Some preachers delicately approach the idea with hints and innuendos and mild threatenings, which are really worse than utter silence. I heard a preacher speaking lately of men as "utter failures, going out into the darkness." Now, what did he mean, or did he mean anything? Again: preachers speak of "eternal death," which might mean eternal extinction, or eternal fire. And yet that vague phrase is actually proposed as one of the bases of union of the churches.
Now, how can we expect such jugglery of sacred things to commend itself to honest, hard-headed men? For such is really the character of many of the working men. They love truth, and honesty, and consistency, and abhor everything like sneaking, unmanly pietism? Give them the manliness of truth and honesty, and I venture to think they will not be so shy of the church.
Of course, that might involve the repeal of much of our creed. And there's the rub. We are afraid of pains and penalties. And then we don't like to go back on the fathers who made the creed. It looks like a reflection on their wisdom and piety. But I don't think it really is. They were faithful to their light. And they had to contend with evil traditions. It is not to be expected that any creed they could frame would be good for all time. Besides, we should not be afraid to go back on anything or anybody that is not true. Truth is too sacred for that. And our responsibility is too serious. 'Carlyle has a most scathing warning for all who strive to believe that which in their inmost soul they repudiate.
If it is thought that I am in any degree uncharitable towards ministers of so-called orthodoxy, let me here transcribe a few words from a highly honored preacher of the opposite trend of thought. I have just met with these brave and candid words. They were spoken some time after I had expressed my own views regarding the want of courage and honesty on the part of so-called orthodox preachers. If anyone is disposed to think my own words too strong, let him listen to this from an old and honored minister, but one who repudiates the doctrine of eternal torment.
He says: "It matters not that all the educated ministry to-day well know, and would not for a moment deny, their disbelief in the doctrine of eternal torment, if cross-questioned. Nevertheless, many of them hate us and oppose us, because we show the people the true interpretations of God's Word, and lift before the eyes of their understanding a God of Love, Just, Merciful, Righteous altogether, and fully capable both in wisdom and power to work out all the glorious designs which He 'purposed in Himself before the foundation of the world.'
"(1) They perceive that the doctrines of Purgatory and eternal torment have not had a sanctifying influence upon mankind in all the sixteen centuries in which they have been preached. They fear that to deny these doctrines now would make bad matter worse. They fear that if the Gospel of the Love of God and of the Bible—that it does not teach eternal torment for any—were made generally known, the effect upon the world would be to increase its wickedness, to make life and property less secure than now, and to fill the world still more than now with blasphemies.
"(2) They fear also that a certain amount of discredit would come to themselves because, knowing that the Bible does not teach eternal torment according to the Hebrew and Greek original, they secreted the knowledge from the people. They fear that this would forever discredit them with their hearers. Hence, they still outwardly lend their influence to the doctrine of eternal torture, which they do not believe, and feel angry with us because we teach the people the Truth upon the subject, which they know will bring to them hundreds of questions difficult to answer or dodge."
But it is not often that orthodox ministers emphatically present the horrors in which they profess to believe. Take, for instance, Dr. Torrey. In a late sermon, when warning sinners, he is reported to have said: "You will go out into eternity disgraced forever." Is that all? Only disgraced? Why does he not present the horrors of eternal fire in which he professes to believe?
Another minister, whom I know, spoke lately of wicked men as "going out into the darkness, miserable failures." Such trimming fails to command the respect of sensible, honest men.
Those who hold the larger view have no need for such evasions. I have just had a letter from one of the most eminent English theologians, in which he states his view thus:
"With regard to the future world, my faith and doctrine have always been that the state of anyone entering the next world is tested and determined by his relation to Christ, Whom he will then see in the fullness of all His redeeming power and glory. If he then seek by a touch to lay hold of Him, he is in Christ's Hand. If he should even then turn from Christ, he will enter into a new condition, but that condition is only an age-long condition, and he is not there fore outside the redeeming love of God; but at the end of the new age will enter upon a new state."
I have pointed out to him that, in my view, the condition he refers to may not necessarily be age-long condition, but that in certain cases it may be very brief. The case of Saul and others seem to favor this view. In any case, he endorses my main contention—that suffering is not endless. The same mail brought me also a letter from another notable English divine, in which he says candidly that he does not believe in endless suffering, and that this is common sense.
