is no better than a sinner, and a believer is no better than an unbeliever. CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 157 Another curious point. Universalist authors very generally agree in saying that " Christ did not come to this world to save men in another." 4Iow then will those be saved in another world tliat are not saved here? Why, Mr. Thayer says, page 231, that Christ's "redeeming agency does not *«ease at death, but takes up the sonl at its en- trance upon the resurrection world, and enlight- ens, guides, and instructs it in divine things till it attains to that state of perfection, purity, and bless- edness, described by the term 'heaven.'" On pa;^e 229 he says, " Christ saves men after death by the same means and in the same way as before death." And yet " Christ did not come into this world to save men in another." At one time these authors teach that all men are fully rewarded and punished in this life, and at another that Christ did not come into this world to save men in another. Again : Christ saves after death the same as before death; and then again, that all men, saints and sinners, will be saved in the resurrec- tion. Universalism is a system of self-contradic- tions. 158 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION CHAPTER X. ALL PUNISHMENT CORRECTIVE. The proposition to be investigated in this chapter will include the nature, design, and end of punishment. The proposition is not whether punishment does sometimes lead to reforma- tion, but does it alw-ays lead to that end? It is not whether God does sometimes punish men to make them better, but is this the end of all his punishments ? It is not whether some men under chastisement come to Christ, but do all men come to him? It will be necessary, in the first place, to state cleai^y and distinctly the views of Univers- alist authors. Mr. Thayer, in his " Theology of Universalism," page 291, declares that "all punish- ment is corrective." On page 289 he says, '' Grod punishes them [sinners] not for their evil or injury, but for their good ; to restore them to obedience." Mr. Guild, author of " The Universalist's Book of Reference," page 90, says, " If, therefore, the justice of God is an active principle, mankind are as much, rewarded and punished here as they ever will be." On page 101 he says, " Can not God CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 159 reward and punish liis creatures all they merit in time, and in eternity bestoio upon them immortal- ity, as his gift through grace? Certainly." On page 104 he says, ^' God punishes to reform and make hetter. His punishments are disciplinary, emendatory, and salutary." On page 312 he says, "Punishment signifies correction; and correction signifies to reform and make better." In these extracts we have presented the nature, design, and end of punishment, as held and taught by Uni- versalists. It is corrective, disciplinary, salutary, and the end is the reformation of the sinner. Whenever, therefore, punishment ceases to be cor- rective and reformatory, it is cruel and unjust. It should be observed, also, that this punishment is confined exclusively to this world. Before pro- ceeding further I wish to invite special attention to another point. On page 378 Mr. Guild says, " "We are the only people who do not provide some way for the sinner to escape the just punishment of his sins. We teach that the punishment of siu is certain and sure, and absolutely unescapable and unavoidable." On pages 90 and 101 he says that the punishment of sin is confined to this world. Mark these points. Mr. Thayer, on page 205, says, "Thousands die in ignorance, unbelief, and sin." E'ow let us put these points together. Mr. Guild says there is no way for the sinner to 160 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION escape the just punishment of his sins. This pun- ishment is confined exclusively to this world. Mr. Thayer says thousands die in sin. Two questions: First : if this punishment is confined to this world, how is it that thousands die in sin? Second: if there is no way to escape the punishment of sin, when, where, and how will those be punished that die in sin? But let us test another point. TJniversalist authors say that punishment of sin is confined to this world, and that no man can by any possibility escape a just punishment for all his sins. They further state that ''all punishment is corrective,'* that it is for the purpose of restoring sinners to obedience; to reform and make better; it is disci2:>lin- ary, emendatory, and salutary. E^ow let us test this principle. The antediluvians became so wicked and corrupt that God determined to cut them off; so he sent a great flood and swept them all away. i^ow it would be interesting to know how they were corrected and restored to obedience. Sodom and Gomorrah, those wicked cities, were suddenly destroyed, and the inhabitants cut oft* and sent out of the world — corrected and reformed, I sup- pose. Ananias and his wife, for lying to the Holy Ghost, were suddenly struck dead — corrected and restored to obedience! Pharaoh and his host were arrested and overthrown in the sea for their abom- CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 161 inable wickedness — corrected and restored to obedi- ence! One can hardly imagine how it is possi- ble for men with the Bible before them to fall into such glaring absurdities. But this is Univer- salism. But Mr. Gruild has still another way of getting all men saved. On page 311 he says, ^' Sin in man has its origin in the animal nature, and his animal nature is destined to be destroyed. JSToth- ing but the spiritual nature of man can survive the tomb." So when the animal nature is destroyed, that will be the end of sin. Sin, then, does not affect the spiritual nature of man? But on page 334 he says, " Moral death is the result of sin, which every man commits." But if sin belongs to the animal nature, how can that produce moral death? Mr. Guild and Mr. Thayer both teach that the resurrection means more than a physical change. What more? These authors say that it means a spiritual change — a resurrection from moral death. But where is the necessity for such a change, since sin belongs to the flesh or animal nature, and that animal nature is to be destroyed? In one place they teach that all men are fully rewarded and punished in this life; in another, that thousands die in ignorance, unbelief, and sin ; in another, that Christ did not come into this world to save men in another; in another, that u 162 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION Christ saves men after death the same as before death ; in another, that all men will need a spirit- ual change in the resurrection ; in another, that sin belongs to the animal nature, and that animal nature is to be destroyed. There is no man living that can harmonize Universalism with itself, much less with the word of God. But our purpose in this chapter is to show the nature and design of punishment. First, it is to sustain the honor and dignity of the authority by which the government is established and adminis- tered. This is a fundamental principle in all good government, whether civil, ecclesiastical, or moral. Second, to protect the innocent from the danger to which they would be exposed if the offender were permitted to go unpunished. Third, to be an example to others. Fourth, the refor- mation of the offender. These four elements, neither one of which can be dispensed with, enter into and form a part of all good government. While God in the order of his wonder-working providence does sometimes punish the wicked as a means to bring them to repentance and obedi- ence, he often punishes as an end, to maintain the dignity and honor of his government and to pro- tect the innocent. It was so with the antedilu- vians, the Sodomites, and Pharaoh and his host. Do the Scriptures furnish us with any infoima- CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 163 tion on this question? We will search and see. ^' Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless, afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which w^ere exercised thereby." (Heb. xii. 11.) Mark the language. It is only such as are properly exercised by this chastisement that are benefited. But are all men thus exercised by chas- tisement ? Are all men corrected and reformed by punishment? "Though thou shouldest bray a fool in a mortar among wheat with a pestle, yet will not his foolishness depart from him." (Prov. xxvii. 22.) He was a fool when he was put into the mortar, and a fool when he came out — neither reformed nor restored to obedience. " Why should ye be stricken any more ? ye will revolt tnore and more : the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint." (Isaiah i. 5.) God had punished them again and again, but they would not reform. They had become worse and worse, — worse even than the ox, — a sinful and rebellious nation. " Thou hast stricken them, but tbey have not grieved ; thou hast consumed them, but they have refused to receive correction : they have made their faces harder than a rock; they have refused to return." (Jeremiah v. 3.) In this case the punishment was very severe; but they would not grieve, they would not return, and thej^ refused to 164 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION receive correction. Instead of reforming, they made their faces harder than a rock. IsTotwith- standing such plain declarations of God's word, Ilniversalist authors say that "all punishment is corrective." Was it corrective in this case? I^o. They refused to be corrected. Pharaoh and his peo- ple were punished again and again, hut only grew worse and worse, until God swept them away. They were neither corrected nor reformed. "And I also have given you cleanness of teeth in all your cities, and want of bread in all your places: yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the Lord." (Amos iv. 6.) Ko less than five times is it said in this chapter that they would not re- turn unto the Lord. He had given them cleanness of teeth; he withheld the rain; he smote them with blasting; he sent pestilence among them; yet he says, " Yet have ye not returned unto me." In the eleventh verse he says, "I have overthrown some of you, as God overthrew Sodom and Go- morrah: yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the Lord." This language is so plain that the wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err therein. They were punished in various ways, but still refused to return, — just as multiplied thousands are doing now. " And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 165 over these plagues : and they repented not to give him glory. * * -H And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God be- cause of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great.'^ (Rev. xvi. 9, 21.) Severe as these punishments were, and long as they continued, the people only grew worse and worse — no moral or religious change w^hatever. What supreme folly for men, in the face of such plain declarations of God's word, to say that " all pun- ishment is corrective," ' and tends to restore men to obedience. As a rule, punishment does not bring men to Christ ; it is the goodness of God that lead- eth men to repentance. Were the Egyptians re- formed and restored to obedience by punishment? If so, w^here, and how ? Were the Sodomites re- stored to obedience? Jude thought not, for he says they are left, suffering the vengeance of eternal ■fire. Deliver me from such a restoration to obedi- ence. Is this the w^ay of salvation ? Is this the way that Jesus came into this world to open up ? Yes; this is the way according to Universalism ; sinners are |>unished for their sins to the full extent of the law in order to reform them. But thousands have died in the very act of disobeying God. Mr. Thayer, on page 205, admits that " thousands die in unbelief and sin." When and how will they be 166 UNIVERSAL KESTORATION restored to obedience ? Do you say after death ? But this can not be. Why? Because Univers- alist authors say that this life is a state of retribu- tion, and not of probation ; that men are fully rewarded and punished in this life ; that no man can be punished or rewarded in the world to come for anything he did while here; they must reap in the same field where they sow; every man finds his heaven or hell in what he does. This is Uiii- versalism. If this be true, we are forced to the conclusion that when men become so desperate- ly wicked that they can not remain any longer on earth, God punishes them by cutting them ofi' and taking them to heaven. But this will not do, for these same authors say that all men will need a spiritual change in the resurrec- tion. On page 211 Mr. Thayer says, "The res- urrection is not simply being lifted out of tlie mortal into the immortal, out of the earthly into the heavenly, but out of the imperfect into the perfect, out of tlie weakness and frailty and sin- fulness of our present estate into the strength and holiness and spiritual completeness of the future state." On page 210 he says, "The resurrection is a moral and spiritual change — the aitastasis or raising up of the soul." On page 334 Mr. Guild says, "As in the earthly man (Adam) all die physically and morally, even so in Christ shall all CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 167 be made alive physically and morally." So, then, men are not to be saved from sin and its effects until the resurrection. But if men are fully pun- ished in this world for all their sins, out of what state of sin and moral death are they to be raised in the resurrection? And further, if all men are to be punished to the full extent of the law, and if they are found sinful and morally 'dead at the time ot the resurrection, then there is no w^ay of avoiding the conclusion that men must be pun- ished in the resurrection. But here is another difficulty. Mr. Thayer says that all are imperfect; all will need a spiritual change in the resurrection. Mr. Guild says they are morally dead. What, then, becomes of the soul between the death and resur- rection of the body? It can not be in heaven, for nothing unholy or unclean can ever enter there. It can not be in hell, for Universalists say there is no such place. Where, then, is it? It must be somewhere, and in some state of punishment. But that will not do, for all men are fully re- warded and punished in this world. I frankly confess that according to the teachings of Univers- alist authors I can tell nothing about the state or condition of the soul after death. Whether it is dead or alive, here or there, I can not tell. Paul thought he knew something about it when he ex- pressed a desire to depart and be with Christ, 168 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION which he allowed would be far better. But he must have been mistaken. To further illustrate the absurdities of Univers- alism, with regard to the nature and design of punishment, I will introduce a few more passages of scripture. Bear in mind that Universalist au- thors teach that " all punishment is corrective; " that all men are rewarded and punished in this world all they ever will be; that " pimishment sig- nifies correction, and correction signifies to reform and make better." In II. Timothy iii. 13, Paul says that ^' evil men and seducers wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived." In I. Timothy iv. 2, he speaks of those whose con- science were seared with a hot iron ; and in Ephesians iv. 19, he says that " some were past feeling, having given themselves over unto las- civiousness, to work all uncleanness with greedi- ness." Here we have three classes of characters. The first were waxing worse and worse ; the second had a conscience, but it was seared ; the third were past feeling. When and how will such persons be restored to obedience? Will they be punished for their sins? But they are past feeling, growing worse and worse. And thousands die in this con- dition; die as they lived; die cursing and blas- pheming the name of God. They have no feeling whatever about their future destiny. Some die by CAREFULLY EXAMINEIX 169 their own hands, others in .a drunken stupor. When will they be corrected and restored to obedience ? Kot after death, for men are fully rewarded and punished here. If men are pun- ished after death for anything they did here, then this is a state of probation. Mr. Guild says, page 90, ''If the justice of God is an active principle, mankind are as much rewarded and punished here as they ever will be." No punishment after this life. Here is a man who murders his wife, and the next moment kills himself; how is he to be punished for this double crime, committed in the very last moment of his life? The author of the "Exposition of Universalism," page 15, says, "Set it down, as one of the peculiar doctrines of Uni- versalism, that no man can, by any possibility, escape a just punishment for his sins." Mr. Guild, page 378, says, " We [Universalists] are the only people who do not provide some way for the sin- ner to escape the just punishment of his sins. We teach that the punishment of sin is certain and sure, and absolutely unescapable and unavoidable." When, where, and how is that man to receive a just punishment for all his sins, who willfully murders his fellow-being, and in the same moment kills himself? It should not be forgotten that this punishment of sin, which Universalists say is certain and sure, and which no man, by any pos- 170 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION eibility, can escape, is confined to this world. A man must reap in the same field where he sows. Then those who are '' past feehng," and those whose " conscience is seared with a hot iron," and the man who murders his wife and then kills him- self, all in the last moment of his life, receive a just punishment for all their sins in this life. It is absolutely impossible for such men to receive a just punishment for their sins in this life. "We will examine another class of scriptures. In II. Thessalonians ii. 12, Paul speaks of those who had pleasure in unrighteousness; James v. 5, speaks of some w^ho were lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God; and David, in Psalms Ixii. 4, tells of some who delighted in lies and rejoiced to do evil. When will such persons be corrected and restored by punishment? They are lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God; they delight in lies and rejoice to do evil; they take pleasure in unrighteousness. This is as true to-day as when the sacred Avriters penned these words. Men and women everywhere take pleasure in unrighteous- ness. They are lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God. They murder and lie and defraud and steal to the very day and hour of their death. They do not pray, nor visit the house of God, nor obey any of the commandments of God; and then die as they lived. The love, mercy, and goodness CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 171 of God, the intercessions of Jesus, the strivings of the Spirit, the prayers and expostulations of good men and women, and the chastening of the Lord, all failed to bring them to obedience. They cared for none of these things, but waxed worse and worse, and in the midst of their wickedness died cursing Grod. If all punishment is corrective, and confined to this world, when and how will such persons be restored to obedience? God calls man- kind in various ways and through various instru- mentalities to turn away from sin. For a hundred and twenty years God called and waited on the inhabitants of the Old World, but they would not forsake sin. Jesus wept over Jerusalem and said, " How often would I have gathered thee together, but ye would not." At last God swept them away in the midst of their sins. Universalists would say that they were corrected and restored. But how, and when? Punished and restored them by cutting them off and taking them to heaven? Paul did not imagine that this would be any great punishment ; he actually desired to depart and be with Christ, which he said was far better than to remain here. Mr. Guild, on pages 344 and 345, says, " The consequences of a man's actions can not extend be- yond the present world, to which all of his actions are confined'' Mr. Thayer, page 235, says, ^' It is 172 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION not tlie mere act of dying, or passing from one world to another, that we regard as affecting that change in the moral condition of the soul which sets it heavenward and turns all its impulses and aspirations toward holiness and God; but it is the mighty change in its circumstances, the new and powerful influences by which it will be en- girded and acted upon." The moral condition of the soul is to be changed after death. But how ? By the mighty change in its circumstances. But what need of such moral change, if the conse- quences of a man's actions do not extend beyond this world? But Mr. Thayer has still another theory. On pages 234-5, he says, '^ The Savior never abandons the soul, but follows it in this world, and into all worlds beyond, as a Guide, and Teacher, and Redeemer, till it is found and re- stored." What I a soul lost and unrestored be- yond this world? How does this harmonize with his theology on other points? On page 289 he declares that God punishes sinners to restore them to obedience. Then Christ must follow the soul into other worlds to punish it; for if the soul is ^05^ and unrestored it must be in a state of sin, and if in a state of sin it must be punished, for Universalists, as has been shown, hold and teach that no man can, by any possibility, escape the just punishment of his sins. But here observe CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 173 another curious fact. Mr. Thayer says that the Savior follows the soul into all worlds beyond till it is found and restored. Then, he says, its moral condition is changed by the mighty circum- stances with which it will be engirded. Again he says it is to be changed in the resurrection, for the '''resurrection is a moral and spiritual change — the rising up of the soul.'' I know of no theory held by intelligent men that involves as many self-con- tradictions as the theory of Ilniversalism. The authors not only contradict each other, but each contradicts himself. If the sacred writers believed that all punish- ment is corrective, and confined to this world, they were very unfortunate in the selection of words to express their views. "He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, sup- pose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the spirit of grace?" (Heb. x. 28-29.) Those that despised or rejected the law of Moses died without mercy; they were put to death, (^um. XV. 30.) But of how much sorer punishment shall they be considered worthy that reject Christ, that count the blood of the covenant an unholy 174 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION thing. " Counting this unholy, or common, inti- mates that they expected nothing from it in a sac- rificial or atoning way." By thus rejecting Christ, and setting the atonement aside, they do " despite unto the Spirit of grace." The punishment of such is to be sorer than death. Those that rejected the law of Moses died ; and there is no punishment in this world that is sorer than death. Hence a pun- ishment that is sorer than death must, in the nature of things, be after death. Thousands have rejected Christ, and counted his blood an unholy or common thing, and continued in this course till death. When and where are they to receive a punishment that is sorer than death ? It was a sin to reject or despise the law of Moses, but it is a far greater sin to reject or despise the blood of Christ; hence their punishment is to be propor- tionately greater. It will be pertinent to the argument to notice in this connection that if all punishment is corrective, and confined to this world, then no man is respon- sible for his influence. He may do what he pleases during his life ; it will all be the same after death. Mr. Paine while living caused many to reject Christ, and since his death his '^Age of Reason" has led many others to reject Christ. But no matter for this. Mr. Paine is just as well off as the most devout Christian that ever lived on CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 175 earth. Mr. Paine was fully punished while here for all the evil he did, and Paul was fully re- warded for all the good he did ; so they are both crowned. Paul counted all things loss for Christ, and fought the good fight of faith. Paine reject- ed Christ, and lived and died a blasphemer, but is saved all the same as Paul. There is one other important point to be consid- ered in connection with this subject, which is this: It is the uniform teaching of the Bible that the righteous sufi:er in this world as well as the wick- ed, and in some respects more. Jesus said to his disciples, and to us as well, that those that would follow him should have persecution and tribula- tion. They should be hated of all men, and even put to death. That innumerable throng that John saw, who had washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb, had '' gone out of great tribulation." David said that the afflictions of the righteous were many. Paul said that all who would live godly in Christ Jesus should suf- fer persecution. In Hebrews he furnishes a list of those who had sufiered for righteousness' sake. Some were tortured, others "had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: they were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and 176 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented." But why thus afflicted and tortured? Because they were the servants of the most high God. Wicked men and devils hated them. Go back to the days of the martyrs, when good men and good women were tortured in every way that the wick- ed imagination of exceedingly wicked men could devise, burned to ashes, sawn asunder, cast to wild beasts, their tongues cut out, all because they were Christians. Thousands of the best men and women the world ever knew were treated in this way, while those who caused these men and women to suffer were taking pleasure in unright- eousness, and rejoicing in lies. Many of them were past feeling; their consciences were seared with a hot iron. If Universalism is true, these holy men and women of God were being fully re- warded for all the good they did, and those wick- ed, God-forsaken wretches, who gathered about the tire and laughed and jeered to see the bodies of the saints consumed, were being fully punished for all the sin they committed. Some of the best men and women the world ever knew have sulfer- ed most. Some of the worst men and women the world ever knew have sufferd the least. Why? Because their consciences were seared with a hot iron, and they were past feeling. In the seventy-third psalm we have this whole CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 177 question clearly and forcibly presented. The psalmist says he was envious at the foolish when he saw the prosperity of the wicked. They were not in trouble as other men; they had more than heart could wish. They pros- pered in the world, and increased in riches; and their eyes stood out with fatness. This was the condition of the wicked as the psalmist saw it. But the people of God had waters of a full cup wrung out to them. " All the day long have I been plagued, and chastened every morning." ^'Yerily, I have cleansed my heart in vain." That is, ''it is no advantage to worship the true God." These wicked men are not in trouble as we are. They are rich, and we are poor. Some imagine that the psalmist was mistaken in his view, for when he went into the sanctuary he saw things in a different light. Yery true. At tirst he saw men only in this life, and concluded that the wicked had it better than the righteous. ^' Until I went into the sanctuary, then understood I their endJ^ I saw that with all their prosperity they were standing on slippery places, and would be brought down. "Then understood I their end." When I entered into communion with God, light spi'ung up in my mind. I saw that al- thougli for the present there was an unequal dis- tribution of temporal good and evil, there loas an 12 178 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION end when Q-od would render to every man accord- ing to his works. What was true in the days of the psalmist is true now. Many of the wicked are prosperous. Like Dives, they fare sumptuously every day — they have more than heart could wish — while many a humble follower of Jesus is poor and persecuted, asking to he fed with the crumbs which may chance to fall from the tables of the rich. If Universalism be true, then all the wicked who are prospered in this world, who increase in riches, who have more than heart could wish, who neither fear God nor regard the person of any man, are fully punished in this world for all the evil they did; and all the righteous, who for Christ's sake counted all things loss, who for his sake were persecuted, hated, tortured, and burned at the stake, were fully rewarded in this world for all they did and suffered. Then all those promises Avhich seem to relate to another world must be conlined to this. Paul having fought a good fight, thought he would receive a crown of right- eousness. John said to those that would over- come, they should have a crown of life. Jesus said his Father would honor all that serve him. But this is all a mistake. Infidels, atheists, liber- tines, drunkards, murderers, thieves, and robbers will have just as bright a crown as the most de- vout Christian. This is Universalism. CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 179 In this argument the theology of Universalism, respecting the nature and design of punishment, has been carefully presented. It has been shown that if their theory is correct then, 1. The ante- diluvians, the Sodomites, and others, because they had become too wicked to remain on earth, were suddenly swept away and taken to heaven. 2. There are four principles embodied in the nature and design of punishment. 3. That the word of God plainly teaches that punishment is only cor- rective to those who are properly exercised there- by. 4. That many, instead of being reformed by punishment, only grew worse and worse. 5. That some take pleasure in unrighteousness and rejoice iji lies, and continue in that state till death. Many of them die in the midst of their sins. 6. That the righteous in many instances suffer more in this world than the wicked. 7. It has been shown that if Universalism is true, all the prom- ises which seem to relate to another world must be confined to this world, and that all men will fare alike in the world to come. 8. That no man is accountable to G-od for his influence. In the discussion of the proposition in this chapter, questions like the following have been raised : If all punishment is corrective, and con- •fined to this world, when and how will those be reformed that die in the act of disobeying God ? 180 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION How will those be corrected and brought to obedience who are past feeling — whose conscience is seared with a hot iron ? When and how will those be reformed that only grow worse and worse under punishment? If a man murders his wife, and the next moment kills himself, when, where, and how will he be corrected and reformed by punishment? It will not do to say that he is punished after death, for Universalists say this is a state of retribution and not of probation. Men are punished and rewarded here all they ever will be. Then these wicked wretches who could not be reformed by punishment in this world, were cut off, or cut themselves off', and went to heaven. But this will not do, because Universalist authors, as has been shown, teach that all men will need a moral and spiritual change in the resurrection. Then where are they, and what is their condition ? \ CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 181 CHAPTEH XI. god's attributes — THEIR HARMONY AND PERFECTION. Arguments in favor of the ultimate holiness and salvation of all men have been based upon the at- tributes of God. Because he is all- wise or omnis- cient, omnipresent, just, benevolent, and merciful, therefore all men will ultimately be saved. If man were not a moral agent, and if there were no con- ditions connected with the plan of salvation, such arguments would be unanswerable. It is pro- posed to show in this argument that there is nothing in the divine attributes more in favor of the ultimate holiness and salvation of all men than there is in favor of their present salvation; also, that God can not exercise any one of his at- tributes, only so far as it may be in harmony with every other attribute and perfection of his nature. Of tlic secret counsels and plans of God we know nothing. All we have to do is to carefully obey what he has been pleased to reveal to us in his word. 182 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION As a matter of convenience, and for future ref- erence, the attributes may be arranged and defined as follows: 1. Eternity. This implies that God always was and always will be. ''From everlasting to everlasting J ^ 2. Omniscience. This implies in- finite wisdom and knowledge. ''Known unto God are all his works from the heginningy 3. Omnip- otence. This implies power — almighty poAver. 4. Omnipresence. This signifies that God exists in all places at the same time. 5. Immutability. This implies that God is always the same. Eter- nally unchangeable. 6. Justice. This is that per- fection of the divine nature whence arises the abso- lute rectitude of his moral government. 