92 



simple sentimentalism were to decide the ques- 

 tion. 



It lias been urged that the single fact that 

 mankind, in all ages, have believed in future 1 

 punishment is no argument in its favor, and does; 

 not prove it to be a tenable position. It is saidl 

 that mankind have also regarded, with favor,, 

 other beliefs and tenets quite contrary to logic 

 and revelation. 



We grant the force of this argument on gen- 

 eral grounds, but are quite unwilling to admit 

 its potency when applied to the question of 

 future retribution. 



The heart of man is deceitful above all things 

 and desperately wicked. We cannot grant the 

 hypothesis that mankind would have fallen into- 

 the error of believing in a place of future tor- 

 ment; for the very feelings of the depraved- 

 heart would be interested in its overthrow. 



Look around you, and see who those are who 

 reject the doctrine of future punishment. Are 

 they persons who have a concise and profound 

 regard for God's law, and maintain a holy walk 

 with God ? We fear the answer to this question 

 would be embarassing. 



A general belief in heaven might easily have 

 taken possession of mankind; for their selfishness 

 might have impelled them toward its reception. 

 But it would be an anomaly of unparalleled sur- 