I remember well that as a child I was confused by the following problem. My saintly old minister often prayed that the earth might be filled with the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea. That was all very well for those who would savingly know the Lord. But what about the uncounted millions in the past and the millions now, and the millions yet to be born, who would go out of this world in darkness, without knowing the Lord. The minister never said a word about that. His creed required him to believe that they would all go into endless torment; but he passed over the momentous question in silence.
Possibly he would say that the matter was not a proper one to be spoken of. But why not? If there is such a fearful possibility for anyone, why should he not be warned? The very warning might be the means of averting such a fate. Surely, the most lurid picture of eternal woe would be better than the realization of it. Yet it was seldom or never spoken of, especially as to its duration.
Here, then, is a most serious consideration. If we can think of God doing a thing, the horror of which we cannot bear to speak of, or even to think of, is there not in this a strong presumption that the theory is not true? Let this thought revolve for a while through your mind; remember the strong affinity which the mind has for truth; and then see if the thought which I am trying here to sustain is not a reasonable one. Surely, we have here a strong argument against the theory of endless torment.
There was lately a great Missionary Conference in Edinburgh. Amongst other matters, all sorts of expedients were discussed as to how the heathen of different countries could be most successfully reached. Certain doctrines of Christianity were recognized as best fitting to be presented to certain countries, as especially suited to meet the special conditions that prevail. Strange to say, so far as I saw any report, the doctrine of everlasting punishment was not once suggested as being especially appropriate. Yet if it is true, what could be more appropriate to the heathen mind of all countries? Is it really believed by Missionaries, and those who support them? If it is, why not present it? If it is not, why not expunge it from our stated confession of faith? Can we not afford to be honest on this supremely sacred question? When an intelligent heathen is converted to the Christian faith, and realizes that we profess to believe what we do not really believe, what will he think of us? Will not the Christian church lose more than it gains by this worldly wisdom, which essentially is moral cowardice?
A devout use of the imagination is of great service here. Yes, I say the imagination. I do not mean the revelling of mere fancy in the realm of the unthinkable or the impossible. I mean the vivid realization of facts that lie outside the ordinary rut of thought. So exercised, imagination is one of our noblest powers.
We need a devout, yet chastened, imagination in dealing with such themes as the one we are considering now. No wonder that Ruskin says that imagination is the greatest power of the soul. It is but reasonable to imagine, then, that God has disclosures of love, and wisdom, and power, to make in the next life, that far transcend our present thought.
Unconditional Election—Children of Believing Parents—An ArrogantPretension—God's Own Children—The Heathen of All Time—A BalefulShadow—Former Cruelty—Herbert Spencer—Dr. Farrar's Eternal Hope—ALady With an Open Mind—Dr. Dawson's Larger View.—The UniversalAttraction.
The old doctrine of God's unconditional decrees still survives, despite our conviction that perfect impartiality is one of the attributes of the divine character. The idea seems to have taken hold of some minds that a thing is right because God is the Author of it. That is certainly beginning at the wrong end. God does a thing because it is right; His doing of it does not make it right. But we need to have faith that His future administration will rectify all the apparent wrongs of the present. It is our failure to take this larger view that has led many people of the kindest heart to adopt the most cruel conclusions.
Just now a lady has told me of a certain "eminent divine" who says that children who die in infancy are elected if they are the children of believing parents! What a revelation this "eminent divine" must have of the eternal mysteries! Since he knows so much, I would like to ask if one believing parent would not suffice, in an urgent case, or if both must infallibly be believers! A more arrogant pretension it would be difficult to conceive.
The lady who spoke to me on the subject said it would be a very comfortable thing to believe. "Yes," I said, "it might be a comfortable thing for you, but what about the other woman down street who is not a believer? Do you think that her children are not as precious in God's sight as yours?"
Away with all such hard, narrowing conceptions! Can it be imagined that God would consign infants to everlasting torment, simply because they are children of unbelieving parents? A thousand times No! Let us remember that they are His own children, whatever earthly parentage they may have. His love and power are not going to be thwarted by any considerations of evil ancestry. Any lingering doubt of that is a survival of the old, narrow, hard doctrine of absolute election.