7. Good- ness, love, benevolence, and mercy. We group these perfections of the divine nature together, for they may with propriety be regarded as modifi- ed expressions of the same thing. Mr. Thayer, in his " Theology of Universalism," dwells at some length upon the attributes of God, and argues therefrom the ultimate holiness and salvation of all men. But from first to last he seems to ignore the fact that God is a being of ab- solute holiness. He proceeds upon the hypothesis that sin is only a finite evil, and hence can not be so exceedingly oftensive to God. Connect with this their theory of the origin of sin, and we can readily understand why they intimate that sin is no CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 183 dreadful aif'air. In plain language, they make God the author of sin. On page 26 our author says, " If man had been created perfect and had never fallen into any kind of sin," &c. On page 67 he says, "Here again is a reason why the Creator did not make man perfect in the beginning." After these monstrous statements, which flatly contradict the word of God, he proceeds to found arguments on the power, wisdom, goodness, and justice of God, leaving out, of course, the holiness, immuta- bility, eternity, and vengeance of God. We will now proceed to examine each of his arguments based upon the attributes. Omnipo- tence. God has all power. He is therefore able to save all men, and will save them. This is the sum and substance of his argument. On page 58 he says, " The result of our investigation respect- ing the omnipotence of God is this: That his power over spirit is as absolute as is his power over matter ; that he can do his will as easily, and that he will do it as certainly, in the moral world as in the spiritual world. * * * He not only has the power to reconcile and restore all things to himself, but, ^in the dispensation of the fulhiess of times,' he loill do it." On page 57 he says, " The day and the hour when all which has been promised may be fulfilled, we may not know." Whether in this world or the next our author, in 184 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION this connection, does not presume to say, but on page 205 he says, " Thousands die in unbelief and sin,'' so that it seems it is not in this world where all will be saved. E"ow let us test the strength of this argument. God has all power, and is therefore able to save all men. Are all saved now ? If not, why not? God has all power, yet notwithstanding multiplied thousands are not now saved. If all men will ultimately be saved, because God has the power to save, then all men are now saved for the very same reason. But we know that all men are not now saved. Universal- ists admit this themselves. If, then, God permits sin to exist, notwithstanding his power to destroy it, he may always permit it to exist. God is im- mutable as well as omnipotent. Jesus is " able to save to the uttermost." Whom ? '' All that will come unto God by him." Why, then, are not all men saved, since Jesus is able to save to the utter- most? The reason is obvious. They will not come unto God by him. And I now affirm that there is not a single passage in the Bible that teaches that any man will come to God tJirough Christ after death. The wisdom of God. On page 34 Mr. Thayer says, " The divine knowledge embraces the future and final condition of every soul of man, and did embrace it from the beginning, as a part and por- CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 185 tiou of the original plan of God, inherent in the very purpose and end had in view in the creation of man." On page 39 he argues that God in cre- athig man did foresee all things that would come to pass, and so arranged his plan of operation that all things should contribute to the one result, namely, the ultimate holiness and salvation of all men. lie argues, further, that it would not be compatible with the character of an infinitely wise God to create a soul, knowing at the time that til at soul would sutler eternally. Let us ex- amine this with some care, for it is one of the most plausible arguments presented by Univer- salists. "Known unto God are all his works from the beginning." This is a favorite quotation with our author; and w^e accept it, because it is the word of God. Take up the history of the past, and con- template the mental, moral, and physical suffering of the race. The history of the world presents to us little else than one continued scene of suffering and anguish, — Avar, famine, pestilence, and dis- tress. God knew when he created man that this would be the result. He knew that man would sin, and he knew that he would punish him in ways without number. God saw all this before he said, "Let us make man." And yet with the full knowledge of all this suffering he created man. More than this, Mr. Thayer says, page 27, "that 186 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION God (lid not make man perfect in the beginning, but determined to leave him to perfect himself through toil," &c. God not only knew that he should suffer, but determined that he should suf- fer. This is Universalism. "We hold that God is infinite in wisdom; that he created man in his own image, a moral agent, and determined that those who would violate his law should suffer. '-'The soul that sinneth it shall die.'' He determin- ed also that " whoever would beheve on the Son of God should not perish, but have everlasting life." Now to the point. If an infinitely wise God would create man, knowing that he would suffer as thousands have suffered, and are now suf- fering, what is there incompatible with the charac- ter of such a being to create man, knowing that he would abuse his agency, and as a result sufier endlessly ? God has no pleasure in the death of him that dieth ; and yet men die— die in sin and unbelief. God kneAV that it would be so; still, he created man. Now if it were not possible for man to escape endless punishment, then it would be a reflection on the wisdom of God to have cre- ated him. But since man is a moral agent, with the privilege of choosing life or death, it is no re- flection on the divine character to have thus creat- ed him. The whole difficulty arises from a want of a proper discrimination between the knowledge CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 187 of God and the decrees of God. God has decreed, and it will stand forever, ''that those who sow to the flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption, and those who sow to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting." When God created man he knew that some men would sow to the flesh, and some would sow to the Spirit. But why create a man when he knew that he would sow to the flesh, and consequently reap corruption? When God determined to create man he determined that he should be a free agent, with full power to choose for himself, and that he should eat the fruit of his doings. The promises and threaten- ings of the Bible all stand as witnesses of this great and solemn truth. " Whatsoever a man sow- eth, that shall he also reap." The goodness of God. On page 67 Mr. Thay- er, in treating on the goodness of God, says, "God of course has established the world, created man, and determined his present and future condition. * * * He does not do everything at once by a miracle, but gradually by appointed agencies, and according to the laws of their spiritual nature. Each day has its specific work, each event its special meaning." If each day has its work, and each event its specific meaning, what is the special meaning of the event of thousands dying in un- belief AND SIN? Would an infinitely good being 188 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION create a man knowing that lie would live and die in sin? God does not do everything at once. IS'o ; for this same author says, pages 234-5, that the Savior follows the soul in this world, and into all worlds beyond, till it is found and restored. The great difficulty with Mr. Thayer's theory is that he can not find a single passage of scripture to sustain him in the belief that Christ will save a soul from sin after death. To show the beauty of Mr. Thayer's theory, I will bring together a few of his points. How is a man saved from sin ? On page 316 he says, " The sin is punished and forgiven, the penalty of transgression is inflicted, and then the sinner is forgiven." Mark that. How does Christ save men after death? On page 229 he says, Christ saves men after death "by the same means and in the same way as before death." Then Christ follows the soul in this world and into all worlds beyond, punishing and inflicting upon it the penalties of the law. Is it compatible with the character of an. infinitely good being to create a soul knowing that it would sin, and that he would have to follow it in this world and into all worlds beyond, inflicting upon it the penalties of transgression ? Another fact which Universalists would gladly ignore is that God, notwithstanding IiIr goodness, does permit sin and misery to exist here. CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 189 They teach that God punishes men to the full ex- tent of the law. On pfige 217 Mr. Thayer says, "ISTo repentance can save from the just penalty of the violated law." So there is no escape. Now let us put this together. God created man imper- fect in the beginning ; he knew that he would sin, and determined that he would punish him for that sin, and not allow him any means of escape. We hold that God created man perfect, with the power to choose good or evil; that if those who have chosen evil will forsake their evil way and return to the Lord, as a merciful and good Father he will have mercy on them, and abundantly par- don. We hold further that Jesus is able to save to the uttermost all that will come unto God by him. The justice of God. Mr. Thayer commences h!s argument on this attribute by denying the doc- trine of vicarious atonement; that divine justice did not demand and would not be satisfied with the death of the innocent in the place of the guilty. On page 76 he says, " The divine law requires us to do right; we disobey and do wrong. Here is the sin; and at this point justice enters and promptl}" demands reparation, — not mere suffer- ing, but reparation, — demands that the sin shall cease, that the wrong shall be made right. And how is this to be done ? There is only one way 190 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION of doing it, and that is by saving the sinner from his sins. Justice demands reparation," But the sinner is the guilty party. What has he to repair with ? How can he render satisfaction to the law for past offenses ? How then is this reparation to be made ? Our author says, '' by saving the sinner from his sins." Will this render satisfaction to the law? Paul, in Romans iii. 24-26, says that Jesus was set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, for the remission of sins that are past; therefore God can be just, and the justi- fier of him which believeth in Jesus. " Here we learn that God designed to give the most evident displays, both of his justice and mercy. Of his justice in requiring a sacrifice, and absolutely re- fusing to give salvation to a .lost world in any other way, and of his mercy in providing the sacrifice which his justice required." Thus be- cause Jesus made an g^tonement, rendered satis- faction to the law, God can now be just, and justify him which believeth in Jesus. But Uni- versalists deny this. They say that Jesus Christ did not render satisfaction to the law. How then can God be just and at the same time justify the ungodly? But Mr. Thayer says, justice demands reparation. In what way? Why, by saving the sinner from his sins. But in what way is repara- tion made to the law by saving the sinner from CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 191 his sins ? It is simply no reparation at all. Justice is satisfied without anything at all. On page 77 our author says that justice demands "that all wrong shall give place to right, all sin shall be de- stroyed, and all evil end in good." But on what grounds does justice make this demand? ISTot on the ground of satisfaction, but without satisfaction. If, then, justice has the right to demand reparation by saving the sinner from his sin, is then justice just in not saving sinners at once? Why not cut it short in righteousness ? Why permit sin and misery to exist? If tiie law of God is founded injustice, then no man can ever be saved unless satisfaction be ren- dered to the law. And as Universalists deny the doctrine of vicarious atonement, they must save men without meeting the claims of the law, in which case justice would be unjust. 'No sinner can, by any possibility, render satisfaction to the law for past offenses. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. Justice claims the death of the sinner. ]!*^ow, if the law be just it must claim the death of the sin- ner; hence, his release from the claims of the law without satisfaction would be unjust. Mr. Guild, author of " The Universalist's Book of Beference," page 338, founds an argument in favor of the ultimate holiness and salvation of all men on the attributes. I will give the substance 192 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION of his points as he presents them. (1.) God is merciful, therefore he ivill not inflict endless pain ujyon any of his creatures. If because God is merciful he will not punish endlessly, for the very same reason he will not punish at all. (2.) God is om- nipotent, therefore his plans and p)urposes can not be defeated. If because God is omnipotent his plans and purposes can not be defeated, then his plana and purposes must now be carried out. It must have been in the plan and purpose of God that man should sin. But why punish a man for car- rying out the plan and purpose of God ? (3.) God is love. He has the j)oioer to promote the good of his creatures, and has the disposition to do so, for he is love. God is love, and yet he punishes sinners to the fidl extent of the law. !Now if the law requires endless punishment, there is nothing in the love of God to prevent him from inflicting it. If God has the power and disposition to promote the highest good of his creatures, and still permits them to sin, and then punishes them for their sin, he may always permit them to sin, and may always punish them. (4.) God is unchangeable. He will endlessly rem.ain what he has been and is now. God permits sin and misery to exist now; he is un- changeable, therefore he will always permit it to exist. Or thus : God punishes men now; he is unchangeable, therefore he always will punish men. CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 193 It has already been stated that God can not exercise any one of his attributes unless it be in perfect harmony with every other attribute. To illustrate. God is omnipotent — hath all power in heaven and on earth; yet he does not do every- 1 thing. He could not send all men to hell, because that would violate his justice and love; and he could not take all men to heaven for the very same reason. Those who contend for the ultimate salvation of all men seem to ignore the fact that God is a being of other attributes. God is eter^ nally in harmony with himself. Again. God's goodness, love, mercy, and be- nevolence would prompt him to save all men in the future state. But the very same perfections of the divine nature would prompt him to save them now. But all men are not now saved; and as he is immutable, he can never exercise these attributes more strongly than he does now. God can only act in harmony with the principles of a perfectly righteous, moral government. While the love, mercy, and benevolence of God would prompt him to bestow salvation upon all men, yet the non-compliance of the sinner with the conditions upon which he has promised to bestow this saving grace render it impossible for him to do so without compromising his justice. God can only be just, and justify him that belie veth in 13 194 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION Jesus. If God is uncliangeable we have no reason to expect any stronger exhibitions of his love, mercy, and benevolence than have been in the past, or than are now. Inasmuch, therefore, as he permits sin and misery to exist now, notwith- standing these divine perfections, he may always permit them to exist. God is omniscient, — or, as Paul expresses it, *' Known unto God are all his works from the be- ginning,'' — and therefore would not create a soul knowing that it would suffer eternally. But God must have known, when he created man, that he would sin, and that he would suffer. ISTow if the love, mercy, and benevolence of God would per- mit him to create a man knowing that he would suffer for ten years, might not those same perfec- tions permit him to create a man when he knew that he would suffer for twenty years, and so on to eternity ? " God ia love ; " but Paul, in Hebrews xii. 29, says, "Our God is a consuming fire." These two declarations teach that God is infinitely and eternally just, and infinitely and eternally be- nevolent, and is therefore as determined to pun- ish the wicked eternally as to save and bless the righteous eternally. God is limited by the imwMta- ble perfections of his own nature in his modes of oper- ation for the salvation of sinners. Universalist authors, so far as I have seen, have CAREFULLY EXAMINEb. 195 but little to say about the holiness of God ; and yet this is one of his essential attributes. " It is the glory, luster, and harmony of all his other perfec- tions." It is infinite, immutable, and invariable. God is holy in and of himself. Those who imag- ine that the endless separation of the wicked from God is too great a punishment, have but feeble notions of the absolute holiness of God. Sin is not only an offense to God, but is directly and eternally opposed to the very nature of God. Some idea of the heinous nature of sin may be formed when we remember that no less a sacrifice would atone for it than the gift of the well-beloved and only-begotten Son of God, Should it be urged that all the attributes of God are in favor of the ultimate holiness and salvation of all men, we answer, They can be no more in favor of that than they are in favor of the present holiness and salvation of all men. God is immut^ able, and will remain forever the same. There is no argument based upon the attributes of God that can be made to favor the future salvation of man, but may with equal force be applied to his present salvation. It is but reasonable to say that if ever all men are saved it will be when God's attributes grow stronger or wicked men grow bet- ter. But God is immutable, and his attributes can never be any stronger than they now are. If we 196 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION say that wicked men will grow better, we contra^- diet the w^ord of God, which declares that they ^'wax worse and worseJ'^ On pages 26 and 27, Mr. Thayer argues at some length on the beneficial effect of sin. He talks of the virtues of charity, generosity, faith, fidelity, truth, &c., and then says that if man had been created perfect, and had never fallen into any kind of sin, how could these virtues have birth or being? On page 28, he says that one purpose of our present condition of mingled good and evil is to lead us up in the thought and desire for an " eternal weight of glory." On page 31, he con- cludes his argument by the bold declaration that all the attributes of Deity are pledged to bring the whole race of man out of this state of mingled good and evil, to a state of endless perfection. ' It is an insult to the holiness of God, to say that he created man imperfect; besides, it is a positive contradiction of the word of God. If man had been created perfect and had not fallen into sin, what then ? Why, Mr. Thayer says that life would be without point, ivithout any useful or elevating aim.. "Why ? Because man would have known nothing about charity, faith, fidelity, &c. According to Mr. Thayer's method of reasoning, the best thing that man ever did was to sin, and the best thing that God ever did for man was to make him im- CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 197 perfect in the beginning. But why, if sin has done so much for man, punish him for doing what God intended he should do? Is it in harmony with the love, mercy, and goodness of God to create man imperfect, with the intention that he should fall into sin, and then punish him for every sin he commits? This is Universalism. The whole theory of Universalism seems to be an apology for the sinfulness of man. God made him imperfect in the beginning, and all the attri- butes of the Deity are pledged to his final restora- tion. Sin is only a finite evil, and, as Mr. Guild says, belongs to the flesh or animal nature, and that animal nature will be destroyed. " Regener- ation," says Mr. Thayer, page 182, "does not im- ply a change in the moral constitution of man, but a change of opinion and character. ^ * * It is not wrought in a moment, by a supernatural and almighty influence, but is the result of a proper use of divinely appointed means." On page 174 he says, "It [regeneration] is the prod- uct of months and years of watchings and pray- ings." This is simply no regeneration at all; it is a kind of formal reformation, that has no more to do with the heart than the cold and cheerless philosophy of Plato. Universalists know no more about rest in Jesus Christ than Nicodemus did when he came to Christ by night. How can 198 I^NIYERSAL RESTORATION they'i They deny the divinity of Christ; they deny the doctrine of vicarious atonement; they deny the doctrine of justification by faith; they deny the doctrine of a spiritual regeneration; and yet they say that the attributes of the Deity are pledged to the final restoration of all men. But on what grounds? With them the death and sufferings of Jesus Christ are but little more than the death of any other good man. God will save all men, Christ or no Christ. They may live and die infidels, as many have done ; but no matter for that, the divine attributes are all pledged to save them at last. And when men become so desperately wicked that they can not remain longer in thio world, God will sweep them away and take them to some other world, where he can better save them than here. Do you say this is too extrava- gant for any man to believe? Let us see. Mr. Thayer, on pages 234, 235, says, " The Savior never abandons the soul. * * * He follows it in this world, and into all worlds beyond^ as a Guide and Teacher and Redeemer, till it is found and restored." But do the Scriptures warrant us in any such belief? ^o. There is not a single pas- sage in God's book that teaches any such doctrine. The conclusions reached from an investigation of the harmony and perfection of the divine at- tributes are these. (1.) All the attributes of the CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 199 Deity harmonize in the sacrificial offering of Jesus Christ as man's substitute, by which satisfaction was rendered to the law ; insomuch that God can now be just, and the justifier of all who believe in Jesus. (2.) All the attributes harmonize in the ultimate holiness and salvation of all who com- ply with the published conditions of salvation. ^'Whosoever believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved." (3.) All the attributes of the Deity are in favor of the endless punishment of all who will not comply with the conditions of salvation, as set forth in the gospel of Jesus, " Whosoever believeth not shall be damned." (4.) God is as perfect in all his attributes now as he ever was, or ever will be. God is eternally unchangeable. If, therefore, he can punish sin for a life-time, he can, in the exercise of the same attributes, punish sin eternally. God is love — he always was. and always will be. God is good — he always was, and always will be. God is just — he always was, and always will be. God is holy — he always was, and always will be. He never was and never can be any different from what he now is. God has punished and does punish sinners; and there is nothing in the divine per- fection to prevent him from punishing sinners eternally. When God destroyed the inhabitants of Sodom and of the old world, all his attributes were just as much in harmony with these events 200 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION as when lie translated Enoch and Elijah. These are facts from which we can not get away. The Scriptures abundantly teach that God is infinitely and eternally holy. Sin is not only offensive to God because it is the transgression of the law, but because it is opposed to his very nature. Obnoxious and abhorrent as sin is and must forever be in the sight of God, yet men do sin. God either wills it or he does not will it. If we say that he wills it, then why punish men for it ? If he does not will it, why not save men from it at once and put an end to all the suffer- ing and misery that flow from it? Will it be more in harmony with the divine attributes to save men from it in the future, than now ? If so, why? Men may philosophise as they please, the stub- born fact of present sin and misery stares them continually in the face. They may reason on the attributes from morning till evening, and from evening till morning; but sin exists. We must take one of two positions; it must either exist according to the will of God, or against it. If we say it exists according to his will, then it may always exist according to his will. If we say it exists contrary to his will, then it may continue to exist against his will eternally. God is immu- table — eternally the same. Take another view. CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 201 If sin exists according to the will of God, why punish men for itV Would it he just and merciful to punish men for doing the will of God? If sin exists contrary to the will of God, why not put an end to it at once, since, according to Univer- salism, he intends to put an end to it at some time ? If God is immutable, then all his attributes are just as much in favor of the complete overthrow of sin now as they ever will be. The immutable, holy, and benevolent God speaks to a lost and ruined race in words that ought to move all hearts. " Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unright- eous man his thoughts : and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him ; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon." To this all the attributes of the Deity say, Amen. 202 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION CHAPTER XII. THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST. There are no two subjects of more solemn im- portance to the children of men than the second coming of Christ, and the end of the world. TJniversalist authors do not deny that Christ's coming is in the future; but they do most em- phatically deny the orthodox view of his second coming, and the judgment in connection with his coming. They hold that nearly all of those script- ures which speak of the coming of Christ have reference to the destruction of Jerusalem _, his com- ing in spirit, etc. Before producing any scripture proof on this momentous subject, it will be proper to state the views of TJniversalist authors. On page 210 Mr, Guild says, ^'The first appearance of Christ in this world, so far as we have any knowledge, was his appearance in the flesh, as an infant of days." " The second appearance must have been in spirit and in power to the overthrow of his enemies, the destruc- tion of their city, and the final close of legal rites and ceremonies." On page 212 he says, "The CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 203 object of tliifc^ (third) coining appears to be to raise the dead to a state of incorruption, immortality, and glory." Mr. Thayer, page 255, says, "The gospel-day, or the period of Christ's reign, is the judgment-day in which every one is rewarded according to what he does, whether good or bad." Mr. Thayer denies a future general judgment, and connects the final (or third) coming of Christ with the resurrection of the body. In Heb. ix. 28 Paul says, " Unto them that look for him [Christ] shall he appear the second time without sin unto salva- tion." There is not a sentence in God's book that says anything about the tliird coming of Christ. This is purely a Universalist idea. They hold that all those passages in the Old and-ISTew Testament usually applied to the last (second) coming of Christ refer to his appeai-ance "in spirit and power and the destruction of Jerusalem." They hold that the gospel-day is the day of judgment, and in the resurrection all will be raised to glory and inmiortality. The first scriptures we shall examine are in Mat- thew, twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth chapters. In Matt. xxiv. 3, the disciples ask the Savior three questions : " Tell us, when shall these things be ? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world ? " Jesus had just gone away from the temple, and the disciples came to him 104 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION and called his attention to the buildings. The Savior informed them that the time would come when there should not be left one stone upon an- other. Hearing this, the disciples asked the ques- tions referred to. The Savior, without fixing the day and hour when these things should be, pro- ceeded to answer the second question by giving them the unmistakable signs that should precede that event. And to fix it more indelibly on their minde, he illustrates it by parables. He continues thus discoursing on the destruction of Jerusalem till near the close of chapter xxv., when he sud- denly changes the style of his discourse, and an- swers the third question — the end of the world. ]N"early all of the Savior's discourse from the second verse of the twenty -fourth chapter to the thirty- first verse of the twenty -fifth chapter, bears directly upon the destruction of Jerusalem. Much of it, however, may be applied to the last great coming of Christ, because there is in many respects a similarity. As there was a simi- larity between the last days of the old world in the time of Noah and the last days of the inhabit- ants of Jerusalem, so there is a similarity between the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world. All that was spoken concerning the de- struction of Jerusalem has been literally fulfilled ; and as certainly as that has been fulfilled, so cer- CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 205 tainly will the other be fulfilled. Christ will come again. We will commence at the 31st verse. ^'Wlien the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory : and before him shall be gathered all nations." 'Now consider : Christ shall come, and all the holj/ angels ivith him,. Did this, or anything like it, occur at the time of the destruc- tion of Jerusalem? Mr. Guild, on pages 231 and 232, says that the holy angels that were to accom- pany Christ in this coming were the Romans. It would be difficult to conceive of a more absurd idea. There perhaps never lived a more corrupt and wicked class of men than the Roman soldiers ; yet these are Christ's holy angels. Mr. Guild, in order to cover up the absurdity of this theory, says, page 232, "They [angels] are sometimes called holy, not because they are so of themselves, but because they execute God's holy command." But in this passage the term holy is not applied to the work they were to perform, but to their character. ''The Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him." That is, if Universal- ism be true, Titus, the Roman general, shall come, and all his holy Roman soldiers with him. Beau- tiful angels were they! But this is Universalism. Again; it is declared that Christ shall "sit 206 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION upon the throne of his glory : and before him shall be gathered all nations." Did this or anything like it occur at the destruction of Jerusalem? Was there any such gathering of nations ? There was nothing connected with the destruction of Je- rusalem from first to last that will answer to this description. The Jews were scattered, but the nations were not gathered together. It is further stated in this connection, verse 32, that he (Christ) "shall separate one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats." Did this or anything like it occur at the destruc- tion of Jerusalem ? Were the nations separated V The Jews were scattered among all nations, but there was no such thing as a separation of nations, nor of individuals. Again : the Savior says in verse 34 that those on his right hand are to inherit the kingdom, and in verse 46 that they are to have eternal life. Into what kingdom did the righteous, whom the Savior calls the ''blessed of his Father," enter at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem? They were to inherit a kingdom. Who ? The Jews, or the Roman soldiers? Who have the right to an in- heritance? Is it for any but the children of the family? Who are the children of the family? Let Paul answer. " If a son, then an heir of God through Christ." (Galatians iv. 7.) "If children, CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 207 then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ." (Romans viii. 17.) The inheritance is for the heirs, and the heirs are the children of God. This kingdom was prepared for them. There was nothing connected with the destruction of Jerusalem, from first to last, that will answer to this description. ITothing has occurred since the world began, to which this can be applied with any degree of propriety. Finally, it is declared that, after the separation spoken of in verse 33, the wicked — those on his left hand — should go away into everlasting pun- ishment. E'ow if these things did not occur at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, they are yet to come to pass. I have read the history of the destruction of Jerusalem, but I found nothing that will answer to this description. The plain mean- ing of the passage is this. (1.) Christ will come again, and all his holy angels with him. (2.) When he comes, at the end of the world, all nations shall be gathered before him. (3.) When he comes, and all nations are gathered before him, he shall sit upon the throne of his glory, and all nations, and each individual, shall be judged; and he shall separate between the righteous and the wicked. (4.) Immediately following this separation the final sentence shall be passed: "These shall go away into / 208 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION everlasting punishment, but tlie righteous into life eternal." Having shown that this important passage points to and forcibly describes the second com- ing of Christ and a future general judgment, it will be proper to consider other passages that bear directly upon the same point. "Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven ? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like man- ner as ye have seen him go into heaven/' (Acts i. H.) This settles the question beyond all con- troversy, that Christ will come again in person. If his ascension up into heaven was personal, so will his coming be. He shall " come in like man- ner as ye have seen him go into heaven." Christ went to heaven clothed in human nature, and with the same body shall he descend again. He shall so come in like manner. Having fixed in the mind the solemn fact that Christ will come again in person, it will be proper to examine a few more passages which describe the nature of his coming, and what is to occur in connection with it. ''And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 209 and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; when he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day." (II. Thessalonians i. 7-10.) The description given by the apostle in this text, of the coming of Christ, is very similar to Christ's own description, given in Matthew xxv. 31-46. The Lord Jesus is to be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels. In Matthew it is said he shall come, and all his holy angels with him. Here it is said that the wicked are to be punished with everlasting destruction. In Matthew they are to go away into everlasting punishment. Did anything answering to this description occur at the destruction of Jerusalem ? Three facts are clearly stated in this text. (1.) Christ shall come again. (2.) The manner of his coming is described. (3.) What is to occur in connection with that coming is stated. ITow if these things did not occur at the time of the de- struction of Jerusalem, they are yet in the future. Who were the saints that glorified him, and w)io were the believers that admired him at the time Jerusalem was destroyed? Who were punished 14 210 UNIVERSAL RESTOBATION with everlasting destruction at that time? Mr. Guild sajs that the holy angels referred to in Matthew xxv. 31-2 were the Romans; then if this reference to the coming of Christ relates to the same event, the "mighty angels" must mean the Roman soldiers. There is still another dif- ficulty. The text declares that the "Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels." Titus and his soldiers came from Rome. ISome difference between coming from Borne and coming from heaven. "Rome, for idolatry and wickedness of every description, was the metropolis of the world." Heaven is pure and spotless. That an inspired man of God should have represented the coming of Titus and his army from Rome, to destroy Jerusalem, as being similar to the coming of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his mighty angels, is not for a moment to be supposed. It should be remembered, also, that Thessalonica was not inhabited by Jews, but principally by devout Greeks and converted heathens — persons that were not personally interested in the fate of that city. Besides, they were too remote from Jerusalem to be materially affected by its fall. Thessalonica was a city in Europe, nearly a thousand miles distant from Jerusalem. It is eimjDly foolishness to suppose that the apostle CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 211 would have appealed to their hopes and fears based "upon the fall of that city, a thousand miles away. ]^o, Paul was describing another event altogether — one in which they, with all other Christians, were deeply and personally interested. The Scriptures abound with reference to the com- ing of Christ, both as to the fact and manner of his coming. He " shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him." (Matt. XXV. 31.) He shall come "with ten thousand of his saints." (Jude 14.) He shall come " in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." (Matt. xxiv. 30.) He shall come " with his mighty angels." (II. Thess. i. 7, 8.) He shall come " with clouds ; and every eye shall see him." (Rev. i. 7.) He shall come " as a thief in the night." (I. Thessa- lonians v. 2, 3.) He shall come " with a shout, with the voice of the archangel." (I. Thessalonians iv. 16.) He shall come to "judge the quick and the dead." (II. Timothy iv. 1.) He shall " come to be glorified in his saints." (II. Thessalonians i. 10.) All these things are to occur when he comes. In further confirmation of the truth afiirmed in this chapter, we will examine I. Thessalonians iv. 16. "The Lord himself shall descend frorn heaven with a shout, with the voice of the arch- angel, and with the trump of God : and the dead in 212 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION Christ shall rise first." This passage was written by the same person and directed to the same church that II. Thessalonians i. 7-10 was. From the style of language employed it is evident that the same event Avas in the mind of the apostle. In the former passage Paul says, "The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven w^ith his mighty angels in flaming iire." This, as has been shown, can not refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, for nothing to which this description will answer oc- curred at that time. In the passage now undei review the apostle connects the coming of Christ with the resurrection of the body. It will not, I presume, be denied that I. Corinthians xv. refers to the resurrection of the dead. In this chapter, verse 52, Paul speaks of the sounding of the trumpet: "The trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised." This undoubtedly refers to a general resurrection. ]^ow observe the points of resem- blance between the two passages ; and remember that they were written by the same person, to the same church. In one text it is declared that " the Lord himself shall descend from heaven;" in the other, "the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven." Again : one says " he shall descend with the voice of the archangel," and the other says "he shall be revealed with his mighty angels." Now compare this with the language of Christ, in CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 213 Matthew xxv, " The Son of man shall come in his glory, and all his holy augels with him/' "All nations shall be gathered before him." In reviewing these passages, there are several points of inquiry that force themselves upon the mind. (1.) If Christ intended to tea-ch that he would come again in the manner and for the pur- pose claimed in this chapter, in what language could he have taught it more clearly and forcibly? (2.) If he did not intend to teach that truth, what could have induced him to employ such language as he did, when he must have known that the vast majority of Bible students would so understand it? (3.) If the apostles did not so understand the teachings of Christ, how shall we account for the language they employed ? (4.) It is a fact that the great majority of Christians, from- the days of Christ and the apostles down to to this present time, have believed and taught that Jesus Christ would come a second time; and at his second coming he would judge the world. (5.) It is a fact that this doctrine is not taught in any confes- sion of faith more plainly than it was taught by Christ and his apostles. Men who have read the Bible through on their knees, and devoutly prayed for light to shine on the sacred page, have risen from their investigations fully convinced that the Scriptures teach that Jesus Christ will come 214 UNIVERSAL KESTORATION again to judge the world. The Christian fathers, those who lived immediately after the days of the apostles, very generally believed in the second coming of Christ to judge the world. But Mr. Guild, on page 356, says, "The opinion of these men on any important point is not deserving of any great weight." He makes short work of the opinions of such men as Justin Martyr, Irenseus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyp- rian, Gregory, &c. Why ? Because they did not teach modern Universalism. But it should be remembered that Universalist authors, when they want to prove the antiquity of their doctrine, go right back to Origen, and a few others who held to some sort of restorationism. They are good authority when their opinions can be pressed into the service of modern Universalism ; but when this can not be done their opinions are of no weight. According to the teachings of TJiiiversalist authors, nearly all of the ITew Testament was written expressly for the Jews, and very much of it referred to the destruction of Jerusalem. Any and every passage that seems to connect judgment or punishment with the coming of Christ, must be applied to the destruction of Jerusalem. Paul wrote a letter to the Christians of Thessalonica, — a to^^ n about a thousand miles away from Jerusa- CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 215 lem, — and told tliem that the Lord Jesus should be revealed from heaven v^ith his mighty angels ; that he would take vengeance on them that did not obey the gospel of Christ; that his saints would glorify him. All this is made to refer to the destruction of Jerusalem. Jesus said he would come, and all the holy angels with him, and all nations would be gathered before him. This, too, must refer to the destruction of Jerusalem. Now, the fact is, there is no more similarity between these descriptions of Christ's coming and the his- tory of the destruction of Jerusalem than there is between day and night. The scriptures employed in this chapter teach, as plainly as language can teach any truth: (1.) That the coming of Christ, denominated by Paul in Hebrews ix. 28 as his second coming, is yet in the future. (2.) When he comes the second time, without sin unto salvation, the dead shall be raised, and all nations shall be gathered before him; or, as John, in Revelation xx. 12,'says, ''I saw the dead, small and great, stand before Grod." (3.) There will be a separation between the right- eous and the wicked; and this is to occur when the Son of man cometh with all his holy angels. Mark the language. When he comes, as described by himself and the apostle, he is to be glorified in his saints and admired in all that believe, while 216 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION those wlio obey not the gospel are to be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and the glory of his power; or, as the Savior expresses it, "These shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal." ISiow if these things did not occur at the time and in connection with the destruction of Jerusalem, they are yet in the future. And 1 once more affirm that there was nothing connected with the fall of that city that will answer to this description ; and I further affirm that nothing has occurred since the world began that will answer to that description. It will be important to notice that this second coming of Christ is to be literal. "This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." Did he so come in like manner at the time Jerusalem was destroyed? He did not. Did he so come in like manner, in spirit, in the kingdom of grace? He did not. Then that literal coming must yet be in the future. "The Lord HIMSELF shall descend from heaven." " Him- self y'^ not another; not in the person of another, but himself. Christ did appear on earth literal ly, and " to them that look for him shall he appear the second time.'* If his first coming was literal so will his second coming be. "Not a word is said CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 217 about his third coming. Universalists talk about the third coming of Christ, but the Bible knows nothing about it. X 218 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION CHAPTER XIII. A DISTmCTION OF CHARACTER IN THE RESURRECTION. Haviiii^ demonstrated in the preceding chapter the fact that the second coming of Christ is yet in the future, it will be in order, in this chapter, to show that there will not only be a general resur- rection in connection with that coming, but also a distinction of character and final separation between the righteous and the wicked. Before adducing any scripture argument, it will be proper to state the views of Universalist au- thors touching the doctrine of the resurrection. On page 210 Mr. Thayer says, " The resurrection is a moral and spiritual change — the anastasis or raising up of the soul." On page 211 he says, *'But it seems obvious that the language quoted (I. Corinthians, xv.) has to do with more than the body ; that it takes in the anastasis^ or upraising, into a higher life of the whole being." On page 219 he says, " Of course, * * * the resurrec- tion has to do with more than the body." On CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 219 page 224 he says, " All the dead will be holy in the resurrection." On page 231 he says, "And through this resurrection change, this uplifting into the image of God, all must pass alike, differ- ing only in degrees; saint and sinner, believer and unbeliever, Christian and pagan." On page 233 he says, "We have already indicated, with suf- ficient clearness for the intelligent reader, the spiritual characters of the agencies and processes by which the soul is to be raised up and redeemed in the resurrection." If it were necessary we could extend these quotations much further. But these will suffice to show the exact views of Universalist authors. (1.) They teach that the resurrection means more than the resurrection of the body — it means the resurrection of the soul. (2.) That all will need a spiritual change in the resurrection. (3.) That all will be made holy in the resurrection. The resurrection means more than the resurrection of the body. It is a moral and spiritual change — it means the raising up of the soul. This would most certainly imply that the soul dies with the body. Elsewhere this same author teaches that the soul does not die with the body. On page 234-5 he says, "The Savior never abandons the soul. He follows it in this world and into all the worlds beyondy * * * till it is found and restored." 220 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION On page 229 he says, "Christ saves men after death by the same means and in the same way as before death." I shall not pretend to harmonize these statements, I only give them to show how flatly Universalism contradicts itself. The particular point to settle in this connection is whether the resurrection implies and includes anything more than the resurrection of the body. "Webster defines the word resurrection thus. It comes from two words, re-again, and surgere, to rise, — to rise again. "When applied to the dead, it can only mean the living again of that which died. Nothing more will be raised up than went down. Kow, unless it can be shown that the soul is mortal and dies with the body, it can never be established that the resurrection means more than the raising up of the body. ITothing will be raised up but that which went down. It is difficult to tell just what Universalist authors do teach. As has been shown, they claim that the resurrection means the raising up of the soul ; and as has also been shown, they teach that Christ follows the soul after death until it is found and restored. Both these theories can not be true. All will need a spiritual change in the resurrection. This they boldly affirm. Mr. G uild, page 334, says, " Natural death is the result of a mortal consti- tution, which every man has. Moral death is the CAllEFULLY EXAMINED. 221 result of sill, which every man commits. "Well, as in the earthy man (Adam) all die physically and morally, even so in Christ shall all be made alive physically and morally. * * * The change to be effected by the resurrection is something more than a mere physical change." Mr. Thayer, on pages 218 and 219, teaches that the resurrection is a moral and spiritual change. This leads to the in- quiry whether the resurrection is to be effected by the exertion of physical or of moral power, i^ow, I affirm that the resurrection of the body will be effected by the mere physical power of God. An- other question. Can the exertion of such power change tho moral nature of the soul? Holiness implies love to God and man; ''it belongs exclu- sively to the affections of the mind;" and the ex- ertion of physical power over the body can never produce such a change. " There is no principle either of philosophy or theology upon which such a doctrine can be based." There is only one basis upon which such a doctrine can rest, and that is, that the soul is mortal and dies with the body. ISTothing will be raised up in the resurrection but that which dies, and nothing will be changed by the resurrection but that which is raised up. Paul speaks of raising up the body; the mortal of putting on immortality; the corrupt of putting on the incorruptible; of changing the vile body; 222 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION but nowhere is it said, or even intimated, that anything more than the body will be raised up and changed. Another curious fact is that Mr. Thayer, on page 231, declares that all, saint and sinner, the believer and the unbeliever, must pass through this resurrection change alike. A Christian in the resurrection will be no better than an infidel or atheist. Whether a man dies in Christ or dies in sin, there will be no difference. It would certainly be interesting to know something about the con- dition of the soul between the death and resurrec- tion of the body. If all will need a spiritual change in the resurrection; if saint and sinner, believer and unbeliever, must pass alike through this change, then no soul is fit to enter heaven, and will not be until the resurrection. Where, then, is the soul? It is not and can not be in heaven, for it is not yet fitted for that place; it can not be in hell, for Universalists say there is no such place. Perhaps Mr. Thayer can answer this question. On pages 234 and 235 he says, " The Savior never abandons the soul. * * ^ He follows it in this world and into all worlds beyond, as a Guide, and Teacher, and Redeemer, till it is found and restored." Here, then, we have the answer : the Savior is after the soul, chasing it from one world to another, and will keep on chasinej it until it is found and re- CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 223 stored. But suppose the Savior should happen to come up to one of these souls, what would he do with it? He could not restore it till the resurrec- tion — for all must pass alike through this resurrec- tion. We will now take up the third proposition, which is this, All mankind will be made holy in the resurrection. In opposition to this theory we have stated, and shall aim to prove, that there will be a distinction of moral character in the resurrection. To settle this important and solemn question, we shall appeal directly to the word of God. It will not be necessary to examine all the passages that bear on this question, only a few of the principal ones. " And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." (Daniel xii. 2.) Mr. Thayer, on pages 334 and 335, refers this passage to the destruction of Jerusalem, at which time the old dispensation of the law should be abol- ished. Mr. Guild, pages 118 and 120, refers it to the same thing. Mr. Balfour substantially teaches the same theory. Of course, every passage in the Old and New Testament that seems to teach the idea of judgment in the future must refer to the destruction of Jerusalem. Sleeping in the dust, 224 UNIVERSAL IIESTOIIATIOISI according to these divines, means only sjnritual sloth, indifferencey ignorance^ and unbelief. Then those who sleep in the dust of sloth, ignorance, and unbelief are to come forth. What to ? " To shame and everlasting contempt." Did anything like this occur at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem? Who came forth at that time to shame and contempt? And who came forth to everlasting life ? Mark the language. It was not only those who came forth to everlasting shame and contempt, that had been sleeping in the dust, but all who came forth had been sleeping there. Hence it will not do to say that sleeping in the dust of the earth means ignorance and unbelief. They all came forth from that state or condition, — some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. It is not possible to con- cieve how those who were sleeping in the' dust of ignorance, unbelief, and sin should come forth from that state of spiritual death to shame and contempt. But it is objected that this text should be appli- ed to a future general judgment, because Daniel says, "many that sleep in the dust shall come forth." But this word many is used in other passages to mean all. " The Son of man is come to give his life a ransom for manyJ^ (Matthew XX. 28.) For how many ? Paul says that Christ CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 225 gave himself a ransom for all.'^ (I. Timoth}' ii. 6.) But no doubt there was in the mind of Daniel a better reason for using the word many. *'A11 do not sleep in the dust of the earth, and will not at the time of Christ's second coming, and the prophet had his eye fixed upon a world full of living inhabitants who will not be raised but changed, and applied the word many to all the dead to distinguish them from the living." This text can not be explained to mean a first resurrection, because there is such a manifest dis- tinction of character. It can not mean a moral or spiritual resurrection for the very same reason. It must therefore be explained to mean a future, general resurrection. The context and concluding verse of the chapter confirm this view, "And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to right- eousness, as the stars forever and ever." Add to this the last verse, which is addressed to Daniel : " But go jthou thy way till the end be; for thou shalt rest and stand in thy lot at the end of the days." This proves that the resurrection spoken of in the second verse was to be literal, and was yet in the future, and that Daniel was to be pres- ent and stand in his lot. When ? " At th-e erid of the days^ Was Daniel present, and did he stand in his lot at the destruction of Jerusalem ? In this 15 226 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION text we have positive proof that there will be a distinction of character in the resurrection. " But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind : and thou shalt be blessed; for they can not recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just." (Luke xiv. 13, 14.) Two facts are clearly set forth in this passage. (1.) The resurrection was yet in the future. (2.) There would be two classes in the resurrection. The '^ resurrection of the just" most certainly implies that some will not be considered just. If all are to be raised alike, it would have been enough if the Savior had said, ''Thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrec- tion." Why add "o/ the just" if all are to fare alike? To confirm this opinion, we will take the language of Paul, "And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust" (Acts xxiv. 15.) Here is a most positive declaration that the apostle believed in the resur- rection ; that in this respect he differed not a whit from the Pharisees. He believed there would be a resurrection, — not lias been, not now S^oing on, but '-''shall he" — and that this resurrec- tion 19 to be general, "a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust." Here are two characters, just and unjust. Now if all are to CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 227 be made holy in the resurrection, why this dis- tinction of character? But Universalists say that the apostle would have been cruel to hope for the resurrection of the unjust. Paul hoped for the resurrection not because the unjust would be raised, but notwithstanding their resurrection. We hope for the spread of the gospel of truth, not because wicked men who reject it will be con- demned, but notwithstanding their condemnation. The idea of the resurrection of the dead is in it- self a most glorious doctrine. " The dead in Christ shall arise first." (I. Thes- salonians iv. 13-17.) In these verses, only a part of which is here quoted, we have the fact stated that "the Lord himself shall descend from heaven," that the dead in Christ shall be raised first, and the living changed. The apostle affirms that those who are alive at the time of Christ's coming shall not prevent (go before) them which are asleep. By those which are asleep the dead are meant. The point most important to con- sider in this connection is what the apostle meant by the dead in Christ, and their rising first. John says, " I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord." (Rev. xiv. 13.) Who are those that die in the Lord? Are they not such, and such only, as live in the Lord? Will such as live out 228 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION of Christ die in Christ? One of two things must be true : either all men live in Christ, and when they die they die in him, or else those who live out of Christ must die out of Christ. The first supposition can not be true, for all men are not in Christ. Then the second supposition must be true, which is that those who live out of Christ will die out of Christ. Mr. Thayer, page 205, says that many die in ignorance, unbelief, and sin. This is an admission that many die out of Christ. Now mark, the Bible teaches that a man may be in Christ while living ; he may die in Christ, and sleep in Jesus. Then comes in the declara- tion of Paul, " The dead in Christ shall rise first." Why say the dead in Christ shall rise first, if there be no dead out of Christ V It is perfectly clear that two characters are contemplated in this text, the dead in Christ and the dead out of Christ. But Universalists teach that all will be raised in Christ, no matter how they die. Paul might fight and run and press and icrestle, and finally be behead- ed for Christ's sake. But what of it? It will amount to nothing in the end. The man who murders his fellow-being in cold blood, and the next moment kills himself, will be just as well oiF in the resurrection as Paul. This puts religion at a very low price. " And this is the will of him that sent me, that CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 229 every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last dayJ' (John vi. 40.) Why say that he may have everlasting life ? And why say that he shall be raised up at the last day, when all are alike to be raised up at the last day? But it will be proper to notice that Christ fixes the judg- ment of unbelievers upon this same last day. Hear his words. " He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him : the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day^ (John xii. 48.) Here are two characters. The one receives Christ, and the other rejects him. Both are to be present at the las:t day. There is a distinction now between the believer and the unbeliever — so shall it be in the last day. I now invite special attention to a very im- portant passage. " Marvel not at this : for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." (John v. 28, 29.) Mr. Guild, on page 220, says that Christ had no allusion to a literal resurrection, but a resurrection from moral death. Mr. Thayer, on page 330, says that the Savior is speaking of a moral or spiritual rcsur- 230 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION rection, and not of a literal, — a resurrection from ignorance, unbelief , and spiritual darkness. Let us examine this carefully. In the twenty -fifth verse Christ says, "Verily, verily, I say unto you. The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live J ^ Three kinds of death are spoken of in the Scriptures, natural, spiritual, and eternal. In the twenty-fifth verse the Savior is speaking of a spiritual resurrection, which seemed to have surprised the persons about him very much, as Nicodemus was surprised when our Lord taught him the doctrine of the new birth. The Savior seeing this, said, " Marvel not at this :"— do not wonder at this — "for the hour is coming," — he does not say, as in the twenty-fifth verse, that it now is, but it is coming, — "in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth." The word graves occurs in Matthew xxvii. 52, 53. "And the graves w^ere opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." The same language is used as in the passage now under review; they "came out of the graves." No one, so far as I know, denies that a literal resurrection is re- ferred to in Matthew xxvii. But let us suppose CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 231 for a moment that the resurrection referred to by Christ in John v. 28 was a moral, or spiritual res- urrection. The graves mean graves of ignorance, unbelief, and spiritual darkness. Then the passage would read, " They that have done good, in the graves of ignorance, unbelief, and spiritual dark- 7iess, shall come forth unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, in the graves of ignorance, unbelief, and spiritual darkness, shall come forth unto the resurrection of damnation." What kind of resurrection is that which is unto damnation ? Men who are dead in sin arc to be raised to damnation. This is what Universalists call a moral or spiritual resurrection. If the doctrine of a literal resurrection is tauo-ht anywhere in the Bible, it is taught in John v. 28, 29. IS'o language could be more specific. The reference is to those that are literally dead. They shall come forth ; some to life, and some to con- demnation. Those who are morally dead, and in the graves of ignorance and unbelief, are already condemned. What is the nature of that moral or spiritual resurrection which is from condemnation to condemnation? "What utter nonsense Uni- versalism makes of God's word.'* It is impossible to make any sense out of this passage, unless you apply it to a future general resurrection, and a man- ifest distinction of character in that resurrection. 232 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION "If by any means I might attain unto the resur- rection of the dead/' (Philippians iii. 11.) Paul had suffered almost everything for the hope of the resurrection. He had counted all things loss for Christ's sake. lie had run and pressed and fought and suffered. What for ? " If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.'* Kow if all are to fare alike in the resurrection, if there is to be no distinction of character, what could have induced the apostle to suffer and worry himself about it as he did? If a Universalist had been with Paul, he would have told him doubtless that he was making a complete fool of himself. He might worry and work and suffer as he pleased, it would not make the matter any better, nor any worse. As to the resurrection, he would attain to that anyhow, and have no better charac- ter than those who persecuted him. Can any one believe that Paul was a Universalist? Compare this passage with Hebrews xi. 35. Here it is de- clared that believers endured the most terrible persecution, " not accepting deliverance ; that they might obtain a better resurrection. They had in their mind a better resurrection." What is implied in the idea of a better resurrection, if there is to be no distinction of character in the resurrection? If all are to be raised alike, what need was there of suffering as they did in order to obtain a better CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 233 resurrection ? The obvious meaning of the passage is this : they sought, by faith and obedience, to obtain a better resurrection than they could or would attain to if they lived and died in sin. But Universalists say there is no better resurrection ; it will all be the same; saint and sinner, believer and unbeliever, will obtain the same resurrection. I shall examine but one more passage in this connection. " But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead." (Luke xx. 35.) There is no mistake as to the subject-matter under consider- ation. It related to a literal resurrection. There came to Jesus certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection, and proposed to him a question. There was a woman that had seven husbands. All died; and last of all, the woman died. I^ow the question was, " In the resurrection, whose wife shall she be?" The Savior told them they erred, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. They supposed that if there would be a resurrection, the same relations would exist in^that state that existed here. But Jesus said, " They which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are equal unto the angels." Universalists themselves admit that a literal resurrection is the subject- 234 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION matter referred to in this passage. Then the only point to settle is what the Savior meant by the term worthy. On page 324 Mr. Guild expresses the opinion that the word worthy refers to the different degrees of value which are to be attached to the different orders of God's animal creation; that is, Jesus used the word worthy to show that mankind is of more value than birds and beasts. But unfortunately for Mr. Guild's theory, there is nothing said in this whole connection about birds and beasts. Jesus is talking to the Sadducees about the resurrection. There is nothing in the connection that can be construed into a compari- son of value between mankind and birds and beasts. In looking over the theology of Univers- alism, I have met with a good many extravagant things, but nothing more extravagant and ridicu- lous than this. The Savior is anowering an ob- jection raised by the Sadducees against the doc- trine of the resurrection of the body. What had birds and beasts to do with that? Jesus said, *'But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead." If the Savior had been a Universalist, he never would have used such language. He would have said, "But in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but all mankind shall be equal unto the angels." But he said not CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 235 SO. Only those which shall be accounted worthy shall be equal unto the angels. The comparison relates to character, and teaches as plainly as language can teach anything, that some will not be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and this particular resurrection from the dead. In closing this chapter it will be proper to state clearly and distinctly the point of difierence. Universalists claim that all mankind will be made holy in the resurrection. In opposition to this theory I have presented a number of scripture arguments, to show that there will be a distinction of character in the resurrection, such, for in- stance, as these: " Some shall awake to life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." '' Ye shall be recompensed at the resurrection of the just." " There shall be a resurrection, both of the just and unjust." " The dead in Christ shall rise first." " They that have done good, unto the res- urrection of life, and they which have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." " A better resurrection." "They which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world and the resurrection." Do the Scriptures teach that infidels, atheists, blasphemers, unbelievers, thieves, and robbers will have part in the first resurrection? Do they im- pliedly teach that such persons who die as they live, die in sin and unbelief, will be accounted 236 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION worthy to obtain that world and the resurrection . Do the Scriptures teach that the power of God, exerted iu the resurrection of the body, will change the moral character of the soul? The Scriptures do most emphatically teach that the '^ Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him." " All nations shall be gathered before him." And He shall separate them one from another, llie wicked shall go away into everlasting punishment, and the righteous into life eternal. CABEFULLY EXAMINED. 237 CHAPTER XIV. A FUTURE GENERAL JUDGMENT. Having proved in the preceding chapters, from plain, unambiguous passages of scripture, that the second coming of Christ is yet in the future, and that there will be a distinction of character in the resurrection, we are prepared to examine the word of God touching the judgment of the last day. If it were necessary, we might spend some time in arguing on the reasonableness of and the necessity for a future general judgment. But we shall ap- peal at once to the word of God. It may be neces- sary to state, before producing any scripture proof, that Universalist authors deny the doctrine of a future general judgment. On page 255 Mr. Thayer says, "The gospel- day, or the period of Christ's reign, is the judg- ment-day in which every one is rewarded accord- ing to what he does, whether good or bad." On page 259 he says, " The judgment is spiritual and not literal; or, in other words, it is by the truth, by the gospel, and not in person." According to 238 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION this author the judgmeut-day is the day of Christ's spiritual reign; it is not literal, nor in person. And during this day every one is fully punished for all the evil he did, and fully rewarded for all the good he did. On page 274 he says, "The thing done is our reward or our punishment, our heaven or our hell." On page 275 he says, " The thing done is its own reward, there is no other." Paul, poor fellow, did not think so. Hear his words : " I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith : henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing," If there were not another passage in the Bible to prove a future judgment and a future retribution, this would be sufiicient. Paul looked for a crown. From whom? The Lord, the righteous judge. When? At that day. Not now ; not in this world, but hence- forth ; at that day. And not to him only, but unto all them that love his appearing. But Mr. Thayer says every man finds his heaven or his hell in what lie does; no man is rewarded in the future for what he does here. But Paul had the crown in view. It was laid up, but not in possession, and CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 239 would not be until that day. "Was this the gospel- day V Surely not, for Paul was then living in the gospel-day. It was in the future ; it was the day of judgment. Mr. Guild, on page 184, says, '' The judgment is under Christ, and confined to his kingdom on earth. Mankind are judged and awarded in strict accordance with their merit or demerit. This judgment is confined to the gospel kingdom on earth, — it is the last judgment, — it precedes the resurrection, and will have been closed at the res- urrection of the dead." When speaking of the time and place of the judgment he says, page 185, "The Scriptures conclusively show that it is in the earth, on the earth, under the sun, confined to earth and the life of man." This will suffice to show that Universalists teach that the judgment is confined to this world, and that when men die they are fully rewarded for all the good they did, and fully punished for all the evil they did. If this be true, men are neither saints nor sinners when they die. When they go into the future world they are not responsible for anything they did while here, and hence must be as destitute of character as the beast that perishes. Yet Univers- alist authors say that all men will need a moral or spiritual change in the resurrection. What need of such a change if all men are judged and awarded 240 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION here on earth V Such a change is not only not necessary, but absohitely impossible on the hy- pothesis that all men are fully awarded on earth. On the doctrine of a future general judgment, I shall in the first place invite attention to several passages that speak of the judgment as yet in the future. The word of God must guide us in this investigation. "For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.'' (Ecclesiastes xii. 14.) This is a plain text, and declares what God shall do; not what he has done, nor what he was then doing, but what he would do in the future. The all-wise and heart-searching God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good or evil. I^ow, if in this life men do exert an influence for evil or for good, and if that influence continues after they are dead, which it seems to me no man of common sense will deny, then will appear the necessity of a future judgment. How will God bring every work into judgment during a man's life, when much of that work is accomplished after he is dead? Tom Paine's "Age of Reason" did vastly more to turn men away from Christ after the death of the author than it did before. One of three things must be true : either, 1st, man is not responsible for his influence; or, 2d, his influence dies with CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 241 him; or, 3d, there must be a future general judg- ment, when God will bring every work, with every secret thing, before him. "For we must all appear before the judgment- seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it he good or bad." (II. Corinthians V. 10.) It would have been impossible for Paul, or any other man, whether inspired or uninspired, to have employed words that would more fully and clearly express the idea of a future general judgment. Men may quibble as they please ; there it stands. " We must all appear before the judgment- seat of Christ.