So it is said, in the passage before us, they shall come from every quarter of the world, and enjoy with the patriarchs the blessings of the Gospel, while the Jews, "the children of the kingdom," should be left in the darkness of unbelief. They who believe the Gospel, hold communion by faith with the patriarchs. At the time of the dissolution of the Mosaic institution, the Gospel had been preached, and converts made, from the ends of the world," east, west, north, and south, but the Jews were left in the darkness of unbelief. "God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy on all." Rom. xi. 32.

IX. "Verily, I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah, in the day of judgment, than for that city." Matt. x. 15.

It is said by a learned writer in the "Universalist Expositor," that, "considering the doctrines which have prevailed in Christendom, it is by no means surprising that this text has been commonly understood to refer to a day of judgment in the immortal world. The future tense of the verb, shall be, seems [to sɔme] to favor such an application, when considered in connexion with some of the most striking circumstances of the subject. When our Saviour spoke these words, Sodom and Gomorrah had for ages ceased to exist in this world; and still, he said, "it shall be more tolerable" for them in the day of judgment, than for the cities which should not receive his disciples, nor hear their words. Accordingly, it is contended, the judgment here mentioned must be in the future world, where, alone, Sodom and Gomorrah, long since perished, could then be arraigned." "Univ. Expos." Vol. III. p. 26. Such is the common argument, stated with great fairness. See Lee's "Universalism Examined," p. 171.

We esteem the meaning of the passage to be this: that in the day of visitation, or judgment, which is about coming on the rebellious cities of Judea, the punishment which was suffered by Sodom and Gomor

rah shall appear more tolerable than that which shall be suffered by those cities. And that this is the correct interpretation of the passage, is allowed by some of the most distinguished commentators, who have believed in endless misery. Adam Clarke says; "In the day of judgment, or punishment, kriseos. Perhaps not meaning the day of general judgment, nor the destruction of the Jewish state by the Romans; but a day in which God would send punishment on that particular city, or on that person for their crimes. So the day of judg ment of Sodom and Gomorrah, was the time in which the Lord destroyed them by fire and brimstone, from the Lord out of heaven." Speaking of those who rejected and denounced the Gospel, the Doctor adds: "Their punishment, our Lord intimates, shall be greater than that inflicted upon Sodom and Gomorrah."

Bishop Pearce agrees to this; and Dr. Hammond, also, whose remarks are worthy of particular attention. He paraphrases the words of Christ thus; "I assure you, the punishment or destruction that shall light upon that city shall be such, that the destruction of Sodom shall appear to have been more tolerable than that." Paraphrase on the verse. Again he says, in another place; "Shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in that day (that is, not in the day of judgment to come, for that belongs to each particular person, not whole cities together,) in that day of the kingdom of God, than for that refractory city. God's dealing with Sodom in the day of their destruction with fire and brimstone, shall be acknowledged to have been more supportable than his dealing with such contumacious, impenitent cities of Judea." Com. on Matt. iii. 2.

The same comparison, made by the Saviour, between the punishment of Sodom and that of the Jewish sinners, was also made by Jeremiah. See Lam. iv. 6. "For the punishment of the iniquity of the daughter of my people is greater than the punishment of the sin of Sodom, that was overthrown as in a moment, and no hand stayed on her." Here the punishment of the sin

of Sodom is declared to be more tolerable than the punishment of the Jews. Sodom was overthrown in a moment; but the punishment of the Jews was protracted, and was horrible almost beyond conception.

"Ver

Ps.

The above argument is strengthened by the consideration, that God's judgments are in the earth. On this point, the sacred writers are very explicit. ily, he is a God that judgeth IN THE EARTH. lviii. 11. The Saviour said; "For judgment I am come into this world." Again, he said "the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son." John ix. 39; compare John v. 22. Now, if God has committed all judgment unto the Son, and, if Jesus came into this world to fulfil the high appointment of executing judgment, then the judgment must be in this world. Hence Jesus said, on another occasion, "Now is the judgment of this world." John xii. 31. See, also, 1 Peter iv. 17, 18. The Revelator says, "The great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?" vi. 17; and again, "Fear God and give glory to him, for the hour of his judgment is COME. xiv. 7. All this agrees with what Solomon

said, Prov. xi. 31.