But in support of the idea referred to, this passage may be quoted: "The promise is to you and to your children." Does not that exclude all others? Well, let us see. Read on. "And to all that are afar off." Ah! That immensely widens the circle. "All that are afar off." Who are they? Are they not the heathen of all the world, and of all time? So the children of believing parents are bound up in the same bundle with the vilest of mankind. And we are not greatly surprised. For they are God's own children, every one; and whether they are little innocent infants or others advanced in some stages of wickedness, or the most depraved of mankind, we believe they are all subject to redeeming power and grace. Different means may be required for their education or reclamation; but it is easy to believe that divine love, and power, and wisdom, will not fail of their effect.
But, then, something more is added in the passage we have quoted. "Even to as many as the Lord our God shall call." Does not that look like restriction, or selection? Well let us see. Who are they that are called? Here we have it, Listen. "Look unto me, and be saved, all the ends of the earth." Surely, that means the whole race. And equally it means the next life as well as the present; for there are millions and millions who never heard the call, and never will hear it, on this side of time.
We hope we are now leaving behind us the ferocity which was formerly considered quite appropriate to religion. Indeed, a man was hardly accounted serious, if he was not severe. And the worst of it was, that God was considered severe. Men could read over and over again that "God is love;" but somehow the great truth was not received in its fulness. The idea of God's justice seems to have cast a baleful shadow over men's hearts and lives. Certainly heaven's own light is now breaking through the gloom. Many of the highest judgment and character now entertain views which their fathers would have repudiated as rank heresy.
* * * * *
It is a most unfortunate thing that we have derived from our bloodthirsty ancestors an impression of divine cruelty that is utterly opposed to the fact. And it is not so very long ago that such traditions were handed down to us. "What we forget," says the New York Evening Post, "is the short distance of time and space that separates us from our ferocious forefathers." Dr. Johnson in his 'Journey to the Western Islands,' relates the tradition that the Macdonalds—honored name to-day—surrounded the Culloden Church on Sunday, fastened the doors, and burnt the congregation alive. The entertainment received its perfecting touch when the Macdonald piper mocked the shrieks of the perishing crowd with the notes of his bagpipes.
* * * * *
"Perhaps an even more striking illustration of the survival of savagery may be found in men's religious beliefs—say, in the conception of a God who is a cruel man endowed with omnipotence. Grave divines were telling us within a generation that a just and merciful Father, for his good pleasure, had doomed certain of the non-elect to the most hideous physical tortures for all eternity. It was in 1879, about thirty years ago, that Herbert Spencer in 'The Data of Ethics,' stated the theory quite nakedly: The belief that the sight of suffering is pleasing to the gods,' He added: 'Derived from bloodthirsty ancestors, such gods are naturally conceived as gratified by the infliction of pain; when living they delighted in torturing other beings; and witnessing torture is supposed still to give them delight. The implied conceptions long survive.'
"Some of our readers may recall the attacks upon Spencer, and even upon clergymen otherwise orthodox, like the late Frederick William Farrar, who doubted the doctrine of eternal torture."
* * * * *
We hope we are beginning to survive such false and horrible ideas. Those ferocious representations are the very contrary of the truth. To get the truest conceptions of God, we have to think of man at his highest; and even then we are as far below the reality as the earth is below the stars. We are made in the image of God, however, and are a human transcript of the divine. But we are finite at our best, while God is infinite. Beyond all human thought His love is strong, and tender, and unchangeable. He is veritably our Father, and I think He is so in a far closer relation than mere creation. If we can think of the possibility of delight in torturing our children, ten thousand times more repugnance would God have in torturing us, except for a time, and for the highest and wisest ends.
* * * * *
If we go back to medieval times we have the most revolting pictures of the agonies of hell. We are told, for instance, of a certain monk who in the course of his journeys came to the underworld, and there he found "a fiery glen 'darkened with the mists of death,' and covered with a great lid, hotter than the fires themselves. On the lid sat a huge multitude of souls, burning, 'till they were melted, like garlic in a pan with the glow thereof.' Reaching the nethermost hell, he was shown the Prince of Darkness, black as a raven from head to foot, thousand-handed and with a long thick tail covered with fiery spikes, 'lying on an iron hurdle over fiery gledes, a bellows on each side of him, and a crowd of demons blowing it.'
"As he lay there roasting, tossing from side to side, filled with rage and fury, he grasped the souls in his rough, thick hands, bruising and crushing them, as a man would crush grapes to squeeze out the wine. With his fiery, stinking breath, he scattered the souls about Hell, and as he drew in his breath again he swallowed them down with it, and those whom his hands could not reach he lashed with his tail. This, the angel explained, was Lucifer."