^' The apostle is not speaking of what had been, nor of what was then transpiring, but of something yet future. And when they appear every one, each individual, shall receive according to what he had done in the body, whether it be good or bad. " The soul," says Dr. Clarke, "is the grand agent; the body is but its instrument. And it [the soul] shall receive ac- cording to what it has done in the body.'' " But why dost thou judge thy brother ? or why dost thou set at naught thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ." (Romans xiv. 10.) Paul is reasoning against the practice of judging and condemning each other, and assigns as a reason why we should not, by the 16 242 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION solemn statement that we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ. He does not say that all have stood there, or that all do now stand there, but he declares that they shall stand there. And in the twelfth verse he adds, " So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God." The judgment will not only be general, but particular. All shall stand before the judgment-seat of Christ; but every one shall give account of himself to God. All the evangelical churches in the land be- lieve in the doctrine of a future general judgment. Examine their confessions of faith, and you will not find in any one of them where this doctrine is more clearly and forcibly taught than in these scriptures. The Scriptures not only speak of the judgment as yet in the future, but fix it at a set time. '^ He hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in rightousness by that man whom he hath ordained." (Acts xvii. 31.) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ." (Romans ii. 16.) "The judgment of the great day." (Jude 6.) "The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptation, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punish- ed." (II. Peter ii. 9.) "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him : the word that I have spoken, the same shall CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 243 judge him in the last day^ (John xii. 48.) In these passages we have, "the day of judgment,'* " the day when God shall judge the secrets of men," "the judgment of the great day^'' and the judg- ment of the " last day." l^ow if you will connect these passages with those already examined, which speak of the judgment as being yet future, you will see a remarkable similarity. These texts that fix the judgment at a set time teach that it is yet future. Kow if Paul had said that God hath appointed ''this day, or these days," in- stead of " a day," and " the day," and if Jude had said "this day" instead of "the great day," and if Jesus had said "the word that I have spoken" is judging men in this day, instead of saying "it shall judge him in the last day," then Universalism might have claimed some support from these texts ; but as it is, they are all against it. But Universal- ists urge that the words "a day," "the day," "the last day," and " the last great day," are not suffi- ciently specific to prove the doctrine of a future judgment. Then you are referred to Luke x. 12, T. Thessalonians v. 4, and II. Timothy iv. 8, where the day of judgment is spoken of as "that day." If Christ and the apostles were all Universalists, how shall we account for the language they em- ployed? ' In what other language could tliey have more clearly and forcibly taught the doctrine of a 244 UNIVERSAL llESTORATION future general judgment? It is proper to observe, further, that they were addressing a people who very generally believed in such an event. This will appear by the following extract from the discourse of Josephus concerning hades: "All men, the just as well as the unjust, shall be brought before God the word, for to him hath the Father committed all judgment* This person, ex- ercising a righteous judgment of the Father to- ward all men, hath prepared a just sentence for every one according to his work; at whose judg- ment-seat, where all men, and angels, and demons shall stand ; they will send forth one voice and say. Just is the judgment." The question concerning the opinion of Josephus is not whether he was cor- rect in his belief in a future general judgment. The point is this : Josephus expressed what was the general opinion of the people at that day, and has been ever since. ]^ow that Christ and the apostles, knowing that this was the general opinion, should have almost constantly employed language and terms which they must have known would be in- terpreted to mean a future general judgment, is perfectly unaccountable — especicdly if they ivere all Universalists. The Scriptures not only teach, in plain words and phrases, that the judgment is yet in the future, and at a set time, but they also show CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 245 that the judgment of former generations is yet to come. " It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city." (Matthew x. 15.) ''But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city." (Luke x. 12.) " And thou, Capernaum, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee." (Matt. xi. 23, 24.) "The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with the men of this generation, and condemn them. The men of ITineveh shall rise up in the judgment, and shall condemn it." (Luke xi. 31, 32.) I^ow observe that Christ does not say that it was or is more tolerable for those cities than for those to whom he was then speaking, but it shall be. And when does Christ say it shall be ? In the day of judgment — in that day. The plain meaning of these passages is this: the judgment of all nations is yet in the future ; and when that day shall come it will be more tolerable for the Sodomites than for those who had heard and rejected Christ. All men shall receive according to what they have done, and according to what their privileges have been. If those who live in the light of the gospel and refuse to accept Christ, their condemnation will be greater than those 246 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION whose advantages were less. This is clearly im- plied in such passages as this : " For if the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every trans- gression and disobedience received a just recom- pense of reward; how shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation?" (Hebrews ii. 2, 3.) "If they," says Dr. Clarke, " who had fewer privileges than we have, to whom God spoke in divers man-^ ners, by angels and prophets, fell under the dis- pleasure of their Maker, * * * how shall we escape wrath to the uttermost if we neglect the salvation provided for us." Did the Sodomites es- cape V Jude says, verse 7, that they are " suffering the vengeance of eternal lire." Awful as the pun- ishment of the Sodomites is, yet Jesus says it shall be more tolerable for them in the day of judg- ment than for those to whom and of whom he was then speaking. It is further stated in the passages quoted, that the queen of the south, and the men of ITineveh, shall rise up with those that saw and heard the Son of God, and condemn them. But if there is no future general judgment, how can this be? The Ninevites lived more than eight hundred years before Christ. How then could they rise up and condemn them in his day? And Christ himself puts it still in the future. '''It shall beJ' ^ot has been, not now is, but it shall be in that day. CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 247 Moreover it is said, " They shall rise up with this generation — at the same time." This not only puts the judgment in the future, but after the resurrection — after this rising up. There has never heen an event since the days of Christ to which these passages can with any degree of propriety be applied. Add to these passages the language of Paulas he stood before Felix, and "reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come," and you will have, in as clear a manner as language can express it, the facts of a future general judgment. It should not for a moment be forgotten that the prevailing opinion among the Jews was that there would be a future general judgment. Christ and the apostles knew this, and constantly used language and employed illustra- tions which they must have known would be in- terpreted to mean a judgment still in the future. Now if the doctrine of a future general judgment is not true, we are forced to conclude that both Christ and the apostles intentionally deceived the people. I know of no words, in any language under the heavens, that would more clearly and more forcibly, teach the doctrine of a future gen- eral judgment than those used by the sacred writers. The Christian fathers, and nearly all the theolo- gians and Bible students, from the days of the last apostle until now, have understood the word of 248 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION God to teach the doctrine of a judgment yet to come. !N"ext in order we will examine a few of the many passages that speak of the judgment after death. "And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was or- dained of God to be th^ Judge of quick and dead." (Acts X. 42.) " I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his king- dom." (II. Timothy iv. 1.) " Who shall give ac- count to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead." (I. Peter iv. 5.) Christ is to judge the quick and the dead. By the terms quick and dead we are to understand: (1.) "All that had lived from the foundation of the world till that time, and all that were then alive. (2.) All that should be found alive at the day of judgment, as well as all that had died previously." This judgment is to occur at the time of his coming. Paul speaks of some who will be living at the time of Christ's coming, and some that will be dead. But the dead shall be raised up. They shall come forth, some to life, and some to condemnation. All shall be judged, the quick and the dead. " For we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ;" — those that shall be found alive, and all that had died If this is not the meaning of these passages, then CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 249 what is meant by judging the quick and the dead ? " When the Son of man shall come in his glory and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory : and before him shall be gathered all nations." (Matthew xxv. 31, 32.) Was there ever a time in the past when all nations were gathered before the Son of man? At what time in the past did the Son of man come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him? If these things have not occurred, they are yet in the future. The Son of man must yet come ; all nations must yet stand before him ; the quick and the dead must yet be judged. To a Christian who is earnestly seeking to obey the gospel of Jesus Christ, these are interesting passages. How it must have thrilled the hearts of the Galileans when the angel said. This same Jesus shall come again in like manner as ye see him ascend into heaven. He shall come, and all his holy angels with him ; and before him shall be gathered all nations, that every man may be judged according to the things done in the body, whether they be good or bad. "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many." (Heb. ix. 27.) Universalists contend that tois aiUhroj^ois, mstead of being translated meUj should have been translated 250 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION these men, or those men. But, unfortunately, that word is not so translated anywhere in the Bible. Tois is an article, and is never translated these or those. Their object in claiming this translation is to make it apply to the Jewish high-priests. Their rendering of the passage in substance would be this. The Jewish high-priests went into the holiest of holies, and died tyjncally, and after this came out and blessed the people. E"ow if the dying here spoken of was ligurative, then the offering of Christ was ligurative also. Mark well the lan- guage of the text — '' as it is appointed unto men once to die. * * ^ So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many." As surely as the death of Christ was literal, so surely is the death to which men are appointed literal. But they still have another way of disposing of this troublesome text. They hold that the words '^ after this the judgment,^^ means that after this appointment men shall be judged. The judgment comes before men die. They are appointed to die, then during their lives they are judged, and then die after the judgment. Let us test this curious rendering. " It is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the resurrection." Would any man suppose that the resurrection came before death? There would be just as much reason in claiming that the resurrection came before death CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 251 as to claim that tlie judgment came before death. There is no way of avoiding the force of this text. It is plain and pointed. "It iS appointed unto men once to die." God said, '''■Dust thou art, and unto dust t/iou shalt return.'^ This is the divine decree. They shall die but once, and be judged but once; and as surely as men die, so surely shall they be judged after they die. " Christ was once ottered" — not figuratively, but literally ; he died for our sins, according to the Scriptures. But he shall come again a second time without sin; that is, loithout a sln-offerinc). He shall come without, sin unto salvation. This is a blessed promise. He shall come to deliver the bodies of his saints from the power and dominion of death. He shall come in his glory; he shall come literally; and all nations shall stand before him. "It is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment." "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of these things which were written in the books, according to their works." (Revelation xx. 12.) "J'Ae dead, small and greats All the dead, of every nation and of every age. The sea and death and hell gave up the dead that were in them. How exactly this accords with the language of Paul, in Romans 252 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION xiv. 10. "For we shall all stand before the judg- ment-seat of Christ." This general gathering be- fore the judgmeht-seat of Christ can not, in the nature of things, occur until after the resurrection of the body. When all shall stand before God, all nations, then the books will be opened, the book of life and the book of death ; and they shall be judged out of those things which were written in the books. You may search the history of the past from the early morning of time unto this day, and you will find nothing that will answer to this description. John saw it, but it was yet in the future. He saw also that those whose names were not written in the book of life were cast into the lake of fire. '' This is the second death." But in the face of this and many other similar passages, Universalists rise up and declare that the Bible nowhere teaches the doctrine of a future general judgment. The doctrine of a future heaven, and of the resurrection of the dead, is nowhere in God's book more plainly taught than is the doc- trine of a future general judgment. In this chapter we have presented four distinct arguments in favor of the doctrine of a future general judgment. These arguments have not been based upon the mere opinions of men, but upon the plain word of God. (1.) It has been shown from a number of ims- CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 253 sages that the judgment is yet in the future. It shall he. ]N"ot now is, not h^s been, but shall be. ^'God shall bring every work into judgment." '' We shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ." "We must all appear before the judg- ment-seat of Christ." "I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God." (2.) It has been shown that the Scriptures fix the judgment at a set time. "He hath apj^ointed a day in the which he will judge the world." " In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men." "The judgment of the great day." "Unto the day of judgment." " The last day." "That day." (3.) Several passages were introduced which teach that the judgment of former generations is yet in the future. The Sodomites, the ITinevites, and the Queen of the South are to rise up in the judgment and condemn those to whom Christ preached, although they had lived and died hun- dreds of years before he uttered these words. How can these words of the Master be fulfilled, if there is no future general judgment? (4.) It has been shown that the Scriptures war- rant us in the belief that the judgment is after death, and connected with the second coming of Christ. He is to j udge the quick and the dead at his appearing. All nations are to be gathered before him. The dead, small and great, are to stand be- 254 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION fore him. " It is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment." Beyond this day of judgment there is no proba- tion. All nations are to stand before the judge of quick and dead. They are to be judged every one according to his works, whether they be good or bad. And all whose names are not found in the book of life shall be cast into the lake of fire. " The fearful, and unbelieving, and abomi- nable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone : which is the second death." But of the pure and good it is said, ''God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes." Reader, let no man deceive you. There is a judgment yet to come. God hath appointed a day in the which he will judge all men. And when that day shall come, as come it will, then shall every man under- stand the force of that scripture which says, "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 255 CHAPTER XV. THE RIGHTEOUS AND THE WICKED SEPARATED AT THE DAY OF JUDGMENT. In the three preceding chapters the following points have been carefully considered and estab- lished: Eirst. That the second coming of Christ is yet in the future. Second. There will be a manifest distinction of character in the resurrec- tion. Third. At the time of Christ's coming he will judge the world. This will lead us to the consideration of another very important and sol- emn subject, which is this: that as there will be a distinction of character in the resurrection, so there will be a separation of character at the time of the judgment. Universalists hold that all men will be made holy in the resurrection. No matter when they died, nor how, they w^ill be made holy in the end. They do not tell us how this is to be done, they only affirm that the resurrection means something more than the raising up of the body. They give no philosophical reason for their belief, nor can they produce a single passage of scripture to prove 256 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION it; they simply affirm it, and that too in the face of plain, unambiguous passages of scripture, which teach the very opposite of what they say they believe. It is very strange how men who profess to believe the Bible to be the word of God can work themselves up into the belief that all men shall come forth unto the resurrection of life and fare exactly the same in the world to come. The Scriptures teach plainly and positively that there shall be a resurrection, both of the just and the un- just; that those who have done good shall come forth unto the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation. But Universalists affirm that all men of every character, men of low degree and of high degree, infidels, skeptics, atheists, thieves, liars, murderers, and drunkards, who died as they lived, will all come forth to the resurrection of life. We will now turn to a few of the many passages of scripture which teach that at the time of the judgment there will be a separation between the righteous and the wicked. "And before him shall be gathered all nations : and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats." Matt. xxv. 32. This passage, with what follows, can not refer to the de- struction of Jerusalem for the following reasons : 1. All nations were not gathered before Christ at CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 257 the destruction of Jerusalem. 2. The good and bad were not separated at that time. The Jews were overthrown and scattered among all nations, but there was nothing approaching a separation between the righteous and the wicked. , In verse 34 we have the King's address to those on his right hand. This, you will observe, is after the separation. ^'Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." Who were the right- eous at the destruction of Jerusalem to whom the Son of man addressed these words, and into what kingdom did they go ? Those on the right hand were not only to go into this kingdom, but they were to inherit it. This evidently implies that they were heirs, — children of the family, — and as such had a right to the estate. It is further stated that this kingdom was prepared for them. Pre- pared for who? Answer. The righteous, those on the right hand, the blessed of the Father. " Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." " The saints of the Most High shall take the kingdom and possess it forever and ever." l^ow if these things did not occur at the destruc- tion of Jerusalem, we must look to the future for their fulfillment. The Son of man will come. All nations shall be gathered before him. lie will ^ separate them one from another. He will say to 17 258 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION those on his right hand, ''Come, ye blessed of my Father." Has this, or anything to which this can he apphed, occurred in the history of the past? In verse 41 we have the King's address to those on his left hand. "Depart from me, ye cursed, in- to '[aionian] everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." Into what everlasting fire did the wicked go at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem ? Where is that place which was pre- pared for the devil and his angels? Was it in or about Jerusalem ? Who and what is represented by the devil and his angels ? Was there anything connected with the destruction of Jerusalem, from first to last, to which this will apply ? If so, what was it? If not, then we must look for its fulfill- ment yet in the future. The time must come when the Son of man will say to those on his left hand, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." In verse 46 we have the final address of the King concerning both parties. " These shall go away into IfcioniaTi] everlasting punishment : but the righteous into life [^aionian'] eternal." This going away is to take place immediately after the separation. Two facts are as clearly taught in this scripture as any facts could be taught by the use of human language: 1. The righteous and OAREi'liLLY EXAMINED. 259 the wicked shall be separated at the day of judg- ment. 2. That separation will be eternal. Dr. Clarke, who is sometimes quoted by TJnivei'- salists as favoring their notions, in commenting on this forty-sixth verse, makes the following remarks : "But some are of opinion that this punishment shall have an end. This is as likely as that the glory of the righteous shall have an end; for the same word is used to express the duration of the punishment, as is used to express the duration of the state of glory. I haVe seen the best things that have been written in favor of the final redemp* tion of damned spirits; but I never saw an an^ swer to the argument against that doctrine, drawn from this verse, but what sound learning and crit- icism should be ashamed to acknowledge." It is not and can not be true that those who continue in sin to the last moment will be made holy in or by death. Death has nothing to do with the moral nature of man. It is not and can not be true that those who live and die in sin will be made holy between the death and the resurrec- tion of the body; for the Scriptures nowhere in- form us that any man will be made holy after death. It is not and can not be true that any man will be made hol}^ in or by the resurrection, for nothing more than the body will be raised up. Inasmuch, therefore, as sin inheres in the moral ^60 UNIVERSAL ilEg1:ORAT10N nature of man, the physical power of God, exert- ed in the raising up of the body, can not change that moral nature. Besides, the Scriptures abun- dantly prove that there will be a manifest distinc- tion of character in the resurrection. Now, as the word of God nowhere informs us that any inan will be made holy after the resurrection, we are forced to the conclusion that there will be a separation between the righteous and the wicked, for nothing unholy or unclean shall ever be ad- mitted into the kingdom of glory. " The pure in heart shall see God." *' He shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats." "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God ; and the books were opened : and anothei* book w^as opened, which is the book of life : and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and th^y were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of tire." (Revelation xx. 12-15.) In these verses the fact of a general judgment is CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 261 clearly taught. The dead, small and great. "All ranks, degrees, and conditions of men." The sea, death, and hell {hades) gave up the dead which were in them; and every man was judged accord- ing to his works. And all whose names were not found written in the book of life were cast into the lake of fire. "This is the second death." In the twenty-first chapter John describes the city of God, into which none shall enter except those whose names are written in the book of life. It will not be impertinent to ask three questions. 1. "Was there ever a time, since the world began, when the dead, small and great, stood before God ? 2. What are we to understand by the two char- acters here represented? 3. Will those whose names were not found written in the book of life fare the same as those whose names were found there V To show, beyond all question, that there will be a separation between the good and the bad, and that all will not enter into the same place, we quote the eighth verse of the twenty-first chapter of Revelation. "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whore- mongers, and sorcerers, and idolators, and all liars, shall have their part." In the city of God? Not so. Where then shall they have their part ? " In the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone : 262 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION which is the second death." This is the word of the Uving God, concerning those whose names were not found written in the hook of life. Just such characters as these have hved, and died as they lived, — in unbelief and sin, — died cursing the name of God. Shall they enter into the city of the great King? Read the twenty-seventh verse. *' And there shall in no wise enter into it anything that delileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomi- nation, or maketh a lie." Who then shall enter this city V " They which are written in the Lamb's book of life." Oh, the city of God, the home of the saints. No death shall be there, nor any more pain. God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes ; and there shall be no more night. " He that over- cometh shall inherit all things : and I will be his God, and he shall be my son." ^'But the fearful and unbelieving shall have their part in the lake of fire." But if Universalism be true, all these abomina- ble characters, such as murderers, thieves, liars, and whoremongers, are to enter into the city of God, all the same as those who " have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." With them it matters nothing wheth- er a man's name is written in the book of life or not. It will all be the same in the resurrection. CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 2G3 This they affirm in the face of all those plain dec- larations of God's word which teach in unmistak- able terms the very opposite. The Scriptures, from beginning to end, keep up a marked distinction between the righteous and the unrighteous. Let us note a few of them. " Say ye to the righteous, that it shall be well with him : for they shall eat the fruit of their doings. Woe unto the wicked ! it shall be ill with him : for the reward of his hands shall be given him." "He that believeth ana is baptized, shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned." "What- soever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption ; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting." "Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord." " The dead in Christ shall rise first." " There shall be a resur- rection, both of the just and unjust." "Shall awak^ some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." "And shall come forth: they that have done good, unto the resur- rection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." "He shall sep- arate them one from another, as a shepherd di- videtli his sheep from the goats." "These shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal." " Whosoever was 264 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION not found written in tlie book of life was cast into the lake of fire." l^otwitlistanding this manifest distinction which is kept np in life, in death, in the resurrection, in the judgment, and beyond the judgment, Univers- alists say that all men, without distinction of char- acter, will fare exactly alike. All will enter the city of God and be crowned as the heirs of glory. I cherish no unkind feeling toward any man, nor would I say an unkind word of those who may differ with me, yet I can not refrain from express- ing my astonishment that men who profess to believe the Bible to be the word of God should, in the face of such plain declarations of scripture, believe and teach the ultimate holiness and salva- tion of all men. It is a fact, which Universalists themselves will not deny, that thousands die in ignorance, unbelief, and sin. This being admit- ted, we turn to the Scriptures to find some word of promise that will warrant us in the belief that such as die in sin will come to Christ after death. But there is no such passage. "They shall go away into everlasting punishment." " They shall not see life." "The wrath of God abideth on them." "They shall be punished with everlasting destruction." " They shall have their part in the lake of fire." 'These and similar passages may be found all through God's word, but not a sin- CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 2G5 gle passage whicli teaches that any who die in sin will be saved after death. The doctrine of Universalism, whatever the pur- pose of its advocates may be, is well calculated to lead men to ruin. The carnal mind is enmity against God. Men are more inclined to do evil than to do good. This is manifest from what we see around us in every-day life. Universalism comes in and proclaims to all men, of every de- gree and character^ "You shall ultimately be holy and happy, no matter how you live nor how you die. You may cheat and lie and steal and rob and murder, and at last, when you are tired of living, you may cut your throat and then go away to the home of the saints." Does not this give license to men to follow the natural inclinations of their car- nal mind? But do not Universalists teach that men are punished in this world for all the evil they do ? Yes ; but what do men whose conscience is seared with a hot iron care for this? What does that rum-seller, whose heart can no longer be moved by the piteous pleadings and tears of that heart-broken wife and mother, care for all the punishment he can feel in this life? He will take the last penny from his customer, and then send him to his wife and children more like a demon than a man. What does he care? If Univers- alism be true, he will be as happy in the resur- 266 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION rectiou as the most devout Christian that ever lived. Once more : If Universalism be true, it makes the Bible an unmeaning book. Instead of being a light to guide men, it has led astray nhie tenths of the best Christians that ever lived. The most de- voted students of the Bible for these eighteen hun- dred years have been led astray. The number, learning, and piety of those who reject the doctrine of Universalism, when compared with the number, learning, and piety of those who embrace it, is at least a presumptive argument against it. The hour is near at hand when all deception will van- ish like smoke. In that dread hour we shall be able to " discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not." " Can a rational, immortal man peril his safety upon a foundation that must fail in the day of trial ? " But there is safety in Jesus Christ. There is redemption in his blood. " Whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life." CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 267 CHAPTER XVI. THE FUTURE STATE OF THE WICKED. Before entering directly upon any scriptural ar- gument concerning the final destiny of the wicked, it may be well enough to state in order the points established in the four preceding chapters. 1. The fact that Christ's second coming is yet in the fu- ture was established by a number of plain and une- quivocal passages of scripture. 2. There will be a manifest distinction of character in the resurrec- tion. 3. It was proved by many plain, unambig- uous texts of scripture that there will be a future general judgment. 4. That the righteous and the wicked will be separated at the time of the judg- ment. These four points being established, we are prepared to examine those scriptures which treat of the future destiny of the wicked. The ques- tion to be considered now is this. Do the Scriptures teach that the punishment of sinners will be end- less? It has been shown that Universalist authors themselves admit that vast numbers die in unbe- belief and sin. It would be fatal to Universalism to deny this, and it is none the less fatal to admit 268 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION it. But having admitted what they dare not deny, it devolves upon them to produce the scripture to prove that those who die in sin will come to Christ and be saved after death. This they affirm upon their own responsibility; but they have never been able to produce a single text from the Bible to prove it. This argument is of itself sufficient to prove the endless punishment of the wicked. Let me state the argument again : " Thousands die in ignorance, unbelief, and sin." The Scriptures no- where inform us that any who die in sin ever can or will come to Christ and be saved after death. Therefore, all w^ho die in sin will forever remain in sin. The Scriptures are not silent concerning the fu- ture destiny of the wicked. While they do not furnish any evidence that sinners will be saved from sin after death, they do in unmistakable terms as- sert that their punishment will be as endless as the happiness of the saints. ^^ God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have [aion- ian\ everlasting life." (John iii. 16.) Several points in this text deserve special notice. 