Mr. Balfour has clearly shown, that the phrase, "day of judgment," in the Scriptures, should not be understood to signify a day of trial after death. See his "Reply to Sabine," pp. 60-80; and his "Essays," pp. 221-305. It seems almost impossible for any candid man to read Mr. Balfour's criticisms on this matter, and not be convinced that he is right.

X. "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake; but he that endureth to the end shall be saved." Matt. x. 22.

xiii. 13.

Mark

He that endureth to the end! What end? Not the end of the material universe, certainly; but the end of which he was speaking in that place. Dr. Whitby says, "he that endureth to the end of these persecutions from the unbelieving Jews, shall be saved from the dreadful destruction coming on them. But when

they persecute you in this city, that is, in any one city, flee ye into another; for verily I say unto you, ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of man be come with his Roman army to destroy that nation, and to burn up their cities." Par. on the place.

Matt. xxiv. 13, is a parallel passage, which the diligent inquirer is requested to examine. Now, in pointing out when the end would transpire, spoken of in verse 13, Jesus said; "Now learn a parable of the fig-tree; when his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh; so, likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it (the end) is near, even at the doors. Verily, I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." Matt. xxiv. 32, 33; see, also, 1 Cor. x. 11.

XI." 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 hell." Matt. x. 28; Luke xii. 4, 5.

This passage is, confessedly, difficult of construction. Universalists are sincerely desirous, we believe, to learn what is its true sense. There are many persons who seem confident, that the passage teaches the doctrine of endless misery in hell (Gehenna). But let us look at the passage carefully.

Does it say, God will destroy both soul and body in hell? No; it says he is able to do so? It describes his ability, not his will, nor his purpose. We do not doubt God's ability to destroy the whole universe; but is it his will to do so? Should it be said, in reply to this, that Jesus would not have spoken as he did, if he had not believed there was danger that God would destroy soul and body in hell, we say this is an unjustifiable conclusion. It is often the case, that men speak of the power of God, by describing him as being able to do what they have no expectation he will do. As an illustration of this, take the following quotation from one of the hymns sung in Christian assemblies;

"Praise to thee, thou great Creator,
Bounteous source of every joy;
He whose hand sustains all nature,
He whose nod can all destroy."

Here we are told, that God can destroy all nature. But, was it the poet's intention to assert, that God actually would destroy all nature? No; he merely referred to the extent of God's power. So in the passage before us. When it is said, God is able to destroy both soul and body in hell, there is not the slightest affirmation, that he wills to do so. Take another instance. When John the Baptist said, "God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham,' did he intend to say, that God would do so? Certainly not; he merely meant to state what God had the power to do.

But again. If this passage refer to the future existence, and if the terms soul and body are to be understood as referring to the immortal spirit and the mortal body of man, and if the destruction is to be understood in the literal sense of the phrase, then how can the doctrine of endless misery be true? If we adopt such a construction of the passage, that doctrine falls to the ground at once; for if the immortal spirit and the mortal body are both destroyed, then neither can remain subject to punishment, and, of course, neither can be punished forever. To destroy both soul and body, in the sense in which these terms are generally employed, certainly cannot signify, to perpetuate the punishment of soul and body in hell forever. That would be the

very reverse of destruction.

Once more. Have we any evidence, that the term Gehenna, rendered hell in the passage before us, had ever been used in the time of our Saviour to signify endless punishment, or, in fact, any punishment in the future state? Jesus probably used the word in some sense that was common in his day. We look in vain, in the Old Testament, for proof that Gehenna was used to signify a place of punishment in the future state; nor