Unfortunately, however, medieval ages had no monopoly of such horrors.They have survived almost to our time. In some cases they are reproducedeven yet. It is a painful thing to recall, but even our late belovedSpurgeon at times fell into this snare.
I have just had an interview with a lady of the highest Christian character. She was brought up in the orthodox faith, and never doubted its truth. I hesitated to launch these larger views upon her, thinking they might only disturb her, and that perhaps she was too old to recast her opinions. But I found that her mind was perfectly open; and after some discussion she firmly believed in the larger hope. I was persuaded that such would be the experience of thousands more, if they would but give their heart and mind to a devout consideration of these questions. And oh, what a pall of gloom would thus be lifted from the heart of the world!
We may well give here the noble words of Dr. Dawson, who in an address before the Royal Society of Canada, quoted this stanza:
"For a day, and a night, and a morrow,That his strength might endure for a span,With travail, and heavy sorrow,The holy spirit of man."
Then he says: "The holy spirit of man! Holy in its capacity, in its possibility: nay, more, in its ultimate destiny!"
This is no self-righteousness. It is a gleam of man's potentiality, that makes him truly sublime. There are many Scripture statements that make man pitifully little; but this is because of his present sinful condition. Bye and bye he will rise into his true condition, and then "The holy spirit of man" will be not only a possibility, but an experience. It is gratifying to notice that such a man as Dr. Dawson has this larger hope.
* * * * *
In striking antithesis to such views as we have referred to, I may here narrate an experience of my own in which I think there was revealed to me a peculiar phase of Christ's universal attractive power. One day in San Francisco I saw a funeral procession passing along the street. I joined the procession, and went with it into the church. I saw that all the company were negroes. The minister, who was also a negro, announced the Hymn:
"Safe in the arms of Jesus,Safe on His gentle breast,There by His love o'ershaded,Sweetly my soul shall rest."
It was sung with all the fervor of the negro race. As it proceeded a strange thought struck me: How could negroes find rest on the bosom of One quite another color? It was a natural thought, for the color prejudice is strong. Even when we think of Christ, we instinctively think of Him as a white man. How, then, could these worshippers find rest on His bosom, and in His arms? If He had been a negro, they might do so; but how could they do such a thing when they realized that He was of a different color from themselves?
Then suddenly, a solution same to my mind. If Christ was not black, neither was He white. In fact He was brown; about midway between white and black. So in color He was as near to the negroes as to the white race. Therefore the negroes can recline on His breast, and in His arms, as naturally as we. That seemed to me a very happy idea; perhaps even a revelation.
But then, another thought quickly followed. What if Christ took this central place, even as to color, of set purpose? He could thus appeal more directly to the whole human race, and thus more effectively draw all men to Himself. Therefore I hazard the conjecture that one reason why He chose to come of the Jewish race was, that he might be, even as to color, the central attraction of the world. Oh yes; if we only widen the horizon of our thought and our affection, we shall see that the great scheme of redemption is co-extensive with the race, and reaches forward into the eternities.
No Definite note of Warning—Preachers Afraid of Discipline—Divided as to Restoration or Extinction—Plea of Liberty—Liberalism of the Episcopal Church—Advance in Christian Unity—Dr. Edward White—Conditional Immortality—Endless Torment—If True Ought to Be Preached Morning, Noon and Night—Awful Penalty of Sin—Extinction—True Religion is Reasonable—Enlarged Conceptions.
There can hardly be a doubt that the church in general is in a state of transition on this question. The want of a definite note of warning, to which I have referred elsewhere, is an indication of it. Some preachers have not the conviction of eternal torment and do not speak of it. Others know very well that many of their hearers would resent any such declaration. But they do not preach Restoration. They are afraid, I suppose, that they might expose themselves to the discipline of the church. Some, I believe, would very quickly espouse the Restoration theory, if they were sure that they would escape all pains and penalities. Meantime they do not examine the doctrine, for I suspect they fear they would be convinced that it is true. I believe that most ministers of the Presbyterian and Methodist Churches occupy one or other of the positions I have indicated.