1. The everlasting life promised is conditional. "Whoso- ever believeth " shall have it. But all men do not believe in Christ. Some do not even believe that he was a good man, much less the Savior of sin- CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 26'J iiers* All, therefore, who do not believe in Christ shall not have this everlasting life. Jesus said, "I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye can not come." (John viii. 21.) In the twenty-fourth verse of the same chapter he says: "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins : for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." Would any man dare to assert that such as die in their sins have this everlasting life ? The condition upon which men can have this everlasting life is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. But some have not this faith ; therefore, Jesus says they shall die in their sins. 2. The word "2^^''^'5^^" stands indirect op- position to "everlasting life." Mr. Thayer says (page 376) that "death is always the opposite of life." If, then, those who believe in Jesus Christ are to have everlasting life, what will those have who do not believe in him? Our Lord says they shall 'perish; or, in other words, they shall die in their sins. What are we to understand by this everlasting life? Does it mean life for a day or a year? Does the word (aionian) everlasting, in this passage, express duration ? If so, how long ? Is the promise of everlasting life in this text confin- ed to this life alone, or does it include the life to come? Christians have always understood this " everlasting life" to mean endless life. The same 270 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION word is used in tlie preceding verse, and is trans- lated eternal life. If, then, the words (aionian) "everlasting life" mean endless life, the word per- ish can not mean less than endless death; for Mr. Thayer, author of the " Theology of Universal- ism," says, " death is always the opposite of life." The unbeliever is to receive the opposite of what those receive who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. " And these shall go away into {aionian) ever- lasting punishment: but the righteous into life (aionian) eternal." (Matthew xxv. 46.) In this tact the word everlasting qualifies the punishment of the wicked ; and the word eternal qualifies the life of the righteous. They are both translated from the same word in the original. If the. (aionian) everlasting punishment of the wicked referred to means limited time, or if it is confined to this world, then the life (aionian) eternal, of the righteous, must also be confined to this world. The primary meaning of the word aionian, from which the words eternal and everlasting are trans- lated, is endless. The learned lexicographer, Bret- schneider, defines it to mean "that which is al- ways — forever." Schriellius defines it "eternal." Groves defines it "eternal, immortal, perpetual." Donagan, Greenfield, Liddell and Scott give it the same meaning. A sound, and indeed the on I}'' safe rule of interpretation, is this, "The subject, CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 271 including the connection or scope of the passage, most commonly determines whether a word should be taken in a literal or figurative sense. This rule allows every word to have a proper meaning of its own, only modified by the connection in which it is used." The primary or proper meaning of the word aionian is endless, or eternal; and when used in a modified sense it was used figuratively, or improperly. The word aionian was uniformay used in the N'ew Testament, when the sacred writers wished to express endless duration. This is its natural meaning, and it is never used in any other, unless the objects in connection with which it is used are of limited existence. The younger Edwards, in his reply to Mr. Chauncy, states the fact that the word aionias occurs seventy-one times in the New Testament. Forty-four times it is used to express the future life of the righteous. In Ro- mans xvi. 26, I. Timothy vi. 6, I. Peter v. 10, Hebrews ix. 14, it is used to express the perfection of God. In II. Corinthians iv. 18 it is used to express things eternal in contrast with things tem- poral. Take a few passages in which this word occurs. " "What good thing shall I do, that I may have \_aionian'] eternal life." (Matthew xix. 16.) ^' He shall receive a hundred-fold now in this time; and in the world to come [aionian'] eternal life." 272 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION (Mark x. 30.) " The things which are not seen are \_aionianl^ eternaL" (II. Corinthians iv. 18.) "A far more exceeding and \_aionia7i\ eternal weight of glory." (II. Cor. iv. 17.) In these passages we. have the words " everlasting life," '^ eternal life," an ^' eternal weight of glory." "The things un- seen are eternal." "Eternal in the heavens." "The everlasting kingdom of Jesus Christ." In all these passages the word {aionian) is used and translated eternal and everlasting. Do these terms express duration, if so, how long? As already stated, this is the word commonly used in the l!Tew Testament, when the inspired writers wished to express endless duration. In the passage undei consideration this word is used to express the durability of the life of the righteous and the durability of the punishment of the wicked. "These shall go away into [aioniari] punish- ment, but the righteous into life [aioniaii] eternal." There is nothing in the connection to limit the meaning of the word in either case. If the life {aionian) eternal, of the righteous, is endless, then the (aionian) everlasting punishment of the wicked must be endless also. If the words "eternal life," and " everlasting life," do not mean endless life, then in what language did either Christ or the apostles promise endless life to any one? Again, if the words everlasting and eternal are to CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 273 be limited in every case, when used in reference to the punishment of the wick-ed, by wliat kiw of language are they to be understood as unlimited when used in reference to the future state of the righteous, especially in such passages -as the one now under consideration, where there is nothing to limit the signilication in one case more than there is in the other? Mr. Lee, who devoted a great deal of time to this subject, says that the word aionian is found seventy-one times in the Greek Testament. In forty-four cases out of seventy-one it is joined w^ith life, making life eternal and life everlasting. In fifteen cases it is used to express the eternity of God, the endless duration of the heavenly w^orld, the eternity of the Spirit, the kingdom of Christ, and such endless objects, making in all fifty-nine texts in which it is used, where it clearly expresses endless duration. This leaves but twelve cases in which the word is used; and in seven cases out of the twelve it is applied to the punishment of the wicked, with nothing in the connection to limit its sense, but much which requires that it be under- stood in its full sense of endless. There are five texts in which it is used in a restricted sense. In this general analysis of the use of the word we have the proportion of sixty-six to five; that is, the word is used sixty-six times to express endless 18 274 UNIVERSAL BESTORATION ■ duration, and five times in a restricted sense. " An appeal is taken to your good sense if the fact that the word is used in a limited sense five times, while it is used sixty-six times in an endless sense, can justify humanity in grounding its eternal interests upon the assumption that the word aionian, eter- nal and everlasting, does not express endless dura- tion." In carrying this investigation still further, it will be seen that the connections in which the words (aionian) eternal and everlasting are em- ployed only strengthen the idea of endless dura- tion. ^' If thy hand or thy foot oftend thee, cut them ofl*, and cast them from thee : it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than hav- ing two hands or two feet to be cast into [aionian] everlasting fire." (Matt, xviii. 8.) JSTow turn to Matthew xxv. 41 : " Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand. Depart from me, ye cursed, into [aionian'] everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." In this last text we have the sending away of the wicked standing immedi- ately in connection with the reception of the right- eous, lie had just said, " Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." Into what king- dom were these blessed ones received ? Into what CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 275 place were the wicked consigned ? Who and what were meant by the devil and his angels? Observe that in both these texts it is positively stated by the Savior himself that the wicked shall be pun- ished with {aionian) everlasting fire — the very same word Christ and his apostles use in reference to the future state of the righteous. And to show beyond all dispute that Christ used the worda {aionian) everlasting fire in the sense of endless du- ration, we will quote from Mark ix. 43, 44, where the same fire is spoken of: "If thy hand offend thee, cut it oft': it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the tire that never shall he quenched: where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." What the Savior calls (aionian) everlasting fire, in the first two texts quoted, he calls the fire that never shall he quenched^ in the last text. What language could he have employed that would more forcibly express endless duration? Aionian — " ev- erlasting fire." "The fire that never shall be quenched." How long will that fire continue which is everlasting? How long will that fire burn which never shall he quenched f How long will that worm live which dieth not? As long as that everlasting fire continues, and as long as that fire burns which never shall be quenched, and as long as that worm lives which never dies, so long the punishment of 276 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION of the wicked shall continue. "The smoke of their torment shall ascend forever and ever." " Yerily I say unto you, All sins shall he for- given unto the sons of men, and hlasphemies wherewith soever they shall hhispheme: hut he that shall hlaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of (aionian) eternal damnation." (Mark iii. 28, 29.) "And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son ot man, it shall he forgiven him: but whosover speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." (Matthew xii. 32.) Observe how positive the language of Christ is. He hath never forgiveness. He shall not be forgiven, neither in this iDorld, neither in the world to come. When will that man be forgiven that hath not forgiveness, neither in this world nor in the world to come? It does not matter what position Universalists take on these texts. If they say it means this age and the age to come, or this (Jewish) dispensation, or the Christian dispensation to come, it will not change the force of the language. If the Savior had said that the blasphemer should not be for- given in this world, age, or dispensation, but should be forgiven in the world, age, or dispensa- tion to come, it might have relieved them of much trouble. But he says neither in this world, neither CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 277 in the world to come. If then he hath never for- giveness, neither in this world, neither in the w )rid to come, when will he be forgiven? In wiicit age, or worlds or disj)ensation will he be for- given? Mr. Guild, author of " The Universalist Book of Reference," page 306, says: "It simply signified that such a one would not be likely to receive forgiveness or amendment in that age." This is putting the matter very softly. But suppose we accept this as the true meaning of the text. What then? Why, it proves that such a one did not receive forgiveness in that (Jewish) age ; and as he was not to he forgiven in the (gospel) age to come, he is not forgiven yet. When, then, will he he forgiven ? Is there to be another age or dispensa- tion ? If so, the Scriptures know nothing about it. Jesus said such a one is in danger of eternal damnation, aionian kriseas, eternal condemnation or punishment. He hath never forgiveness, " nei- ther in this world, neither in the world to come." This includes all duration — world without end. No man can show a time or place when the blas- phemer will be forgiven. If it should be admitted that this world and the world to come do mean the Jewish and Christian dispensation, nothing would be gained to Universalism. It would prove that those who committed this sin in the days of Christ, 278 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION which is now more than eighteen hundred years ago, are not forgiven ; and as the Cliristian dispen- sation will continue until the resurrection, and as these sinners are not to be forgiven during the Christian dispensation, it follows that they never will be forgiven. The Scriptures know nothing about an age or dispensation of forgiveness be- yond the resurrection. Every effort that Universalist authors make to turn aside the force of these passages only involves their system in greater difficulties. As has been shown, they hold and teach that this life is a state of retribution; that every man is fully punished in this life for all the sin he commits ; that no man can sow in one field and reap in another. And as this world and the world to come mean this a£:e or dispensation and that age or dispensation to come, how, then, is the blasphemer against the Holy Ghost to be fully punished in this life for all the sin he commits ? — since no man lives long enough to fill up the past and the present age or dispensation. And if this were even possible, the difficulty is still not removed ; for he is not to be forgiven in either age or dispensation. He must enter upon a third age or dispensation before he can be forgiven ; and as the Scriptures know noth- ing about such an age or dispensation of forgive- ness, Universalists themselves render forgiveiiess CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 279 impossible. The plain meaning of the text is just what Jesus said : "He shall not be forgiven, nei- ther in this world, neither in the loorld to come. "Seehig it is a righteous thing with God to rec- ompense tribulation to them that trouble you; and to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in iiaming fire taking venge- ance in them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; when he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe." (II. Thessalonians, i. 6-10.) In this passage we have: 1. The manner of his coming — "m flaming fireJ^ 2. Who shall accompany him.^—^' his mighty angels J' 3. What he will do when he comes, (a.) He will take vengeance on them that obey not the gospel, (b.) He will punish with (aionian) everlasting destruction those who obey not the gospel of Christ, (c.) He shall be glorified in his saints, and admired in all that believe. All this is to take place when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels. [N'othing has ever occurred that will answer to this description, and hence it must b3 yet in the future. The everlasting destruction 280 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION which is threatened against the disobedient is to be inflicted when the Lord Jesus Christ is revealed from heaven, in flaming fire. If the word (aionian) everlasting is not applied to destruction, for the purpose of describing its duration, it would be difl&cult to understand its meaning. Webster de- fines the word destruction to be the breaking up of a whole into parts ; loulling down; ruin. Accord- ing to this rendering of the word, the meaning of the passage would be that the wicked shall be punished with (aionian) everlasting ruin; and this is to take place when the Lord Jesus shall be re- vealed from heaven in flaming fire. "Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suflering the vengeance of [aionian'] eternal fire." (Jude 7.) It would be difficult to conceive how the writer could have em- ployed stronger language to prove future endless punishment. " Suflering the vengeance of eternal fire." Dr. Clarke says that the words signify " an eternally destructive fire." Take the history of those cities, of their extreme wickedness. They had given themselves over to fornication, and had gone after strange flesh. They had become so desperately wicked that not even ten righteous persons could be found there. God sent and re- CAREFULLY EXAMLNED. 281 moved Lot from their midst, and then swept them away. If Universalism be true, he took them to heaven, because they had become too wicked to remain on earth. But Jude expressed himself very strangely for a Universalist preacher. After describing their wickedness, and alluding to their overthrow, he closes by saying they " are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire," showing in the most positive manner what God will do to such transgressors. If the wicked are not punished at all after death, or if that punishment is limited, is it not most remarkable that Christ and his apostles constantly employ terms to express the future state of the righteous which all Christians have understood to mean endless duration, and then in the same connection, without any qualification, employ the same terms to express the duration of the punishment of the wicked, when in the one case it is to be understood as expressing endless duration, and in the other limited time. A comparison of these terms and phrases ma^-^ assist us in better understanding it. Take the words used by Christ and his apostles to express the duration of the punishment of the wicked: "Everlasting punishment." "They shall never be forgiven, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." " They are in danger of eternal 282 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION damnation." ^^ Their worm dieth not." " The fire is not quenched." "The smoke of tlieir torment shall ascend forever and ever." " They shall not see life, but the wrath of God shall abide upon them." " They shall be punished with everlasting destruction.''' " They shall go away into everlast- ing punishment." " Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting lire." " Suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." " Ye shall die in your sins : where I am ye can not come." All these terms and phrases are used by Christ and his apostles to sig- nify not only the future state of the wicked, but the duration of their punishment. There arc no words in any language under the heavens that more clearly express endless duration than those used by Christ and his apostles to express the du- ration of the punishment of the wicked. If these terms do not express endless duration, it would be exceedingly difficult to tell in what other terms the Savior promised endless life to any one. The word aion is frequently used in the IN'ew Testament to express endless duration, but is not so frequently used in this sense. It has been claimed that the word aidias is a much stronger word than aionian. Suppose it is; still nothing would be gained by that. It is only used twice in the ISTew Testament. It occurs first in Romans i. 20 : " His [aidias'] eternal power and CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 283 Godhead." Here beyond a doubt it is used to express absolute eternity. But it expresses no more tlian the word aioyiian in Romans xvi. 26 : ^'The \_aionian'] everlasting God." This as certain- ly expresses absolute eternity as the word aidias does in Romans i. 20. It occurs again in Jude 6, in reference to the angels who kept not their first estate. If it be insisted that this is a stronger word, it would prove the endless punishment of the an- gels that fell; and this would be of no special ad- vantage to Universalism ; for in Matthew xxv. 41 it is said, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into \aion- ian] everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." Then we have the word akatalutou, which may be found in Hebrews vii. 16 : " Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an \_akataluioii] endless life." This word occurs but once in the.JSTew Testament. If akatalutou and aidias are the only words employed by Christ and the apostles to express endless dura- tion, how can any man prove the endless happi- ness of the saints ? It can not be done. Universalists, in attempting to explain away the proper meaning of the word aionian every time it is used in relation to the future destiny of the wicked, do not seem to know that they are ex- plahiiug away every word that is used to express 284 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION the endless happiness of the saints, thus leaving the whole race of man without God and without hope in the world. If these terms were used by Christ and his apostles to express endless duration when applied to God and the future state of the righteous, by what law of language are we to limit their signification every time they are used to ex- press the future punishment of the wicked? They are used in the same connection to qualify the future state of the righteous, and to qualify the future state of the wicked; and there is nothing in the structure of the sentences to limit the sig- nification in the one case more than there is in the other. " These shall go away into (aionian) ever- lasting punishment, but the righteous into life (aionian) eternal." Let me present this argument in a little difi:erent form. Some of 3^ou are trying to be Christians. In the hours of temptation and trial you have once and again turned to the word of God for comfort and consolation. In that word you have found many words of promise; such, for example, as these: ''Everlasting life." "Eternal life." "An eternal weight of glory." A house not made with hands "eternal in the heavens." In the world to come, "eternal life." Tell me, Chris- tian, do you believe upon the strength of such promises that the future life of the righteous will CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 285 be endless? I doubt if there is or ever was a Christian on earth wlio did not understand these promises, to express endless duration. In that faith the}^ lived, and in that faith they died. Now turn to the other side. Examine the words used to express the future state of the wicked. "Everlasting punishment." ''They are in danger of eternal damnation." " Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire." " Suffering the vengeance of eternal tire." " They shall be punished with everlasting destruction." "They shall never be forgiven." " The fire shall not be quenched." "They shall perish." "They shall not see life." " They shall go away into everlast- ing punishment." The words used to express the future happiness of the righteous are no stronger than those employed to express the future punish- ment of the wicked. If we say that the future glory of the righteous is endless, upon the same authority we say that the future punishment of the wicked is endless. If the conclusion reached in this chapter is not in harmony with the word of God, we ask an ex- planation of the following points : (1.) What is the meaning the word "pen's A," as it occurs in John iii. 16? (2.) If those who believe in Jesus Christ are to have everlasting life, what are those 286 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION to receive who do not believe in him, and who die in their sins? (3.) If the (aionian) everlast- ing punishment of the wicked (in Matthew xxv. 46) is not endless, what is to he the duration of the life (aionian) eternal of the righteous? (4.) Do the words eternal and everlasting express duration ? If so, how long? (5.) By what words, in the l^ew Testament, is the future endless hap- piness of the righteous promised? (6.) What and where is that everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels, into which the wicked are to be cast? (Matthew xxv. 41.) (7.) What and where is that fire that never shall be quenched ; and that worm that dieth not? (Mark ix. 43, 44.) (8.) What did Jesus mean when he said that the blasphemer is in " danger of eternal damnation ? " (Mark iii. 28, 29.) (9.) When will those be for- given that shall never be forgiven, neither in this world, neither in the world to come? (Matthew xii. 32.) (10.) What did Paul mean when he said that the wicked should be punished with everlasting destruction? When is this to occur? (II. Thessalonians i. 6-10.) (11.) What did Jude mean when he said of the Sodomites that they were set for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire? (12.) If Christ and his apostles were all Universalists, why did they employ the saixie words to express the future punishment of CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 287 the wicked that they did to express the future happiness of the righteous, and that, too, in the very same connection? (1'^.) If all the everlast- ing, eternal punishment of the wicked is endured in this life, is not all the everlasting, eternal life of the righteous enjoyed in this life? (14.) By what terms in the Bible can the future endless happiness of the righteous be proved ? We are hastening to the world of spirits. The veil that hides from us the world to come will soon be lifted, and we shall kujow what the Savior meant when he said, '^ The pure in heart shall see God." Paul, in Hebrews vi. 2, speaks of the " resurrec- tion of the dead and of eternal judgment." To this solemn, awful scene we are fast approaching. This eternal judgment is placed b-eyond the resur- rection of the dead, and hence must be in the eternal world. " The original is krimatas aionian, literally, judgment eternal." Header, let me en- treat you not to risk your eternal all on a theory that is not found in the word of God. As has been shown, Universalism rejects almost every fun- damental doctrine of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and in the face of the most positive declarations of the Bible promises endless happiness to all men, no matter how they live nor how they die. The worst man that lives or ever did live will be as happy in the resurrection as the most devout Christian. This is Universalism. 288 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION CHAPTER XVII. THE FUTURE STATE OF THE WICKED (CONTINUED). To assist in understanding the passages of script- ure to be examined in this chapter, it will be nec- essary to state distinctly the points established in the live preceding chapters. 1. It was shown that the second coming of Christ is yet in the future. 2. At the time of his coming he will judge the world. 3. There will be a manifest distinction in the resurrection. 4. Connected with tho general judgment there will be a separation between the righteous and the wicked. 5. The future punish- ment of the wicked will be endless. All these points Universalists deny. In further confirmation of these several points of doctrine, and especially the last one named, I shall call attention to certain passages of scripture the meaning of which can scarcely admit of a single doubt. *'I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins : for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." (John viii. 24.) This text teaches: (1.) That it is possible for men to die in CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 289 their sins. (2.) All who do not believe in Jesus Christ do die in their sins. (3.) Those who die in their sins can not go to Jesus. The Savior was talking about his death and telling the unbelieving Jews that he was going away and that they could not follow him, but should die in their sins. Aft- erward, in John xiii. 33-36, when talking to his disciples, he told them that they could not follow him now but should come afterward. Observe the difference. He said to the unbelieving Jews that they should not follow him, and they could not come where he was, assigning as the reason that they did not believe in him, and consequently should die in their sins. He said to his disciples that they should not follow him then, but should come afterward. The fact is, thousands have lived and died who did not believe in Jesus Christ ; and if the words of the Savior are to be taken as authority they died in their sins. Jesus said, " If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." The Script- ures speak of living in Christ, of dying in Christ, and of being raised in Christ; but they nowhere inform us that those who die in their sins will be raised in Christ, or that they ever will come to Christ and be saved from sin after death. The Scriptures keep up a distinction of character in life, in death, in the resurrection, and through all 19 290 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION eternity. But in spite of this manifest distinction of character, Universalist authors say that all who die in their sins will be made holy in the resurrec- tion. They affirm this, but have not a single text in God's w^ord to sustain them. The Scriptures teach that there shall be a resurrection, both of the just and unjust; that there shall be a resurrec- tion to life and a resurrection to damnation; that the unbelieving shall have their part in the lake of iire, which is the second death ; but nowhere is it said that the unbelieving who die in their sins will ever be made holy and happy. When we consid- er the vast number who have died in unbelief and sin, it would seem most reasonable to conclude that if all these are to be made holy after death, the Scriptures would say something about it. The only reasonable conclusion is this : All who die in unbelief and sin will forever remain in sin. *' These shall go away into [aionian] everlasting punish- ment, but the righteous into life [aioniayi] eternal." "Laying up in store for themselves a good foun- dation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life." (I. Timothy vi. 19.) In the verses preceding, Paul exhorts them to do good, to be rich in good works. But why do thifl? Why lay up in store a good foundation against the time to come? Are not all men fully rewarded and punished in this life? How then can they and CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 291 why should they attempt to lay up in store a good foundation against the time to come ? Why should they do good in order that they might lay hold on eternal life, since the wickedest man in the world is just as sure of it as the most devout Christian? Bolingbroke, Paine, and Voltaire, will as certainly have eternal life as Paul. This is Universalism. In the twelfth verse Paul exhorts Timothy to "fight the good fight of faith, and to lay hold on eternal life." What did he mean by this contest, since all are to fare alike in the end? Perhaps Paul could best explain this himself. Hear his words near the end of his life. "I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith : henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing." Paul had something in view which was still in the future — a crown of life, which he was to receive at that day. But why look for a crown more than anybody else? "I have fought a good fight, I have kept the faith." Herein is the reason why he urged Timothy to fight the good fight of faith, that he, too, might have a crown of life ; and herein is the reason why he exhorted them to " lay up in store a good foun- dation against the time to come." But many care 292 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION for none of these things. They spend their whole life in lighting against God and his cause. They die blaspheming his name. But if Universalism be true, they shall have a crown of life all the same, as though they had fought the good light of faith. Either Paul was mistaken, or Universalism is false. It is utterly impossible to harmonize the teaching of Paul with the theory of Universalism. " And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life : and the dead were judged out of those things which Vv^cre written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." (Eevelation xx. 12-15.) This passage was examined when considering the doc- trine of a future general judgment, but there are a few points which should be noted in this con- nection. (1.) The fact is stated that there is a time when all shall stand before God. They shall come from the sea, from death, and hell. (2.) All are to be judged, every man according to his CAREFULLY EXAMINED, 29-j works. This accords with what Paul »ay9 in E-onians xiv. 12, "Every one of us shall give ac- count of himself to God." And with II. Corin- thians V. 10, "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may re- ceive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." (3.) All whose names are not found written in the book of life are to be cast into a lake of lire. It is no- where said that this lake of lire will ever be de- stroyed ; it is that lire which Jesus says shall not be quenched. (4.) Into this lake of lire the devil is to be cast, and tormented forever and ever. There is just as much scripture to prove the res- toration of the devil and his angels as there is to prove the final restoration of those who are cast with him into this lake of fire. In connection with the above, consider the sev- enth and eighth verses of the twenty -first chapter of Revelation. " He that overcometh shall inherit all things ; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake wliich burnetii with fire and brimstone : which is the second death." Here, ob- serve, there are two classes of persons. The one class is to inherit all things, and be reckoned as tiie 294 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION sons of God. The other class is to have their part in the lake of tire. All whose names are not found written in the book- of life are to be cast into this lake of lire. Do the Scriptures warrant us in the belief that the murderer, "the unbeliever, and the liar is to fare just the same as those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life ? If this is so, what is meant by the lake of fire and the secoixl death? The language employed in the Scriptures to prove the existence of a future endless heaven is no stronger or more positive than the language used to prove the existence of a future endless hell. The words used to describe the future endless hap- piness of the righteous are no stronger and no more positive than those used to prove the future endless punishment of the wicked. "For 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." (Galatians vi. 8.) Here we have the effects of two widely different causes. What Paul means by life everlasting he fully explains in the next verse: ^'^ Let us not be weary in well-doing: for .in due season we shall reap, if we faint not." This fully accords with the language of Christ in Matthew xxiv. 13: ''But he that shall endure to the end, the same shall be saved." The reaping shall be CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 295 according to the sowing. What Paul means by life everlasting is the life to come. "But he that soweth to the flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption;" that is, those who live in sin and follow their sensual appetites shall reap corruption. For " whatsoever a man soweth, tliat shall he also reap." Notice, also, that the reaping is in the future ; and as sure as those which sow to the Spirit shall reap life everlasting, so sure shall those reap corruption w^ho sow to the flesh. By corruption the apostle can not mean the mere dissolution of the body, for that befalls all alike, whether they sow to the flesh or to the Spirit. There is nothing that more exactly accords with our highest notions of justice than that a man should reap what he sows, or that he should be rewarded according to his works; and there is no truth more clearly taught in the word of God than that " God will render to every man according to his deeds." (Romans ii. 6-9.) But when will this be done? In the sixteenth verse Paul tells us that this shall be "in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ," accord- ing to the gospel. Beyond this day of reckoning I know of no probation or change. Of those who continue in sin, as many do, up to the last mo- ment of life; who have gone through the world sowing to the flesh; enter the future world 296 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION without a moment's thought of God or anything good, the solemn words of Paul are, "They shall reap corruption." While on the other hand, those who have gone through this world sowing to the Spirit shall enter the future world and reap life everlasting. Can it be that all shall reap the same harvest ? Why, then, this distinction ? Why not say that all shall reap life everlasting, no mat- ter what they sowed ? According to Universalism, it will make no difference. If a man choose to cheat, lie, murder, and steal, he will reap the same harvest that the most devout Christian will reap. " He that believeth not the Son shall not see life ; but the wrath of God abideth on him:" (John iii. 36.) Under this text consider the case of such as believe not, — and there are thousands of them. The passage says they " shall not see life " — they shall die in their sins. What more? " The wrath of God abideth on him." This is equivalent to what Mark says in xvi. 16: "He that believeth not shall be damned." Do the Scriptures any- where teach that the wrath of God will ever be removed from those who die in unbelief? I afiirin that there is no such passage in the Bible. This {orge) wrath or displeasure abides. They are cut off from life ; that is, they shall not see it, and are placed under the abiding wrath or displeasure of God. Could language be more specific ? CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 297 In the third chapter of II. Peter, only a part of which will be quoted, the apostle says that the heavens and the earth are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment; that the day of the Lord shall come as a thief in the night ; the heavens shall pass away, and the elements shall melt. When is this to occur ? Peter says they are reserved unto tire against the day of judgment. What else is connected with that day ? The apos- tle puts the day of judgment and the perdition of ungodly men at the same time. Webster defines the word perdition to mean entire loss, utter destruc- tion and rain. The meaning of the passage, then, would be this : 1. There will be a future general judgment. 