A few days ago I was speaking with a mature and scholarly man who occupies a prominent position in the Methodist Church. In our conversation we drifted into the subject of Restoration, and he freely avowed his faith in it; but he said that if such a thing were known, he would lose his position.
In the Presbyterian Church there is by no means a universal loyalty to the traditional doctrine of eternal torment. There was a notable indication of this some time ago. Somehow—I do not know how—the question of eternal punishment came up among Presbyterians in the United States. A great number of letters was addressed to "The Interior," of Chicago. Some of these endorsed the doctrine of Extinction, and the others of Restoration. So far as I can remember, none were in favor of eternal punishment. At the close, the Editor summed up in favor of extinction. But he was not indicted for heresy, nor any of his correspondents, so far as I am aware.
The whole affair showed very clearly that there is a tacit and wide repudiation of the doctrine of eternal torment. It also showed that the church is divided on the theories of restoration and extinction; while I presume that many would uphold the old doctrine of torment. I claim that this division of opinion is allowable. There ought to be, and I think that on the whole there is, Christian liberty on this topic. Some day the church may see eye to eye on these matters.
Especially do I honor the Episcopal Church for always having taken this more liberal ground. It is possible to hold the most diverse views on this point, and yet be in good standing in that communion. I lately spoke with an Episcopal clergyman who believes not only in the Restoration of the entire human race, but who believes that Satan himself will ultimately be restored. I know another Episcopal clergyman who is a confirmed and advanced spiritualist; yet he believes in Restoration; and he is a very able, devout, and godly man. Witness also Archdeacon Farrar's book on "Eternal Hope;" yet that man held his position in the church, and grew in public esteem till his dying day.
And there was lately a remarkable expression of Christian charity on the part of the Episcopal Church in the United States. At a triennial convention of that body held at Richmond, there was passed a resolution opening the pulpits of the Episcopal Church to clergymen of other denominations. The resolution was then referred to the House of Bishops, which passed it by a vote that was practically unanimous.
This is a marvellous advance in Christian unity, and a tacit recognition of the secondary nature of many questions that were once thought to be of primary importance. Amongst other topics, there may well be a difference of opinion on matters pertaining to the next life.
* * * * *
And I believe that the Methodist Church is really, though not avowedly, in a state of transition on the same point. I was speaking a short time ago with a noted official of that church, and one that has a wide and intimate acquaintance with the views of his brethern. He said to me, very candidly, that the ministers of the Methodist Church do not believe in eternal punishment; and he said this with such an air of satisfaction that I concluded that he himself took that position.
As for the Congregational Church, it makes no pretense of exacting such a view on the part of its ministers. Some of its ministers and members uphold that theory; but there is perfect liberty of opinion. I know that many of their ministers believe in Conditional Immortality. Dr. Edward White, of England, the apostle of that doctrine, was a highly respected minister of that church.
I think I am right in saying that there is no Universalist Church inEngland. There Universalism is no barrier to membership in theCongregational Church.
At all events, in either of the four churches named, there is little or no preaching of eternal torment. That is the outstanding fact. We can account for the fact only on the supposition that the doctrine is not believed. If it were really believed it would certainly be preached. If it is true it ought to be preached, morning, noon and night. One cannot conceive of believing in hell fire as the doom of sinners, and not warning men of it, even with the earnestness of frenzy.
And here I would notice the great loss we sustain in having no emphatic note of warning. It used to be the custom of warning men of hell fire; but now there is no warning, except the very general and vague warning of wrath to come, which has really little meaning. We do not say in what it consists; therefore the vague statement has but slight significance. To this may be attributed much of the comfort and carelessness of sinners. Many there are, even of regular church goers, who hear nothing on these matters but what they hear from the pulpit; and from that they hear practically nothing. How much better it would be if they could be warned very definitely of coming suffering, if they are not now delivered from their sins. So long as there is sin there will be suffering. I am convinced that the nerve of the preacher's message is often cut by this want of a definite note of warning.
* * * * *
Let it be clearly noted that punishment is a large factor in the theory of Restoration. Let no one suppose that the transition from sin to holiness is an easy matter under any circumstances. There are multitudes of men that go out of life so utterly wicked that they must suffer terribly, and perhaps suffer long, before they are reformed. At least we may suppose such to be the rule. There may be exceptions, like that of Saul, to which we shall refer later. Sin unforgiven will pursue a man into the next life, and exact a fearful penalty. The prodigal must eat of the husks before he comes back to the Father.
Here, then, is the point of agreement. Suffering is entailed by Sin. Whatever view we espouse, that fact remains. It was mainly to emphasize that fact that we entered on this discussion. It is one phase of the agreement, and a vital one, between the Christian churches. While there is much diversity of view as to the mode and the object and the duration of suffering, there is a broad basis of agreement as to the fact.
Not only, therefore, does the doctrine of eternal punishment recognize suffering as the effect of sin, but so does the doctrine of extinction. To be eternally put out of being, and so precluded forever from eternal happiness, is punishment beyond the power of the mind to conceive. As we cannot conceive of the felicity of eternal joy, so we cannot conceive of the loss of it.
It is a matter of no great moment to others how I myself stand on this great question, except for the reasons which I think support it. I am by no means dogmatic on the subject, for the reason, as stated before, that revelation does not seem to give a clear and direct deliverance on it. But I do think that there are much clearer and more emphatic Scriptural statements in favor of the doctrine of Restoration than any of the alternate theories.
I think, moreover, that reason is clearly in favor of it, so far as reason will carry us. And I believe what an eminent minister said lately: "We ought to make our faith reasonable to reasonable minds."
The fact is, that all true religion is reasonable, and we would see it to be so if we could see the truth in all its relations. But our views are limited; that is the trouble. Hence there are many topics that we shall not fully understand in this life; but "when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away."
It will be seen also that details are not only unrevealed but also that they could not possibly be revealed. The main fact only can be the subject of investigation. Faith can wait for the revelation of the mode and the time.
* * * * *
I see that our friends of the Watch Tower are predicting a time of trouble such as the world has never seen; and it is to begin, they say, in about seven years. On the contrary, in an article just to hand, there is a most optimistic outlook for the uplift of society. The writer says: "It is but little more than a century ago that the church awoke to the fulness of the truth that God would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth." Then he goes on to forecast the reign of kindness, and good will and righteousness.
I make the quotation to show how easily, yet with what limitations, we fall into the generally expressed view that God "would have all men to be saved," while really ignoring the fact. For the writer evidently refers to the time when the church awoke to the necessity of missions; and he evidently thinks that our feeble efforts in that direction prove in a general way that God "would have all men to be saved." He takes no note of the millions and millions that have passed away without so much as hearing the joyful sound. And he is equally oblivious to the fact that millions who are living now, and other millions yet to come, will never hear the Gospel in this life. Are not these some of the "all men" whom God would save? Does it matter to Him whether they are in this world or the next? Has any one of them gone beyond the sphere of His love? We must enlarge our conception of God's own words and thoughts; they are as high as heaven is high above the earth.
I have just received a circular from a pastor of a certain congregation. It is an appeal on behalf of missions. It asks if this scheme of the church is a failure; and if not, why it is not supported. Then it goes on to say that the churches have been assessed in certain amounts, and that this particular church is far behind in raising its share. Each member is then urged to pay up.
But not a word of incentive is given. We are not told what the heathen are to be saved from, or what they are to be saved to. Surely we would like to know if they are going straight to everlasting fire if they are not converted. That is the doctrine of the church; but it does not seem expedient to express it. Why? Because it is not believed. If it were believed would there not be plenty of funds to carry the gospel to the ends of the earth? So we hang on in theory to the doctrine of eternal torment; but we do not dare, nor are we inclined, to express it. Surely it is time for a change; yes, a change to honesty and candor. If we are undecided, let us say so; the truth will prevail in due time. It is "to the upright there ariseth light in the darkness."
Nor, as I have said, does the circular give a hint or hope of what the heathen are to be saved to. There is no suggestion of "glory, honor, and immortality." Is not this altogether too vague a way of extorting money? But let it be made clear that by our efforts the worst of the heathen will be put in the way of salvation, and in many cases of possession of it, and I think there would be no lack of funds. Let it be shown that whatever there is of future suffering is on account of sin, and that it is a divine preparation for eternal joy, and the most hardened and selfish will have a worthy appeal to their liberality.
For notwithstanding all hardness and selfishness, there is deep down in the human heart a feeling of wonderful kindness for our own kith and kin. Witness the heroic efforts that are willingly made to save a fellow creature from danger or death. See the agony that is endured by the most selfish when every effort seems fruitless. Yes; we see this very plainly in the case of temporal danger or death. Would not we see the same solicitude multiplied a thousand fold if it were realized that the issues involved are eternal?