2. The earth and elements shall be dissolved by fire. 3. When this great and terrible day shall come, the ungodly shall be overthrown and utterly rained. If by " the perdition of un- godly men" the apostle does not mean their utter ruin, then words are no index to ideas. Can it be that he meant the ultimate holiness and salvation of the ungodly? If he did, he was most unfortu- nate in the selection of a word. Who, in speak- ing of .the ultimate holiness and happiness of any class of men, would think of employing such lan- guage ? Universalists say they believe in the ulti- mate holiness of all men. Would they le willing to substitute perdition for holiness ? Would they 298 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION be willing to affirm that the Scriptures teach the ultimate perdition of all men ? The eleventh verse will assist us in more fully comprehending the meaning of the apostle. '' See- ing then that all these things shall he dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness." This is a solemn ex- hortation or warning to be ready for that day. In the fourteenth verse he says, " Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that yQ may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless." Here we have lirst the perditii n of ungodly men, and second those who shall be found of him in peace, without spot, and blame- less. Here, again, we have that same distinction of character — the ungodly and the pure and spot- less. These characters are to be distinguished in the day of judgment. "He that despised Moses' law died without mer- cy under two or three witnesses : of how much sorer ^punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worth}^, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherev/ith he was sanctified, an unholy thing." (Heb. x. 28, 29.) Those who despised and rejected the law of Moses died without mercy, "without any extenuation or mitigation of punishment." (ISTum. xv. 30.) But those who reject Christ shall be visited with a sorer CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 299 • punishment. To reject the law of Moses was a trifling offense compared with the rejection of Christ; and hence, in justice, the punishment must be proportioned to the offense. The first offense Avas punished with death, and the second is to be visited with a punishment sorer than death. There is no punishment in this world that is sorer than death ; hence, in the very nature of things, a pun- ishment that is sorer than death must be after death. It was a sin to despise or reject the law of Moses, and those who did it were punished with death. It is a greater sin to reject Christ, and count his blood an unholy thing ; hence their pun- ishment will be vastly greater. There are those who do reject Christ. They call him an impostor, and declare that his blood is no better, and has no more merit in it than the blood of a dog ; and thus they continue until death. N"ow, they are to be visited with a punishment sorer than death. What is that punishment that is sorer than death, and when will it be inflicted ? *^He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark xvi. 16.) "He shall be saved." "He shall be damned." Here is a salvation and a damnation, which is yet in the future. Kow take the case of an unbeliever, — and there are many such, — one who continues in unbelief until he dies. The text says, 300 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION in unmistakable language, " he shall he damned.^* But Universalists say he shall not be damned. In this they flatly contradict the words of Jesus. In reviewing the arguments ottered in this chapter, you are invited to consider the following points : 1. What did Christ intend to teach when he said to the unbelieving Jews (John viii. 24) that they should die in their sins, and that where he was they could not come? 2. "What did Paul mean when he exhorted nis brethren (I. Tim. vi. 19) to lay up a good founda- tion ao:ainst the time to come? Did he mean to teach that there would be no difference in the end between those who laid up in store such founda- tion and those who did not ? 3. At what time will the dead, small and great, stand before God ? (Rev. xx.) What is meant by every one being judged? Is that lake of fire in this world or in the world to come? Will the murderers, liars, and abominable persons (Eev. xxi.) who are to be cast into the lake of tire fare just the same as those who live godly in Christ Jesus? What is meant by the second death? 4. Will those who sow to the flesh and those who sow to the Spirit (Gal. vi. 8) reap the same kind of harvest? Is there no diflerence between reaping life everlasting and reaping corruption ? CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 301 What did Paul mean when he said, " Whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap." 5. What meaning are we to attach to Christ's words when he said, in John iii. 36, that the un- believer should not see life, and that the wrath of God should abide upon him ? 6. What did Peter mean (II. Peter iii. 7-12) by the day of judgment and the perdition of ungodly men V 7. What ia that punishment of which Paul speaks (Heb. x. 28,29), which is sorer than death? When and where is it to be inflicted ? 8. If those who believe and are baptized (Mark xvi. 16) shall be saved, what will the end be of those that believe not? If Christ and his apostles believed in the ulti- mate holiness and solvation of all men, why did they use words and employ illustrations that must in the very nature of things lead the great major- ity of Bible readers astray ? Why say of the wick- ed and unbelieving that they shall be damned; they shall perish; they shall not see life; the wrath of God shall abide upon them ; they shall go away into everlasting punishment ; they shall be cast in- to the lake of fire ; their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched; they shall never be forgiven , they shall receive a punishment sorer than death ; they shall die in their sins ? Did they mean by 302 UNIVEKSAL RESTOKATION this that the wicked and unbelieving should be eternally saved? If the wicked and unbelieving are to come to •Christ and be saved after death, why did they not somewhere say so. But there is no such passage in the Bible. In the last chapter of the last book of the IsTew Testament this language may be found : "He that is unjust, 'let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still : and he that is righteous let him be righteous still: and he thai is holy, let him be holy still. And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.'' CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 303 CHAPTER XVIII. THE RICH MAN, LAZARUS, AND JUDAS* The case of the rich man and Lazarus, recorded in Luke xvi. 19—31, has been c'iscussed by so many different authors that it is hardly possible to say anything new upon it. Whether the narrative of Dives and Lazarus should be understood as a par- able or literal history, one thing must be admitted, — that Christ intended to teach some great moral lesson. Of Christ it was said, ^'I^ever man spake like this man;" and it would not become the great- est teacher the world ever had to give a narrative or speak a parable without any lesson of instruc- tion. It is very generally admitted that the Jews believed in a future heaven and hell. One impor- tant lesson, therefore, that Christ intended to teach was that men have a conscious existence after death. The language is too plain and positive to be merely figurative. If it be assumed that the language is altogether figurative, and intended to represent the Jews and gentiles, the following difiiculties will be in the 304 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION way. It can not represent the Jews, for they have never asked for the blessings of the gospel ; nor have they at any time asked the gentiles to seek out their five brethren. If snch a request would at any time come from the Jews, would not Chris- tians take them the gospel at once? Have the Jews ever asked for help and been denied? Is there anything to prevent the Christians from re- lieving the Jews? Then there was a gulf, and it was fixed. It could not be passed over. Abra- ham said that such as might desire to cross this gulf could not. Is the conversion of a Jew impos- sible? Were not all the apostles Jews? Were not the five hundred brethren who saw the Lord at one time all Jews ? Were not the converts on the day of Pentecost Jews ? Are there not many converted Jews in the Christian church at this time? There is no impassable gulf between the Jews and the gentiles. It has been crossed a thousand times. But the gulf of which Christ speaks is fixed and impassable. It can not be crossed either way. The fact is, the Jews have never been in the condition which is represented by the rich man. If the loss sustained by the rich man is intended to represent the loss of the spiritual privileges of the Jews, and the case of Lazarus to represent the gathering in of the gentiles, then it would have CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 305 been far more complete if the Savior had placed the beggar in the rich man's house, and the rich man lying at his gate. It were better, perhaps, to examine more care- fully the language employed in the narrative. The rich man died and was buried, and in (hades) hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments. The word hades may be found eleven times in the JSTew Testament. It is translated hell ten times, and grave once. Hades signifies the invisible or un- seen world, the place or abode of the spirit aftei death. Peter, when quoting from one of the psalms, concerning Christ, says, "Thou wilt not leave my soul in (hades) hell, neither wilt thou sufier thine holy one to see corruption." Here the word evidently means the place of the de- parted. It does not mean the grave, for that is included in the word " corruption." IN'ow, in or- der to ascertain more fully the condition of the soul of Christ, in hades, or the place of departed spirits, we need only refer to his own language to the thief while on the cross : " This day shalt thou be with me in paradise." This teaches that while Christ's body was in the grave, and his soul in hades, he was in a state of rest and felicity. Take up the case of the rich man. He died, was buried, and in hades lifted up his eyes, being in torments. Here the word does not mean the 20 306 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION grave, for the grave is included in the language " was buried." It must mean a state and condi- tion beyond the grave. A man dead and buried could hardly be supposed as lifting up his eyes and seeing and talking in the grave. I^ow, to understand the condition of the rich man's soul, we will take his own language, " And in (hades) hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments." This will lead us to observe that the word hades not only signifies the unseen or invisible world, but it is also used to signify a condition of extreme suffering. Take the following passage as an il- lustration : " And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be brought down to (hades) hell." Here the meaning of the word is obvious, and denotes a state of suffering. This was the exact condition of the rich man. He w^aa in a state of suffering while in hades. This, in the very nature of things, could not be true if the word signifies nothing more than the grave. Let us observe more closely the language of the narrative. It had actually occurred. " There loas a certain rich man ; " not is, not shall be ; but there was such a man. He died, was buried, and in hell he lifted up his eyes. Was that true in re- lation to the Jews? Had they, as a nation, died? "Were they at that time, or before that time, call- ing for the gospel? Christ speaks of a time, not CARDFULLt EXAMINED. 30? past, but in the future, when their house should be left unto them desolate. But that time had not yet come. But the rich man had died and was buried. l^ow take the case of the beggar. Se also had died, and w*as in Abraham's bosom. Can this be said respecting the gentiles at that time? Had they come into the spiritual privileges which had been lost by the Jews ? It was not until long aft- er this that the gentiles came in. But Jesus said these two men had lived. The rich man had died, and was buried ; and Lazarus also had died, and was in Abraham's bosom. Observe another fact. These men. Dives and Lazarus, were then separated by an impassable gulf. This is not true respecting the Jews and gentiles, nor never was true. There never has been an impassable gulf between them. From these considerations it is perfectly clear that while hades signifies the unseen or invisible world of departed spirits, and sometimes only the grave, it also means a state of extreme suffering, and is used in this latter sense in the case of the rich man. ITow, when we remember that this suf- fering occurred after the rich man had died and was buried, we can not evade the conclusion that the Savior intended to teach this solemn truth, namely, that heaven and hell lie beyond the grave, BOS UNIVERSAL EESTORATION and that men during their life-time form a charac- ter which will fit them for one or the other ; and with this accord many plain and unambiguous passages of scripture. ^'Whatsoever a man sow- eth that shall he also reap." Mr. Thayer, author of " The Tlieology of Uni- versalism," page 383, says, " Of course, then, hades ('hell') is not a place of endless torment, other- wise it could not be destroyed. Whatever, there- fore, the interpretation given to the narration of Dives and Lazarus, whether regarded as a parable or literal history, it is plain that the rich man was not in a place of endless torments." Here Mr. Thayer virtually admits that the rich man was in a state of suUering, but says it was not endless. By what authority does he contradict the words of Christ? Christ, in giving the narration, says there was "a gulf fixed,''^ which could not be passed. When will Dives cross that gulf which can not be crossed ? What interpretation would the Jews most likely give to the language of Christ employed in this narrative? It is very generally admitted that the Jews believed in punishment after death. JSTo matter from what source they obtained this idea, they believed it; and Christ, as a teacher sent from God, never once reproved them for holding this sentiment, but, on the contrary, employed words CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 309 and illustrations which must have confirmed them in that belief. It does not take Universalist preach- ers three years to tell the people whether they be- lieve in future punishment or not. Just think of Christ being a Universalist preacher, talking to men who believed in punishment after death, and saying. There was a certain rich man, clothed in purple and fine linen. This rich man died and was buried, and in (hades) hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments. He did not say merely that the rich man had died and gone to hades, but in hades lifted up his eyes and was in torments. This was just what the Jews believed respecting the wicked after death. Would not such a discourse as this be calculated to confirm the Jews in that which they already believed? One of two things must be true, — either Christ believed in future punishment himself, or else he wished the Jews to continue to believe what was not true. Mr. Thayer says whatever interpretation may be given to the narrative of Dives and Lazarus, it is plain that the rich man was not in a place of endless torment. But what has that to do with the question, since Mr. Thayer and Mr. Guild both contend that this is a life of retribution, and not of probation; that no man is either rewarded or punished in the next world for what he may do in this world? If they in any sense admit that 310 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION men are punished after death, they destroy their whole system. Mr. Thayer, page 304, says, " The penalty due to sin is inflicted here." Mr. Guild says, " Men can not sow in one field and reap in another." There is no common sense in their talking about future endless punishment. But when they feel pressed by the word of God, they would fain dodge to one side and say, "Ah, but it is not endless punishmeni;^^ forgetting that when they directly or impliedly admit punishment in any sense after death it destroys the whole theory of Universalism. On the assumption that the narrative of the rich man and Lazarus was only a parable, it might be well to consider the following points: Did our Lord ever predicate a parable upon anything that was not fact? Did he at any time use a parable wherein the thing represented was not equal to the representation? He said there w^as a certain rich man. He did not say that the Jewish nation was like unto a certain rich man. The language is emphatic, and the narration is predicated on what our Lord gives as a fact. "A parable may be intended simply to state a fact from which to draw some moral lesson; or, one fact may be stated and compared with some other fact." In either case they must be predicated on fact. In the case under review, the fact stated is that CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 311 there was a certain rich man who had lived, died, and was buried, and in [hades) hell he lifted up his eyes, being in tornrient. No matter what applica- tion of the narration may be made, it was based on a fact. If we assume that no such fact had occurred, we bring against Christ the grave charge of an intentional misrepresentation. Let us take up another one of Christ's narrations, which may serve to illustrate this one. Our Lord says that a certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves. They stripped and wound- ed him. A priest and Levite passed by ; and finally a good Samaritan had compassion on him. "Was this all fiction ? "Were there no such places as Je- rusalem and Jericho? "Were there no thieves in those days? Was the stripping and wounding impossible ? Were there no priests and Levites ? This narration commences precisely as that of Dives and Lazarus. If there was not a certain rich man, who died and was buried, and tor- mented in hades, then there was not a certain man who went down from Jerusalem to Jericho ; there were no such places in existence; it is pure fiction, and yet fiction that must have led those that heard it into error, or rather confirmed them in an error which they already believed. The most reasonable conclusion is that the case of the rich man and Lazarus, as narrated by the 312 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION Savior, was a real case. It had actually occurred. If it be a parable, it simply shows what may be ; for Christ would not suppose an impossible case. If it is a real history, it teaches us what has been. In either case we have this moral lesson taught: 1. That men have a conscious existence after death; that the soul does not die with the body. Nor can the doctrine of the transmigration of souls be true. 2. Heaven and hell lie beyond this world ; and men during their life-time form characters which will lit them for one or the other of these worlds. 3. That the happiness of the one will be end- less and the misery of the other will be endless. The gulf is fixed and impassable. It could not be crossed either way. 4. This life is a state of probation and not of retribution. This is emphatically taught in the language of Abraham to Dives, "Son, remem- ber that thou in thy life-time receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things : but now he is comforted, and thou art tor- mented." How exactly this accords with the sentiment taught in the seventy- third psalm. The wicked, says the psalmist, are not in trouble as other men ; they have more than heart could wish ; their eyes stand out with fatness ; while waters of a full cup are wrung out to the right- CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 313 eous ; but when " I went into the sanctuary of God, then understood I their end." They were set in slippery places, and would be brought down to destruction. There is an afterward, a time coming when men, all men, shall reap what they have sowed. 5. God has done enough for mankind. If they will not turn away from sin and com.e to Christ with what they have, they would not change their course if more were done. Dives and his brethren had Moses and the prophets. If they would not repent and believe with these truths, and under such teachers, they would not be persuaded though one should rise from the dead. So now. We have Moses and the prophets, and Christ and the apostles. If wdth these before us we will not turn to Christ and live, we would not be persuaded if a score were to come from the shadowy regions of the dead. In the days of Christ Lazarus came from the dead,but the peo- ple instead of being convinced of the truth of re- ligion only sought to kill him and get him out of the way. 6. Whether we regard this narration as a par- able or a real history, it is predicated on a fact, or a possible fact. It actually had occurred, or could occur; otherwise it is pure fiction. If we say it actually had occurred, or might occur, it settles the 314 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION question of future endless punishment. If we say it had not and could not occur, then it is neither a parable nor a real history, but fiction. But Christ never used a parable that was not based upon a fact, or a possible fact. Whether, therefore, we re- gard it as a parable or a real history, the lessons taught are all the same. If it were a fact that the rich man was suffering in hades, or if it were pos- sible for such a thing to occur, then it settles the doctrine of future endless punishment; for the gulf was actually impassable. Dr. Clarke, in commenting on this portion of God's word, makes the following observation: " This account of the rich man and Lazarus is ei- ther a parable or a real history. If it be a. parable, it is what may be; if it be a real history, it is that which has been. Either a man may live as is here described, and go to perdition when he dies, or some have lived in this way, and are now suffering the torments of an eternal fire. The account is equally instructive in whichsoever of these lights it is viewed." JUDAS. There is no question in regard to the case of Judas. He was a real character, and was one of the twelve disciples. In John xvii. 12, Jesus says: "While I was with them in the world, I kept tlieni CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 315 ill thy name : those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of per- dition." Two points are set forth in this passage. 1. Our Lord says emphatically that Judas was lost. 2. He is called the '^son of perdition." "Perdi- tion or destruction is personified; and Judas is rep- resented as being her son ; that is, one of the worst of men, one whose crime appears to have been an attempt to destroy not only the Savior of the world, but also the whole human race." This text alone is enough to place the case of Judas beyond all reasonable hope. If Jesus had said of John that he was saved, no man would have had the shadow of a doubt; nor Avould they have in the case of Judas if it were not that restorationists seek to prove the ultimate holiness and salvation of all men. The50?i of perdition betrayed the Son of man for money, and afterward hung himself. Yet Univei*salists say he was saved as certainly as Jobn was saved. A worse character than Judas can hardly be imagined. He was a tJiief, a miser , a traitor, had a devil, and ended his earthly career by hanging himself. In Matthew xxvi. 24, Jesus said : *' The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed ! it had been good for that man if he had not been born." In Mark xiv. 21 the language is, if possi- 316 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION ble a little stronger. '' Good were it for that man if he had never been born." Could this be said of any man if the doctrine of Universalism were true? Would it have been better for Judas ? He com- mitted a great crime, but the punishment was of short duration. He went out and hanged himself, and went to heaven. Universalists say that men are fully punished in this world for all the sins they commit. Then Judas must have been in heaven in a few hours after he betrayed the Son ot man. He was there before Jesus was. And yet our Savior says it were good for that man if he had never been born. How can that be, when aft- er a few days' suffering a man enters upon an end- less life of bliss ? If a man should have to suffer for millions of years, and then enter upon an end- less life of joy and peace, it could not be said that it were better if he had never been born. He would still have an eternity of bliss before him. It may be said, however, .that Judas repented. Very true ; but what were the fruits of his repent- ance? Was it the fruit of evangelical repentance? His repentance was like the sorrow of this world, which worketh death; but godly sorrow Avorketh repentance not to be repented of. If the repent- ance of Judas was genuine, then every man that repents should go out quickly and hang himself. Calmet says : " Judas only became the son of por- CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 317 dition because of his willful malice, his abuse of the grace and instructions of Christ, and was con- demned through his own avarice, perfidy , insensi- bility, and despair.'' Considering the character of Judas, — what he was, what he did, and what our Savior said about him, — there seems to be no way of avoiding the conclusion that he was hopelessly lost. If half as much had been said respecting a good man, no one would have doubted his future endless happiness. 318 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION CHAPTER XIX. HADES, SHEOL, GEHENNA. The doctrine of a future state of existence after tliis life, and a place of torment in which the wicked will be punished after death, is no new theory. "Ancient and modern heathens, the Jews and Mohammedans, . we find, believed in a future state of retribution; it is not, therefore, a senti- ment peculiar to Christianity." It would be dif- ficult to form any conception of a religion which rejected the idea of future retributions. To re- quire men to discharge certain duties while living, and at the same time inform them that it w^ill make no possible difference after death, whether they obey or disobey, is contrary to the princi- ples of all religions. It is contrary to reason and our highest notions of justice. But this is precisely what Universal '.sts teach. They claim that it will make no difference in the end what a man does in this life. He may, if he choose, be a Christian; or he may be an infidel. lie may obey the requirements of the gospel, or he may set them aside. He may love God or, he may hate CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 319 him. It will all be the same in the end. This is TJniversalism, and they dare not deny it. To complete their theory, they must deny that there is a hell or place where the wicked will be punished after death. In the preceding chapter we made some remarks respecting the place of future punishment. In this connection it will be necessary to consider it more particularly. We will commence with hades. This word occurs eleven times in the New Testament. Ten times it •is translated hell, and once it is rendered grave. Hades signifies the world of departed spirits in general. Any special meaning given to it must be determined by the connection in which it occurs. It is claimed that hades of the ^N'ew Testament is the equivalent of sheol of the Old Testament, and signifies the grave, or place of the dead. Allow- ing this to be true, are we thence to infer that these words were never employed in any other sense? Does the word heaven always mean the final home of the saints ? Certainly not. Are we thence to conclude that it was never used in that sense? JN'ow, because the words hades and sheol were sometimes used to signify the grave, or the place of the departed in a general sense, does it necessarily follow that they were never used in any other sense? It is assumed in this argument that while the 320 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION word hades is employed in the I^ew Testament to signify the grave, or place of departed souls in general, it is also used in such connection as would not justify any such interpretation. Take the case of the rich man, Luke xvi. 23: "And in [Jiades] hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments." If it be assumed that this is only a parable, it will not detract anything from the force of the argument. If it is a parable, it is based upon a fact or a pos- sible fact. It either had occurred or might occur; if not, then it is pure fiction. But the language employed is too emphatic for fiction. Our Lord said there loas a certain man ; he had lived, died, and was buried; "and in \liades] hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments." Observe that this lifting up of the eyes and being in torments was after he was dead and buried. Whatever view, therefore, may be taken of this case, it is certain that hades in this connection means more than the grave. It not only represents a state of being be- yond the grave, but a condition of suffering. ITow take the word sheol of the Old Testament, which it is claimed means the same as hades. " The wicked shall be turned into [sheol^ hell, and all the nations that forget God." (Psalms ix. 17.) Does sheol in this passage mean nothing more than the grave, or place of departed in a general sense? Then what more is threatened to the wicked than CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 321 will befall the righteous ? Both will die and go into the grave, and into the unseen or invisible world. If sheol signifies nothing more than the grave, or unseen world of spirits, then there is ab- solutely nothing in the threat. It is without force. Wherefore say that the wicked and all the nations that forget God shall be turned in (sheol) hell, when all must go there, whether they are righteous or wicked ? It is absolutely certain that while sheol of the Old Testament and hades of the l^ew Testament were frequently used to signify the grave, or invis- ible region of departed souls in general, they were also used to represent a state and condition after death, and beyond the grave, ^' The wicked shall be turned into [sheol] hell, and all the nations that forget God." The rich man died and was buried, " and in [hades'] hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments." We will next in order examine the meaning and import of the word Gehenna. This word is com- pounded of two Hebrew words, Ge Hinnom ; that is, "the valley of Hinnom." In the I^ew Testament it is called Gehenna, and occurs twelve times. In determining the meaning of a word or term we must not only take the definition of the word itself, but such definition as will agree ^vith the context. Because the word Gehenna literally 322 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION signified the ^' valley of Hinnom','it does not follow that it was never employed in any other sense. This must be determined by the context. Para- dise, according to the original meaning of the term, signifies " a place inclosed for pleasure and delight." The translators of the Old Testament used this word in reference to the garden of Eden. In the iTew Testament it is used as another word for heaven. ITow, if because Gehenna literally means the valley of Hinnom it never means any- thing else, then paradise never means anything more than the garden of Eden. Heaven is the name commonly used to designate the place of the saints' final rest. But Paul says he was caught up to the third heaven. Then there must be a first and second heaven, ^ow, if because Gehenna literally signified the ^' valley of Hinnom" it was never used to mean anything else^ then the word heaven does not mean the place of the saints' final home because it was used to mean something else. Furthermore, the Script- ures represent the abode of the pure and good as a place ^'far above all heavens," Jerusalem was a great city in the land of Pales- tine. But was the name (Jerusalem) never used to mean anything else? H because Gehenna lite rail}'' meant the valley of Hinnom it never meant any- thing else, then Jerusalem never meant anything CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 323 else than the city of Jerusalem on earth. As already stated, the meaning of words is not only to be determined by their simple definition, but that definition must agree with the context. We are now prepared to examine a few passages where the word Gehenna is used. "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul : but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in [Gehenna] hell." (Matthew^ x. 28.) "And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that liave no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear : Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into [Gehenna] hell; yea, I say unto you. Fear him." (Luke xii. 4, 5.) Sev- eral things are very clearly taught in these passa- ges. (1.) The body and the soul are distinct principles. The body may be killed and the soul escape. Men may kill the body, because it is mortal ; but they can not kill the soul, because it is immortal. (2.) In this (Gehenna) hell there are elements of suffering for the soul as well as for the body. Both soul and body are to be destroyed — cast into (Gehenna) hell. This was not true of the "valley of Hinnom." There were no elements of sufiering for the soul in the valley of Hinnom. (3.) The term soul, as it occurs in this scripture, 324 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION does not mean the natural life, for in killing the body that life would be destroyed. But it is af- firmed that the murderers of the body have no more that they can do ; hence the soul must be a distinct principle from the body. (4.) They were to fear God because he was able to destroy both soul and body in (Gehenna)L hell. Those who killed the body might cast it into the valley of Hinnom, but God alone was able to cast both into Gehenna. (5.) If nothing more is meant than the valley of Hinnom, then it would seem that it was possible to cast both soul and body into that valley. Again, it would seem that it was no great matter to be killed, but a very seri- ous matter to have the dead body cast into the valley of Hinnom. In other words, it was noth- ing to die, but a most dreadful thing to be buried. Mr. Thayer, page 394, in order to escape the full force of this passage, says: "The text does not say that God will destroy soul and body, but that he is able to do it, or hath power to do it." Ob- serve the language of the text. Christ gives this as a reason why they should fear God. Would he threaten the people with what he knew God would not do? If God would not do what Christ said, why then did he threaten them with it? Why use this as a reason that they should fear God ? It is not possible to explain these passages to CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 325 mean nothino- more than the valley of llinnom. Man can kill tlie body, but is not able to do any- thing more. God can kill the body too; but they were not to fear him on this account. Why then fear him at all? Is there anything more terrible than the death of the body? Yes. '^ Fear lam., IV hie h after he hath killed hath power to cast into \_Gehevna'] hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear hiniJ^ Now if God certainly would not do anything more than man could do, there was no just reason why they should not fear man as much as God. Then let it be particularly observed that this casting of soul and body into Gehenna is after the death of the body. "After he hath killed hath power to cast into [Gehenna'] hell." Paul, in Hebrews x. 29, speaks of a punishment that is sorer than death — sorer than the death of the body. Any punish- ment that is sorer than death must be after death. Christ is here speaking of being cast into Gehen- na, which is far more to be feared than the killing of the body; and it is after the killing of the body "And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee : for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should 'perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into [Gehenna] hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee : for it is profitable for thee 82G UNIVERSAL RESTORATION that one of tliy menibers should parish, and not that tliy whole body should be cast into \_G eh enna'] hell." (Matt. v. 29, 30.) The right eye and the right hand are evidently used to point out such sins as are most profitable and pleasing to us. But however much we may be attached to them, and however profitable they may be to us, they must be cut oft*. Sin may be as dear to us as the right eye or right hand ; still, it is vastly more profitable to part with these in time, and live without them, than to be cast into [Gehenna) hell at last. Turn to Mark ix. 43-48, where this discourse is more fully reported. Here the cutting off of the hand and plucking out of the eye are urged, be- cause it is more profitable to part with these than to be cast into (Gehenna) hell. But this is not all, for Christ immediately adds, "Into the fire that never shall be quenched." Then again he adds, *' Cast into [Gehenna] hell fire : where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." This casting into (Gehenna) hell fire is all to take place after the killing of the body. If the Savior meant the valley of Hinnom, and nothing more than that, then we submit the following questions for solu- tion: (1.) Was there any law or usage which required persons to be cast into the valley of Hin- nom, Avho would not sufier their right eye to be plucked out and their right hand to be cut ofi'? CAREFULLY EXAMINED. r]27 (2.) Was there any law or usage by whicli per- sons were saved from being cast into that valley, provided they would suffer their eye to be plucked out and their hand cut off? (3.) Is it true that the fire in the valley of Hinnoni never went out? Jesus says, " It never shall be quenched." Is it burning still? Is it true that the worm in the val- ley of Hinnom never died? Jesus said, "Their worm dieth not." I^ow, I affirm that this is not true respecting the valley of Hinnom. The fire has long since gone out, and the worms have long since died. Those passages, therefore, that threat- en men with being cast into that valley have no force nor meaning now. (4.) By what authority did Christ threaten them with being cast into that valley? and was there any danger, provided they did reject Christ? Christ came with authority to teach men the way of salvation, to tell them words whereby they might be saved; but he had no authority to threaten them' with being cast into the valle}^ of Hinnom. He had a right to tell them not only what God could do, but what he would do if they rejected him. They should be cast into Gehenna, — hell fire, — into the fire that never shall be quenched. These passages are in full force to-day. But if the valley of Hinnom was meant, and noth- iuof more than that, all these texts are without 328 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION force ; for the fire has gone out and the worms have died. In Matthew xviii. 8, 9, very nearly the same language occurs. Jesus said it were better that the hand and foot should be cut off, than having both these to be cast into (aioniaii) everlasting fire. In the ninth verse he says it is better to en- ter into life with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into (Gehenna) hell fire, or into the burn- ing of Gehenna. The words used by Christ are put in the strongest possible form, and in such connection as would render it absolutely impossi- ble to refer the whole matter to the valley of Hin- nom. The great moral lesson taught by our Savior in these passages is the necessity of parting with all sin, however profitable it may seem to be. If it is as dear as the eye, and as profitable as the right hand, we must part with it if we would enter into life. If we refuse to part with sin, we shall be cast into (Gehenna) hell fire — into the fire that never shall be quenched. Much is said by Uni- versalists about the destruction of hades — hell ; but it is nowhere said that Gehenna, the proper name for hell, will ever be destroyed. Observe the words employed and the order in which they stand. " Cast into [Gehenna] hell ' " Go into [Gehenna] hell, into the fire that never CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 32 J shall be quenched." " Cast into [^Gehenyia] hell lire, where their worm dieth not, and the lire is not quenched." "Cast into [aionian] everlasting lire." All this is threatened to those who reject Christ and cleave to their sins. And this punish- ment is in Gehenna, and is to be inflicted after the death of the body. Yet we are told that nothing more is meant than the valley of Hinnoni. But the tire in that valley has ceased to burn, and the worms have long since died. Into what Gehenna are the wicked now to be cast ? Are the words of Christ still in force, or did they lose their force when the fire in the valley of Hinnom went out? If there is no place of punishment after death, and if that punishment is not endless, how are we to account for the language employed by the sa- cred writers? — and more especially when we re- member that the people in those days, almost with- out an exception, believed in the future endless punishment of the wicked. " The wicked shall be turned into [sheol'] hell, and all the nations that forget God." " Depart from me, ye cursed, into [fdoiiian'] everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." "These shall go away into [aio- 7(1^1] everlasting punishment." "And in [^hades'] hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments." " The smoke of their torment ascendeth up for- ever and ever." " The fire shall never be quench- 330 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION ed." "Their worm dieth not." "Cast into \_Ge- henna] hell fire." " They shall have their part in the lake that burneth with fire ; this is the second death." What reason can be assigned for the employ- ment of such terms, if so be that there is no such thing as punishment after death, and if that pun ishment is not endless ? Did the sacred writers intend to deceive the people? If not, why use such language as would be understood at the time it was spoken, and afterward, to teach the doctrine of future endless punishment ? l^early all Bible readers for eighteen hundred years understood it to teach the doctrine of future endless punishment. The first man, so far as I can learn, who assumed that this doctrine was not taught in the Bible was Hosea Ballou. A few such as Origen and Murray denied future endless punishment, but they " believed that the Scriptures taught that the wicked would sufier in hell during a long but indefinite period." Since Ballou, in 1818, made the discovery that the doctrine of future punishment was not taught at all, Universalists have denied the existence of evil spirits and of a place of future punishment. How strange that among all the Christians a7id Bible students for eighteen hundred years this discovery should not have been made. The reason is, that for some CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 331 cause the sacred writers used such terms and illus- trations as would most naturally lead men to be- lieve in future endless punishment. The result is, that if Universalism be true nineteen twentieths of all the Christians that have ever lived have been deceived — led astray by what seemed to be the plain teaching of the word of God, Reader, "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." There is a heaven of endless peace and joy for the good — sl rest for the weary. No sick- ness shall be there, nor any death. And there shall be no night in heaven. There is a hell of end- less torments. The fearful, and unbelieving, and m.urderers, and all liars shall have their part in the lake that burneth with Jire. This is the second death. 332 UNIVERS.4L RESTORATION CHAPTER XX: SIN AN INFINITE EVIL. The origin, nature, evil, guilt, and consequences of sin is a subject of vast moment to mankind. God alone must be the judge as to the nature and degree of punishment to inflict upon the impeni- tent and unforgiven. Of one thing we can not fail to be convinced, and that is that sin must be an indescribable evil to require no less a sacrifice to atone for it than the gift of the only begotten Son of God. The fact that God sent his Son into this world to atone for sin is evidence that there was no merit in human sufiering. The very idea .nat a sinful, guilty mortal could by sufiering sat- isfy the claims of a perfect law is preposterous. The apostle defines sin to be the transgression of law. The law of God is perfect, and demands per- fect obedience. ITow to suppose that a man, after having violated this perfect law, could turn around and satisfy its claims for past ofienses and meet its present demands, which is perfect obedience, is to suppose an impossibility. To reject the doctrine of vicarious atonement, as CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 333 Universalists do, is to set aside the only reasonable hope of eternal salvation. There are no other grounds on which any man can be saved. If man must be punished to the full extent of the divhie law, then he becomes his own Savior; he pays the redemption price himself, and can demand a release from the claims of the law upon pure principles of justice. The law demands an equivalent — no more and no less. If man, therefore, can render such equivalent, what did Christ suiter for ? The fact that Christ came into the world, suffered, and died, is evidence conclusive that man could not meet the claims of the law. The sentence of death was passed upon the whole race, from which no man could save himself. So God, through the impulse of his eternal love, gave to a lost and ruined world his beloved Son, born of a woman and made under the law, that he might re- deem those that were under the law. This is taught and explained by the apostle in I. Cor. xv. 3 : " Christ died for our sins according to the Script- ures." E"ow, if the sufferings and death of Jesus Christ were not vicarious, how could it be said that he died for our sins? Again (Eph. xvii.) : "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace." " Christ's blood was the redemption price 'paid down for our salvation'' Without the shed- 334 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION ding of his precious blood there could have been no remission of sins. This is most clearly taught by Paul in Col. i. 14: "In whom we have redemp- tion through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins." The Scriptures nowhere speak of redemption in any other way than through the sacrifice of Christ. The same doctrine is taught in I, John ii. 2 : '' And he is the propitiation for our sins : and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." Christ was the atoning sacrifice for sin. He ren- dered satisfaction to the law ; so that God can now be just and the justifier of him that belie veth in Jesus. But if no such satisfaction had been ren- dered to the law, God could never in justice to his own government have justified any one. Error on this great central truth of revealed religion tends to undermine the whole structure of Christianity. Socinians, Universalists, Sweden- borgians, and Unitarians, all deny the doctrine of vicarious atonement, and as a consequence their theology is vague and incoherent. " In some form and to some degree error on this subject is radi- cal in every erroneous system of religion." The end of the atonement was "that God might be just and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.' ' Is not that atonement then in its nature infinite, which is sufiicient to satisfy God, the in- finite lawgiver and judge, in the remission of sin CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 335 to every one who cordially confides in it, and wbicli 80 effectually repairs the injury done by sin as to justify him in the sight of the whole universe for so doing? Can we talk of limits to the valiio of such a sacrifice? Can we assign bounds to the efficacy of such an expiation ? Can we apply terms of measurement to the nature of such an atonement for sin? Is not the covering ample enough to protect a universe from the punishment of sin, were they all in need of its protection, and to resort to it for shelter?" And yet Universalists set it all aside, and claim that man must satisfy the claims of the div^ine law by his own suite rino^. From these considerations w^e conclude : (1.) That man, being under the condemnation of the divine law, could not, by his own sufi:ering, meet and satisfy its claims. (2.) That the suftering and death of Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, was the only sacrifice in the universe. that could satisfy the claims of the law. (3.) That the atonement in its nature is infinite ; for it was suf- ficient to satisfy an infinite God, insomuch that he can now be just and the justijier of him that believ- eth in Jesus. (4.) That sin must be an infinite evil to require so great a sacrifice to atone for it. Respecting the nature of the penalty connected with the divine law, it can not be less than an end- less curse. '' The wages of sin is death." (Rom. 336 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION vi. 23.) " Sin when it is finished bringeth forth death." (James i. 15.) Now whether we consider the death referred to in these passages natural or moral, it will not affect the argument. In either case a self-resurrection is out of the question. *' Death left to the tendency of its own nature must hold on to its subjects with an eternal grasp, unless it be afiirmed that death can produce life." A soul dead in trespasses and in sins can no more pro- duce life in itself than a man naturally dead can produce life in himself. Whether therefore we consider death as a moral or physical evil, without a supernatural interference it will hold on forever. The penalty of the divine law, if left to the ten- dency of its own nature, can not be less than an endless curse; hence the evil that incurs that pen- alty must be infinite in its nature. It may assist us in forming more correct ideas of the nature and magnitude of sin, if we state it in the following order: Sin is infinite. (1.) Be- cause it is an evil committed against a being of in- finite purity, power, justice, and goodness. (2.) Because it is in violation of obligations which are as infinite as the Lawgiver himself. (3.) Because no being less than the only begotten Son of an in- finite God could atone for it. (4.) Because none but an infinite God can pardon sin. If sin were only a finite evil there is no good reason why a CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 337 fiuite being might not have atoned for it; nor is there any reason why a finite being might not par- don it. As long as man exists, whether in this world or in the world to come, he will be under obligations to obey the divine law. The law is perfect, and de- mands perfect obedience, and until he can render such obedience he will be held under condemna- tion. If a sinner dies while under the sentence of the law, its claims upon him will be as endless as his existence. If sin in its consequences is finite, then it must terminate at death. But Universal- ists do not claim this. Mr. Thayer, page 205, says "that thousands die in ignorance, unbelief, and sin." He says that no man is perfect here — all will need a spiritual change in the resurrection. So, according to their own theory, the effect of sin enters the future world. Is that finite in its nature and consequences which holds on to man in life, in death, and after death? It may be proper to state in this connection that we must discriminate between the act and the consequences of that act. If we say that because the act is finite the consequences of that act must be finite also, we will err; for that would be " confounding the physicial quantity wdth the moral quantity, which amounts to an absurdity." The question, then, is not whether the act is 22 338 UNIVEBSAL RESTOKATION finite, but whether the consequences of that act are necessarily finite. This may be answered by another question : Are the claims of the law finite or infinite ? If the claims of the law are only finite, then they must end at death. "What does the law require ? " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God w ith all thy heart, mind, soul, and strength." Will this claim end at death ? 'No ; as long as the soul ex- ists it will be under obligations to love God per- fectly. If, then, the claim's of the law are eternal, the penalty must be as endless as its claims. If a soul enters the future world loving God with all its powers, it will continue to love him forever. If a soul enters the future world in sin, it will remain in sin forever. Universalists deny the doctrine of vicarious atonement, and thereby sweep away from man the last and only hope of eternal life. As already stated, "'the penalty of the divine law, which is death, is in itself an endless curse, and if left to its own tendency will hold on to its subject with an eternal grasp." But is there no remedy for sin ? I^Tot in Universalism. It knows no salvation, no redemption, no forgiveness. It knows nothing of justification by faith, nor of the precious blood of Jesus, which cleanseth from all sin. But we turn from this cold and cheerless theory to the gospel of Jesus Christ. " To him give all CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 339 the prophets witness, that through his name who- soever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." " God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoev- er believeth in him should not perish, but have ev- erlasting life." " He w^as delivered for our offenses, but raised again for our justification." "Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." In this chapter the following points have been considered. (1.) Sin is the tz'ansgression of law. (2.) A sinful man can not by suftering render sat- isfaction to a perfect law. (3.) That sin must be an infinite evil (a) because it is committed against a Being of infinite purity, justice, power, and good- ness ; (6) because it is in violation of an infinite obligation; (c) because no being less than the only begotton Son of an infinite God could atone for it ; (cl) because none but an infinite God can pardon sin. (5.) As long as man exists, whether in this world or in the world to come, he will be under obligations to obey the law. (6.) Wo can not de- termine the nature of sin by the act alone, but by the consequences of that act. (7.) Inasmuch as the obligations to obey the law are eternal, the penalty thereto must be eternal also. (8.) The penalty of 340 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION the divine law, which is death, is iu itself an end- less curse, and hence the sinner never can endure all the penalty of the law. (9.) Inasmuch as Uni- versalists reject the doctrine of vicarious atone- ment, they take away from man the last and only hope of eternal life. GAKBFULLY EXAMINED. 341 CHAPTER XXI. BIBLE DOCTRINE CONCERNING THE DEVIL. To complete the "Theology of Universalism," their authors must deny the existence and evil in- fluences of devils. Hence they must find a way to explain all those passages that would seem to teach this doctrine. It will be proper to state clearly and distinctly their views. Mr. Thayer, in his " Theology of Universalism," pages 421-422, says, " The name ' devil ' and its synonym * satan ' were employed as metaphors by the Savior to rep- resent the hostility to the gospel of the Jewish hie- rarchy (the chief-priests, scribes, and Pharisees). They were described as the ' devil,' or * evil one,' who sought to destroy the word of God and their agents as the angels." Again he says, " The apos- tle employs the word also as a figure to represent the heathen secular power in opposition to Chris- tia.nity." Mr. Guild, author of " The Universalist's Book of Reference," page 69, says, "All that is said in the New Testament concerning demons is spoken in accordance with the generally received opinions of the people of that day, and without any intention 342 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION to sanction those opinions, or give them the least countenance or support. When persons are spoken of in the 'Nqw Testament as having heen possessed with demons, all that ought to be understood by it is that the persons were laboring under some kind of disease, either bodily or mental, which was sup- posed to be occasioned by a demon or demons." On page 70 he says, " When it is said of Christ and his disciples that they cast demons out of per- sons, we are to understand by it that they remov- ed the diseases under which the .persons were laboring, and which were supposed to be produced by demons." These authors do not quite agree. Mr. Thayer thinks that the name " devil " v/as employed as a metaphor and represented the scribes and Pharisees, and also sometimes the heathen secular power. Mr. Guild thinks the terms were employed to describe some kind of dis- ease, either bodily or mental. Among those who deny the existence of devils there are no uniform opinions. " In one text a devil is the personified principle of evil; in another text the devil is the evil propensity of human nature; in another text the devil is some personal enemy or adversary ; in another text the devil is a disease, madness, or violent insanity';" and still in another text he is the Roman government. Strange indeed that the inspired writers should have ''used language so CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 343 . vaguely." To show the absurdity of these notions we will examine a few passages of scripture. Both Christ and his apostles spoke of devils and evil spirits as having a separate and personal ex- istence. E-especting the case of Mary Magdalene, out of whom Christ cast seven devils, Mr. Guild says, page 70, " We are to understand that a dis- ease was removed from her which was supposed to be occasioned by the power of seven demons." The disease in her case must have been very com- plicated. Seven diseases all preying upon one person would be intolerable. Or, if we ado^Dt Mr. Thayer's method of interpretation, which is that the name ^' devil" was used to represent the hos- tility of the chief-priests, scribes, and Pharisees, then, to be sure, Mary Magdalene must have been a host in herself — equal to seven scribes or Phar- isees. Some one has said that one woman was equal to seven men. Perhaps whoever said it had his mind on Mary Magdalene, who was possessed of seven scribes or Pharisees. • The demoniac Gadarene spoken of in Mark v. 2-16, and Luke viii. 27-38, was a very remarkable case. He had his dwelling among the tombs. Mr. Guild thinks his disease was some sort of madness of a very malignant kind. It certainly must have been very malignant; and, like that of Mary Magdalene, it luutt have been very complicated — a 844 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION whole legion of diseases had hold of one man. No wonder that he went out among the tombs, for a man diseased as he was would naturally ex- pect to go there very soon. But what seems most remarkable is that these diseases talked, for the conversation was carried on in the plural form. " They besought him." " The devils went out of the man." " The man out of whom the devils were departed." " Many devils were entered into him." Here the plural form is used. Further it is said, " The devils went out of the man and entered into the swine." "As they existed before they entered into the man, so they existed after they came out of him." Could this, with any degree of propri- ety, be said of diseases ? Have diseases separate and distinct existences ? "All the devils besought him, saying. Send us into the swine." "And Jesus 'gave them leave." That is, "All the diseases besought him." Then all the diseases went out of the man and entered into the swine. Was it the man that besought Jesus that he might enter into the swine? If so, then the man went out of himself. But this could not be. " Certain doc- tors," says Dr. Clarke, ^^ in the sciences, divinity , iind physic, gravely tell us that these demoniacs were only common madmen, and that the disease was supposed by the superstitious Jews to be oc- casioned by demons. But with due deference to CAREFULLY EXAMINED. eS45 great characters, may not a plain man be permitted to ask by what figure of speech can it be said that diseases besought, went out, filled a herd of swine, rushed down a precipice, &c. What silly trifling is this ? Some people's creeds will hardly permit God nor the devil to work, and in several respects hardly to exist; for he who denies divine inspira- tion will scarcelv acknowledge diabolic influence." *'It seems strange," says Dr. Lightfoot, "to find men at this distance of time questioning the truth of that which neither scribes nor Pharisees then doubted ; nor did they ever object against the pretensions of Christ and his apostles to cast them out. And if the whole business of demonism had been only a vulgar error (as wise men now tell us), what a fine opportunity had the wise men then to unmask the whole matter and thus pour contempt on the pretensions of our blessed Lord and his followers who held it to be one proof of their di- vine mission, that deinons were subject to them.'' If the demons said to be cast out by Christ were only diseases, the evangelists were very unfortunate in the use of language. Matthew says (iv. 24) that " his fame went throughout all Syria : and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, * * * and he healed them." Mark says (i. 34) : " And he healed 34t) UNIVERSAL RESTORATION many tliat were sick of divers diseases, and cast out many devils; and suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him." Let it be observ- ed that the evangelists do not o-ive the lano:uao^e of Christ; they simply record what Christ did. They distinguisli between diseases and devils. Some were sick, and some were possessed of devils. Christ healed the diseases, and cast out the devils. One of two things must be true. Either the evan- gelists believed in real devils, or else they intended to deceive. 'No honest men w^ould so record what they did not themselves believe. But it is affirmed that these demons talked — they oried out. Did the diseases cr^' out? In all can- dor, let me ask, What cried out if there are no devils? Mark the hmguage. It was not a devil, but devils that talked and cried out; and the devils came out of those that were possessed. Suppose w^e take Mr. Thayer's theory, which is that the w^ord devil was employed to represent the hostility of the chief- priests, scribes, and Pharisees, and sometimes the Roman government. The Gad- arene demoniac must have been a wonderful Phari- see or an extraordinary scribe. But all the scribes, Pharisees, and priests that were in him came out, and went into the swine. Are not such interpre- tations of God's blessed word trifling with sacred things? Can any man believe that the inspired CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 847 writers would give such descriptions of the cure of diseases, or of the hostility of the scribes and Pharisees ? We w^ill take another text : "Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases." (Luke ix. 1.) Here is a clear distinction between devils and diseases. "What," says Mr. Lee, "will you substitute for all devils in this text? Will you call it all kinds of evil propensities ? That power they never had, or they would have converted the world. Will you call it ' all personified principles of evil V That will not make sense. Will you call it all dis- eases? Tliat will not answer, for diseases are named in the latter member of the text. If you call it all enemies, adversaries, opposers, slanderers, false accusers, each and all of these will render the text false, for they never had power over all these. But they had power to cast out devils in cases of demoniac possessions ; and this is what is meant, and nothing else can^e meant." Mr. Guild, page 70, says: "When Christ gave his disciples power to cast out demons, we are to understand that he gave them power to cure or re- move those diseases which were supposed to be oc- casioned by evil spirits, called demons." But how are we to understand Christ's language when he gave his disciples power and authority not only to 348 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION cure diseases, but also to cast out devils? Does the curing of a disease and the casting out of a devil mean the same thing ? We will give a few passages where the word devil occurs, and leave the reader to substitute dis- ease or scribe or Pharisee or evil propensity in its stead : '' The enemy that sowed them is the devil." (Matt. xiii. 39.) " The devil and his angels." (Matt. XXV. 41.) " Eesist the devil, and he will flee from you." (James iv. 7.) " Your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about." (I. Peter v. 8.) "He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning." (I. John iii. 8.) •'When the devil was cast out." (Matt. ix. 33.) "He casteth out devils through the prince of the devils.'' (Matt. ix. 34.) " Devils also came out of many." (Luke iv. 41.) "Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?" (John x. 21.) "The deoils also believe, and tremble." (James ii. 19.) " Upon the same principle that the devil can be philosophized into a figure of speech, or a personi- fication of a bad principle, can the almighty Je- hovah be figured out of existence as a real being and proved to be nothing more than an eastern metaphor or rhetorical flourish." God and the devil are spoken of in the Scriptures as opposites. God is spoken of as the author of good, and the devil as the source of evil. If the one is a figure CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 849 of speech, so also the other. By this process of reasoning we would soon reach the barren fields of atheism. To show still further the absurdity of the Uni- versalists' method of interpreting the Scriptures, we will examine a few more texts. " Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand. Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for," — whom? The Roman governments The scribes and Pharisees'? Or perhaps the disease and his angels? Ko; Jesus says, ^'for the devil and his angels. '^ (Matt. xxv. 41.) Could language be any more specific than this? The devil is spoken of as a real being. If Universalism is true, the Bible may turn out to be all figure, with nothing real in it. The temptation of Christ, recorded in Matt. iv. 1-11, furnishes proof conclusive "that the devil is a real being, and not a mere personification of that which is evil. '' Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil." Would it make any kind of sense to say that he was led up into the wilderness to be tempt- of the disease, or by some Pharisee, or even by the Boman government f "And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread." (Verse 3.) Can a disease talk? Who represented 350 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION the Eoman government in this temptation ? " Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple." (Yerse 5.) What manner of disease could that have been ? or, what was the name of the scribe or Pharisee that took him ? In the eighth verse it says that the devil took him to a high mountain, and then asked him to fall down and worship him. That must have been an extraordinary dis- ease, or a very presumptuous Pharisee ? What- ever or whoever it was that tempted Christ came to him and went away from him. "Who was he? where did he come from? where did he go?" It is worse than nonsense to say that it w^as some kind of disease. It will not do to say that it was a personification of any evil principle in Christ, for h"e was "holy, harmless, and undefiled." It would hardly make sense to say that it was the Roman government. If it was some scribe or Pharisee, his name would have been given, and he would have been called a man and not the devil. Nicodemus came to Christ, but his name and posi- tion were both given. "If the devil, which came to Christ and went aw^ay from him, was not a real being, — nothing but a figure of speech, — then what were the angels which came to him after the devil left him? If they were nothing but meta- phors, how can any man on earth prove that CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 351 Christ was a real being ? He can not do it, as we have two metaphors against the idea ; and there is just as much reason in supposing that Christ was a metaphor as either of the others. But if the angels were real beings, and Christ a real being, how can it be supposed that the devil was nothing but a figure of speech when he had fully as much to do in the performance as any of them ? " The devils which were cast out by Christ and his apostles were called spirits (jmcuraa). Could this Avord, with any degree of propriety, be applied to diseases ? '' When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils : and he cast out the spirits \_pneamata'\ with his word, and healed all that were sick." (Matt, viii. 16.) Here is a manifest distinction between devils and diseases. Moreover, the devils are call- ed spirits. "And when he had called unto him hiff twelve disciples, he gave them power against un- clean spirits \_2Wcnm.atoi'i^^, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease." (Matt. x. 1). Observe, the disciples went out with authority to "heal all man- ner of sickness and all manner of disease." This would embrace every possible disease, both of the body and mind. And besides this, they had power to cast out unclean spirits. 352 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION Now, why this distinction if devil, unclean spirit, and disease all mean the same thing ? "And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him. And when the un- clean spirit [pjieitmd] had torn him, and cried with a loud voice, he came out of him." (Mark i. 25, 26.) Here the unclean spirit is addressed as a real being. " Hold thy peace." " He [the un- clean spirit] came out of him." The unclean spirit cried out. But, says the objector, it was the man himself that cried out. Not so. Whoever or whatever it was that cried out was the same that came out of the man. Now^ read and see: *'And when the unclean spirit had torn him, and cried with a loud voice, he [the unclean spirit] came out of him." If it was the man himself that cried out, then it was the man himself that tore himself, and came out of himself. How could a man come out of himself? But, says the ob- jector, it was some terrible disease. Can a disease talk, and cry out? It would hardly seem necessary to pursue this thought any further. But if the reader desires anything more on this point, he may turn to Luke iv. 36; Acts xvi. 16-18; Acts xix. 11-17. In all these passages the devils that were cast out were called spirits. It should be observed that the Greek word, pneuma, which is rendered spirit, is CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 353 the word used in the ISTew Testament to denote the Spirit of God. Mr. Lee, who examined this part of the subject with a great deal of care, says, "The word (pneuma) has no signification in Greek, which it can be made to bear in the de- moniac possessions described, which will give to the texts a clear sense which will not include the common idea of the existence of devils or evil spirits. The word can mean nothing else in the connections in which it is used. This last remark is true of all the words used to denote these evil spirits, devil, Satan, and spirit." The devil is characterized by various epithets, such as the godandprinceof this world, the prince of the power of the air, the prince of darkness, Belial, the accuser, the tempter, deceiver, liar, etc. Any and all efforts made to prove that this arch- foe is merely a symbolical person, or principle of evil personified, is in direct opposition to any ra- tional interpretation of God's word. As well might we attempt to show that our Savior had no real existence — that he was only a personification of some virtue or goodness. If Christ and the apostles did not cast out real devils — personal beings — they deceived the people ; for the people believed in the existence of evil spirits or demons, and both Christ and the apostles professed to cast them out. 23 354 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION Inconsistent and "unreasonable as it may seem to be, Universalists, in order to make their system hold together, must explain away all these passages that so plainly and clearly teach the personal ex- istence of devils or evil spirits. Indeed, they at- tempt to explain away every fundamental doctrine of the Bible. To make this last remark good, I will state some of the principal doctrines which they deny : They deny the doctrine of holiness, or Christian perfection ; deny the doctrine of deprav- ity; deny the doctrine of justification by faith; deny the doctrine of a sj)i ritual regeneration ; deny the common doctrine of salvation ; deny the moral agency of man; deny the divinity of Christ; deny the doctrine of the vicarious atonement of Christ ; virtually deny the immortality of the soul ; deny the doctrine of a future general judgment; deny all future rewards or punishments ; deny the ex- istence of devils and evil spirits. N'ow, when by figures, metaphors, personifications, and innumer- able assertions we shall have frittered all these doc- trines away, what have we left to lean upon ? The system of Universalism, when rightly understood, is but little better than downright infidelity. Reader, know what Universalism is before you embrace it. It promises" you endless life ; but on what conditions? Simply no conditions at all. The wickedest man in the world is just as safe as CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 355 the most devout Christian. It says to the skeptic and the atheist, "You shall be saved, no matter how you live nor how you die. "Theirs is a con- version which changes no man's character; it is a regeneration which leaves the heart unrenewed. It presents a profession which a man may put on with- out restraining one bad passion or renouncing one evil habit." As a system, it knows nothing about the precious blood of Jesus, which cleanseth from all sin. Again I say, know what Universalism is before you risk your eternal all upon it. " Be not deceived ; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man sowethy that shall he also reap." 356 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION CHAPTER XXIL BRIEF COMMENTS ON THE PRINCIPAL TEXTS OF SCRIPT- URE USUALLY RELIED UPON BY UNIVERSAL- ISTS TO PROVE THEIR DOCTRINE. It is not our purpose to comment at length on any of the texts which we may examine. On most of the passages a few words will suffice to show that Universalists have no right to press them into their service. Every Bible reader must know that by taking a passage here and there he can prove almost anything ; but all taken together it will not only explain itself, but harmonize. "For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope; because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groan eth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the first-fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 35? within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to-vvit, the redemption of our body/' (Rom. viii. 19-23.) This text is relied upon by most Universalists as a very strong proof of the ultimate holiness and sal- vation of all men. It is claimed (and we shall ad- mit) that creature and creation are translated from the same Greek word. Now admitting that create ure and creation mean the same thing, would it not include the whole universe? Do not the earth, sun, moon, and stars, together with all ani- mals and insects, belong to this whole creation 7 Why apply it simply to the race of man ? If you limit the words ''•whole creation^' to mean only the human family, then by the same rule of interpre- tation we may so limit them as to mean only a part of the human race. There are two or three words used by the apos- tle which teach very plainly that whatever he meant by creature and creation he did not include the whole race of mankind. Take for example the foUowino: words: "The creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God." (Rom. viii. 19.) " The creature itself also shall be deliv- ered * * into the glorious liberty of the chil- dren of God." (Rom. viii. 21.) " The whole crea- tion groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the first-fruits of the Spirit." (Rom. 858 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION viii. 22, 23.) Kow if, as Universalists claim, the words creature and creation include the whole race of man, then the sons of God and the children of God are no part of that whole creation. "The whole creation groaneth, * * and not only they, but ourselves also.'^ Does not this prove that our- selves was no part of that '^whole creation.^' The point in the argument is this : Universalists claim that creature and creation mean the same thing, and include the whole race of mankind, and therefore all men will ultimately be saved. The criticism is, that whatever the apostle intended to teach by creature and creation he did not in the use of those terms intend to embrace the whole race of mankind. " The creature waiteth for the man- ifestation of the sons of God." By creation, or creature^ the apostle does not include Christians or the sons of God. " The creature ivas inade subject to vanity.''^ From this it is claimed that God made man im- perfect, with a liability to sin» This interpretation is proved false, for the Scriptures declare that God ^'made man upright" — ^'in his own image.'' Sub- ject to vanity^ in this passage, means pain, sick- ness, and death, and not moral imperfection. I. Corinthians, chapter xv. The first point to settle in our minds is this. Will the resurrection of the body change the moral character of the CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 359 soul ? Is auythiijg more to bo niised up tliiiii tlio body? ISlow, unless the soul is mortal and dies with the body, the resurrection can not change its moral nature. In verse 22, Paul teaches the doc- trine of a general resurrection, "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." "By man came death ; by man came also the resurrec- tion of the dead." '' So sure as all have been subjected to death by Adam, so sure shall all be raised again by Christ Jesus." But does the fact of a general resurrection prove that all will be holy in the resurrection? By no means; for in the twenty-third verse the apostle explains wdiat he means by a general resurrection. *' But every man in his own order: Christ the first-fruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming." But are all Christ's ? Paul, in Romans viii. 9, says : " If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he in none of his." Have all men the spirit of Christ? Again Paul declares that " the dead in Christ shall rise first." Do all men — infidels, atheists, and blasphemers —die in Christ ? Take Christ's own words, John v. 28, 29: "The hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth ; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life ; and they that ^ have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." Add to this the language of Paul, in Acts xxiv. 15 : 360 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION *' There shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust." ^Now compare these passages with I. Cor. XV. 23, now under consideration : " But every man in his own order : Christ the first-fruits ; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming." Thus while Paul teaches the doctrine of a general resurrection, he also teaches that there will be a distinction of character in the resurrection. Before this chapter can be used to prove the ul- timate holiness and salvation of all men, the fol- lowing points will have to be established: (1.) That there will be but one order or class of char- acter in the resurrection. (2.) That all who die out of Christ will be raised in Christ. (3.) That the physical power of God exerted in the resur- rection of the body will change the moral charac- ter of the soul. (4.) That it makes no difierence how men live nor how they die, whether infidels, atheists, or Christians, they will all be raised in Christ. (5.) That it was foolish for Paul to urge his brethren (I. Cor. xv. 58) to be ''steadfast, un- movable, always abounding in the work of the Lord," when he must have known that it would make no possible difierence in the end, but that the worst man would fare just as well in the resuiTCc- tion as the most devout Christian. "All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the Lord: and all the kindreds of the CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 361 nations shall worship before thee." (PsaUns xxii. 27.) This is a prophecy concerning the gospel age, when there should be a great ingathering into the fold of Christ. But up to this time it has not been literally fulHUed. Millions have died who did not remember and turn to the Lord; they did not worship before him. Is it anywhere said that those who did not remember and turn to the Lord while on earth would do so after death? Mark the lan- guage. It does not say that all the nations of the dead shall remember and turn to the Lord. It does not say that all the nations of hell shall re- member and turn to the Lord. When, then, will those remember and turn to the Lord who did not do so while on earth ? It will not do to say in the resurrection ; for if Universalism be true all are to be changed in the resurrection, and hence there will be no time nor necessity for remembering and returning to the Lord. All will be turned to the Lord when they are resurrected. But the context shows that this prophecy relates to the nations of the earth, and while they are on the earth. "All nations whom thou hast made shall come and worship before thee, Lord; and shall glorify thy name." (Psalms Ixxxri. 9.) This, too, is a prophecy concerning gospel times, when the word of God should be proclaimed among all the gentiles. But all nations have not at anytime 362 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION in the past worshiped before the Lord. They do not now worship before the Lord. Millions have died who did not come and worship before the Lord. How, then, are w^e to understand the text? In the first place, the word shall is not al- ways to be taken in an absolute sense. Moses said that the Lord would raise up a prophet, and con- cluded by saying, " Him shall ye hear." But did all hear that prophet (Christ) when he came ? l^o ; the great majorit}^ rejected him. The gospel was to be preached among all nations; and Peter's un- derstanding of it was that God was no respecter of persons. ^'J3ut in every nation he that feareth him and w^orketh righteousness is accepted with him." This is the sum of all this class of prophecy. In the gospel age salvation through Jesus Christ was to be offered to all nations; many would ac- cept the offer and turn to the Lord. So it has been, and so it is now. " The Lord is good to all : and his tender mercies are over all his works." (Psalms cxlv. 9.) This is a beautiful passage of scripture, and teaches us the constant and tender care of our heavenly Fa- ther. But it is very far from teaching the doctrine of Ilniversalism. Observe three points : (1.) God is good and merciful now. (2.) Some men are sinful now ; not because God is good, but notwithstanding his goodness. (3.) God is immutable. He is as good CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 363 and merciful now as he ever has been or ever will be. Sin has existed, and does now exist. There- fore, God will never be so good and merciful as not to permit sin and misery to exist. If because God is good and merciful he will not punish sin eternally, he is too good and merciful to punish sin at all. But Universalists say he does punish men for sin — punishes them to the full extent of the law. If, therefore, the law requires endless punishment, there is nothing in the goodness and mercy of God to prevent him from punishing eter- nally. "The desire of the righteous shall be granted." (Prov. X. 24.) The desire of the righteous, so far as his own personal salvation is concerned, shall be granted. Every truly righteous man is con- stantly desiring more of the presence of God. This, and kindred desires, will be granted to him ; "for the path of the just is as a shining light, that shineth more and more." But the desire of the righteous, in a general sense, may not be granted. 'The righteous desire the present salva- tion of all men just as much as they desire the future salvation of all men. But all men are not now saved ; therefore the desire of the righteous re- specting the wicked is not granted. Find me a man that does not desire the present salvation of all men and I will find you a man that is not 364 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION righteous. All righteous men, in all time past, have desired the present salvation of mankind ; and yet none of those desires were granted. Jesus says, "Many prophets and righteous men de- sired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them." (Matt. xiii. 17.) So it seems that the desire of prophets and righteous men was not always granted ^ "He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied.'' (Isaiah liii. 11.) This prophecy refers to Christ, and the great number that will be saved through him; but it by no means proves that all men will be saved through him. I^or are we to understand this text in that general sense. Christ has not seen the travail of his soul; nor is he satisfied, unless we assert that he is now satisfied with the wickedness of the wicked. He most earnestly desired the salvation of Jerusalem, and wept over it ; and yet he said, " Ye will not come unto me." Was he satisfied with that wicked people? "Christ, however, is satisfied with what he has done in bringing about and completing a plan of salvation." All may be saved if they will. " My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure." (Isaiah xlvi. 10.) What God has de- termined shall be done. He determined to create a world, and he did it. God has a counsel concern- CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 365 ing the children of men, and it will stand forever. He has determined that '' whosoever believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned." When he created man he determined that he should be a moral agent, and be eternally responsible for his conduct. God as much determined that the wicked and the nations that forget God should be turned into hell as he determined to save the righteous in heaven. God's counsel will stand. But it is said that he will do all his pleasure. What is the pleasure of the Lord ? Is it not to maintain the honor, purity, and dignity of his government? Is it not as much the pleasure of the Lord to be just as it is to be merciful ? Universalists would say that it is the pleasure of the Lord to punish sinners for their sins, because the law demands it. If, then, the law should demand endless punishment it will be the pleasure of the Lord to inflict it. Mr. Guild, page 378, says, ^' We (Universalists) are the only people on earth who believe that God will in very deed render to every man according to his deeds. We are the only people who do not provide some way for the sinner to escape the just punishment of his sins." Here it is in plain terms. Universalists provide no way to escape. They have no such thing in their whole system as salvation. No deliverance from the punishment 366 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION due to sin. Then it is the pleasure of the Lord to punish sinners for their sins. Inasmuch, there- fore, as the claims of the law (as shown in chapter XX.) are as eternal as God himself, it will be the pleasure of the Lord to punish sinners for their sins, world without end. The theory of Univer- salism, if it proves anything at all, proves the end- less damnation of the whole human race. Mr. Guild, on page 378, says that " the punish- ment of sin is certain and sure, and absolutely un- escapable and unavoidable." There is no escape. ITow I assume that no sinner can by any possibil- ity suiter the fuU penalty of the law. Mr. Lee says, " The sinner can not receive all the punish- ment he deserves until a space of time shall have elapsed after he shall have ceased to commit sin, and he can never cease to commit sin while he is in a state of condemnation and punishment." 'No man can render perfect obedience to the law while he is suffering the penalty of the law. And as Universalists have no way of escape from the punishment due to sin, they consign the whole fiimily of man to endless punishment. From this conclusion there is no escape. "And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day." (John vi. 39.) Lest some one CAREFULLY EXAMINED. • 367 should misunderstand the import of the Savior's language, he adds in the next verse an explana- tion : "And this is the will of Him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son and believeth on him may have everlasting life :• and I will raise him up at the last day." Thousands do not be- lieve in Jesus Christ. They live and die in unbe- lief and sin ; and the promise in the text, as explained by our Savior himself, only refers to such as do believe in him. Judas was given to Christ just as much as Peter and John were, yet Jesus says plainly that he lost him. "God may loill a thing to be without willing that it shall he^ God wills that all men should pray; but all men do not pray. There is, therefore, a diiference be- tween willing a thing to be and willing that it shall be. But what loss did our Lord speak of? Did he mean that he had lost none in this world? If Universalism be true, there was no danger of any one being lost either in this world or in the world to come. Why then say that he had lost none, when there was no possibility of losing any one? All are to be unconditionally saved. Our Lord would not talk of that which was not and could not pos- sibly be. "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." (John xii. 32.) Did our 368 CAREFULLY EXAMINED. Lord mean that he would compel all men to come unto him ? When is this drawing to occur ? Mill- ions have died that were not drawn to Christ When will they come ? IN'ow if you will turn to John iii. 14, IS, you will see just what our Savior meant. "And as Moses lifted up the serpent ir. the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up : that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have eternal life." Here we are taught in unmistakable language that this coming to Christ is conditional. The Son of man was to be lifted, and whosoever w^ould believe in him should have eternal life. This is the uniform doctrine of the Bible; and wherever the conditions are not expressed, they are always implied. " Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin ; and so death passed upon all men, for that all men have sinned : (for until the law sin was in the world : but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offense, so also is the free gift: for if through the offense of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 369 was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offenses unto justification. For if by one man's offense death reigned by one ; much more they which receive abundance of • grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore, as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justifica- tion of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans V. 12-21.) This portion of scripture has been used to prove the ultimate holiness and salvation of all men. But before it can be successfully pressed into the service of Universalism, a number of points will have to be established. (1.) It will have to be shown that justification (verse 18) means uncon- ditional deliverance from actual transgression. Paul declares, in verse 1, that men are justi- fied by faith, thus proving that whatever blessing 24 870 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION comes to us through the obedience of Christ is conditional. When Paul speaks of j ustification, or the forgiveness of sins, he puts faith as the con- dition. But here he puts no conditions. There- fore this justification of life " means the decree or judgment that determines the resurrection from the dead." (2.) It will have to be shown how men are made righteous by the obedience of Christ. Universalists deny the doctrine of vica- rious atonement and of justification by faith. How then are men to be made righteous through the obedience of Christ? (3.) It must be made to ap- pear that the abounding grace (verse 20) refers to the number saved and not to the number and mag- nitude of the sins from which they are saved. But this can not be the meaning of the text, for then it would prove that more would be saved in Christ than were lost in Adam. To show clearly that the abounding grace refers to the number and mag- nitude of sins from which men are saved, and not to the number of persons saved, we refer to verse 16, where the apostle says that the free gift is of many offenses unto justification. Further: "What the apostle calls the abounding of grace in verse 20 he calls the abundance of grace, and the gift of righteousness in verse 17: '' For if by one man's offense death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 871 of grace aud of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ." But who are to share in the abundance of grace, and reign in life V Paul says those who receive it. Do all men receive it ? John i. 12, says, " As many as receiv- ed him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God." Jesus said, "I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not." (John V. 43.) The plain, simple meaning of the passage is this: (1.) All Avere lost in Adam. "By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin." (2.) Christ provided salvation for all. (3.) All who receive this grace and the gift of righteousness shall reign in life with Jesus Christ. (4.) The re- ceiving of this grace and the gift of righteousness is conditional. "Whosoever will, may take the water of life freely." (5.) "Where sin abounded in the heart this grace and gift of righteousness, w^lien received by faith, Avill triumph over the many offenses unto eternal life. Tliis interpreta- tion not only harmonizes the different parts of this passage, but is in harmony with the Scriptures throughout. "Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to liis good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: that in the dispensa- tion of the fullness of times he might gather to- 372 UNIVERSAL EESTOHATION gether in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth ; even in him : in whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will." (Ephesians i. 9-11.) This is regarded by Universalists as a very strong text in favor of their theory. A few points properly understood, however, will show that no such thing as the universal restoration of all men ft was in the mind of the apostle. (1.) What are we to understand by the " mystery of God's will?" Is it that God will save all men unconditionally ? Certainly not; for it has been shown again and again that salvation is conditional. The mystery of God's will, which had been hidden up to that time, was that the gentiles were to be received into the church of God, and admitted to the same priv- ileges with the Jews, without being required to perform the rites and ceremonies of the Jewish law. This " was a mystery, a hidden thing , which had never been published before. It was God's will that it should be so." The second point to be considered is, when this gathering together into Christ is to occur. The passage says it is to be "in the dispensation of the fullness of times." " Is it in death, or in the resur- rection ? "We will let Paul tell us when it is to be. CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 373 " But when the falhiess of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law." (Gal. iv. 4.) The fullness of time then was the gospel dispensation, when both Jews and gentiles who believed in Christ would be gathered into one church and constitute one family. Observe, it is not affirmed by the apostle that God will gather all things in Christ. He simply says that he might do so. By the suffering and death of Jesus Christ the way was made possible, so that in every nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousness will be accepted with him. Paul says (Titus ii. 14.) that Christ "gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works." Are all men redeemed from all iniquity ? Are all men purified and made zealous of good works? If not, why not? Jesus gave himself for us that he might do this very thing; and yet it is not done. The obvious meaning of the passage is this: under the gospel dispensation, which is the '^ full- ness of time,'' both Jews and gentiles would be gathered into one church, and brought under one economy on precisely the same conditions, which was that of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. This will harmonize with what the apostle says in the next chapter. There he declares that Christ by his 374 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION death " hath broken down the middle wall of parti- tion," "that he might reconcile both [Jews and gen- tiles] unto Grod, in one body [church], by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby." This is the mystery of his will, which up to that time had been hidden, but was now declared. This is his purpose, and this is the counsel of his own will. There is to be under the gospel dispensation no distinction of nation or previous condition. "All that are saved of all nations are to be saved the same way, namely, by faith in Christ Jesus?" There is to be one fold and one Shepherd; one church, one family; for the middle wall of the partition has been broken down and the enmity slain. ""Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name : that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Phil. ii. 9-11.) The first point to settle is the time wdien and the place where all are to bow and confess Jesus Christ. It is a fact that all have not done so in the past; all do not bow to and confess him now. When will they? Another point to 'Q.x is this: because all men bow to and confess Jesus Christ, that does CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 375 not necessarily imply that all such are saved or will be saved. Devils may confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, but that does not imply that they will be saved. I believe that all intelligent beings in heaven, earth, and hell will sometime acknowl- edge that Jesus Christ is Lord, or " absolute gov- ernor, and thus glorify God the Father.'* But I am far from believing that all who may bow to and confess Jesus Christ as Lord will be saved. The words do not imply this. The words of Christ in Matthew x. 32 will assist us in understanding this passage. "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven." But multitudes do not confess Jesus Christ before men; they openly reject him. Will he confess such before his Father? It is one thing to bow to and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, and quite another thing to be confessed of Christ. The in- fidel, the atheist, and the scoffer will sometime confess that Jesus Christ is Lord; that he was God manifest in the flesh; but that by no means implies their eternal salvation. James says, ii. 19, ''The devils also believe, and tremble." But that by no means proves that devils will be saved. So devils may bow to and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord and still remain in their condemned state. " Who shall change our vile body, that it may 876 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself." (Phil. iii. 21.) Univer- salists claim that because Christ is able to sub- due all things, therefore all men will be saved. Does the word subdue mean to save? If it does, then it seems to me that it would prove too much. All things are to be subdued. Are all things to be saved ? The word subdue occurs perhaps thirty times in the Bible; but it is not once used in the sense of save, or being saved. A nation or a city may be subdued a thousand times and not once saved. In Judges iii. 29 it is said that "Moab was subdued." But how ? Ten thousand men were slain in the work of subjugation. Again, in Judges xi. 33, it is recorded that the children of Ammon were sub- dued, but twenty cities were destroyed, and there was a very great slaughter among the people. The word subdue, as it occurs in the Bible, nearly al- ways means to destroy. All things may be sub- dued unto Christ, but that is very far from proving that all things will be saved. " For this is good and acceptable in the sight of i rod our Savior ; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." (I. Tim. ii. 3, 4.) That it is the will of God that all should be saved, we have no doubt. But it would CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 377 be difficult for Qniversalists to tell when and where all men are to be saved. It is a fact which they will not deny, that all men are not now saved ; and according to their theory there is nothing in the world to come from which they can be saved. It is the hight of nonsense for Universalists to talk of being saved ; there is no such thing as salvation in their system. Yet they will press into service all those passages which seem to teach the salva- tion of all men. Lest some one might say that I do not fairly represent Universalism, I will quote from Mr. Guild, page 378: "We are the only people on earth who believe that God will in very deed render to every man according to his deeds. We are the only people who do not provide some way for the sinner to escape the just punishment of his sins. We teach that the punishment of sin is certain and sure, and unescapable and unavoidable." iN'ow where is there any salvation in such a the- ory? What are men saved from? If a man is punished to the full extent of the law, there is no salvation in it. Yet they say that because God wills the salvation of all men, therefore all men will be saved, just as though they believed in gos- pel salvation. How is a man to be saved from his sins when he is punished to the full extent of the law ? How is a man to be saved from hell when there is none ? 378 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION But God wills the salvation of all men; and the will of the Lord must be done. This argument has been repeated a thousand times, and a thou- sand times refuted. G-od may will a thing to he without willing that it shall be. Do all men do the will of God now ? Is it the will of God that men should sin? If it is, why then does he punish them for sin? Will a just and merciful God pun- ish men for doing his will? God wills the future and eternal salvation of all men, just as he wills their present salvation. But all men are not now saved ; therefore the will of the Lord is not done. " This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all ac- ceptation. For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, specially of those that believe." (I. Tim. iv. 9, 10.) In w^hat sense is God the Savior of all men ? If Universalism be true, he is not the Savior of any man. From what does he save us ? ISTot from the guilt of sin ; not from any punishment due to sin; not from hell, because there is none. Theirs is a wonderful sal- vation. It is a salvation from nothing. Will God save a man from sin after he has punished him for it? Can the governor of a state save a man from the penitentiary after he has been there and served out his time? Does not the law itself clear him? So if God punishes a man to the full extent of the CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 379 law, the law itself will clear him. There is no salvation in it. The meaning of the passage is this : God is the Savior of all men in the sense that he has provid- ed salvation for all. Jesus, by the grace of G ;d, has tasted de^th for every man ; and whosoever be- lie veth in him shall not perish, but have ever- lasting life. God is the special Savior of those that believe in the sense that he now saves and de- livers them from the guilt and punishment due to sin. The text under review does not say that he will be the Savior of all men, but that he is, — now, at this time. The invitation of the gospel is: "Come, for all things are no?/; ready." "Whoso- ever will, let him take the water of life freely." But thousands will not come. Jesus says, "Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life." " What God intends for all,'' says Dr. Clarke, "he actually gives to theyn that believe in Christ, who died for the sins of the world, and tasted death for every man. As all have been purchased by his blood, so all may believe; and consequently all may be saved. Those that perish, perish through their own fault. "For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men." (Titus ii. 11.) In what sense has this salvation appeared to all men ? Are all men now saved ? According to Universal- 380 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION ism no man is now saved, nor will be until the resurrection; and even then is not saved in the sense of being delivered from anything. But the grace or favor of God, which bringeth salvation, hath appeared — hath shone forth. *'The sun by his rising in the east shines out, and enlightens successively the whole world. So the Lord Jesus, who is called the Sun of Bighteousness (Mai. iv.2), arises on the whole human race with healing in his wings." Because the grace of God that bringeth salvation to all men hath appeared, are we thence to infer that all will be saved? It has appeared to thousands who rejected it, and to thousands who this day reject it. But observe that this grace that bringeth salva- tion teaches something. What does it teach? That all men will be unconditionally saved ? I^ot quite. The context says that it teaches " us that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world." But a vast number to whom this grace that bringeth salvation has appeared do not live " soberly, righteously,- and godly." Herein is the condition. ]N"ow the simple question is this, Will those who do not live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world fare all the same in the world to come as those who do? "Does our living godly in this present world have anything CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 381 to do with the life to come? Paul says, I. Tim. iv. 8, ' Godliness is profitable unto all things, hav- ing promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come.' " Universalists would have us believe that because the grace of God that bring- eth salvation to all men hath apj^eared, therefore all men will be saved whether they live godly in this world or not. But Paul teaches no such doc- trine. We are to live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world. One remark further. This is in the present tense. " The grace of God that bring eth salvation hath appeared ; " not will appear in death, or in the resurrection. Will any man venture to say that all men — infidels, atheists, and such persons — do now enjoy this salvation? " Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possessions." (Psalms ii. 2.) In this passage is set forth " a branch of Christ's of- fice as Savior of the world; namely, his mediato- rial office. Having died as an atoning sacrifice and risen again from the dead, he w^as now to make intercession for mankind ; and in virtue and on ac- count of what he had done and suflered he was at his request to have the nations for his inherit- ance, and the utterm.ost parts of the earth for his possessions. He was to become supreme Lord in the mediatorial kingdom, in consequence of which 382 UNIVERSAL RESTORATION he sent bis apostles throughout the habitable globe to preach the gospel to every man/' (Clarke.) Because the heathen and uttermost parts of the earth have been given to Christ in the sense of this passage, that by no means proves the ulti- mate holiness and. salvation of all. Judas was given to Christ, but he says himself that he lost him. All belong to Christ now, but all men are not now saved; therefore giving all to Christ does not mean their present and eternal salvation. Christ gave himself a ransom for all; therefore the world belongs to him by redemption. If the giving of all nations to Christ means their salva- tion, then all nations are now saved, for all have been given to Christ. " And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto him- self; by him, I say, whether they be things on earth, or things in heaven." (Col. i. 20.) It would be a little difficult for Universalists to prove that the all things in this passage means the race of man, — nothing more and noth- ing less. In the verses preceding this one tlie same words occur several times. '■''All things were created by him." " He was before all things^ "By him all things consist." This would not only include the human race, but animals and vegetables CAREFULLY EXAMINED. 38-3 as well. Do Universalists believe that all tilings in this general sense are to be reconciled to Christ? Certainly not. They limit the phrase all fhivrjs to mean nothing more than the race of mankin