When we get to that point where these great issues can be presented as real facts, and not merely as half believed theories, I believe there would be no difficulty in raising funds for missions. And surely, it will not then be a matter of assessment, but of free will. May the glorious day be hastened!
A Strong Argument—Universal Atonement—Infinite Justice Satisfied—ACandid Methodist Minister—Can Man Commit an Infinite Sin—EverlastingPunishment Could Never Be Endured—Uses of Suffering—Punitive andRemedial—The Penalty has Been Paid—Moral Effect—Mystery of Pain—NotPunishment but Chastening—Extending Our Outlook Beyond—BoundlessSpace and Time—Operation of Grace in the Next Life—InfinitePower—Infinite Mercy—Infinite Love—Incentive to Endless Praise.
It may be said that in this argument I am not taking sufficient account of divine justice. That may be so. The fact is, that the relation of justice to the idea of universal salvation was one of the last ideas on this subject that came to my mind. But now it seems to me that in the idea of divine justice is involved one of the strongest arguments for universal salvation.
Look at the matter simply and candidly. Did not Christ die for every soul of man? All theological subtleties aside, we joyfully believe that He did. The fact is stated over and over again in Scripture, with the utmost plainness; and it is assumed in a multitude of other passages. So clearly has this come to be recognized that the American Presbyterian Church formally adopted it, and put it in their "Brief Statement" some years ago. It is also proposed for acceptance in the creed of the united churches of Canada, if that union is consummated. And despite all theories to the contrary, it is believed and preached in most if not all Evangelical Churches.
Very well. Consider what is involved in that article of our faith. If Christ really died for all, does not justice require that all will be saved! If Christ paid the debt for every sinner, will not every sinner be redeemed? How else could infinite justice be satisfied? I wish our Methodist brethern would consider this matter well. All honor to the Methodist Church for its noble testimony to the universality of the atonement. But does not universal atonement imply universal salvation? If we may speak of such things in the language of mathematics may we not say that universal salvation is the corollary of universal atonement? To this conclusion it does seem to me that we are inevitably led.
I was speaking lately to a Methodist minister of a very acute but candid mind. He put the matter in this way: Either Christ made an atonement for each one, or He did not. Did He not actually bear upon His heart the sins of the whole world? And if the whole world, then surely each one singly, so that every child of humanity may truthfully say with Paul, "He loved me, and gave Himself for me." Does not justice then demand that each one will be saved? In our present limited outlook there may be a difficulty as to how and where; but the glorious fact seems to be beyond question.
This matter is so important that I would try to make it plain from my own point of view, even if that involves some degree of repetition.
I raise the question elsewhere: Can man commit an infinite sin? Some say he can, because his sin is against God, a Being of infinite purity. If his sin then is of this infinite nature, infinite justice may demand that he suffer an infinite punishment. But being a finite being, he cannot suffer infinite punishment in quality. Therefore it is said, he must suffer it in duration. Hence the necessity of everlasting punishment. That is the argument.
But the main premise is by no means clear. It may well be doubted if man can commit an infinite sin. First; he is a finite being; and can a finite being do on infinite wrong? Further; he cannot suffer everlasting punishment. For everlasting has no end. He would never have rendered a due equivalent for his sin. When he would have suffered millions and millions of years he would be as for from rendering a due equivalent as at the beginning. Thus the demands of God's law would never be satisfied.
We have therefore to confront the idea of God inflicting a punishment that could never be rendered. In that case might not God suspend all punishment at once? For when man shall have suffered for aeons and aeons untold he would really be as far from the end as he is now. Could you think of the Infinitely Wise and Holy One pronouncing a sentence that could never be executed? Then add to the idea of Infinite Holiness and Infinite Wisdom, the idea of Infinite Power and Infinite Love, and I think you will find yourself involved in a series of contradictions which you will be glad to see dissolved as an ugly dream.
But now, supposing that man, not being infinite in his nature, cannot commit an infinite sin, is it not reasonable to think that a less punishment than an infinite one would suffice even eternal justice? Suppose, for instance, that God had cut off the first human pair when they sinned, and thus have prevented this hideous tale of mourning, lamentation, and woe, would not that suffice? For us to be debarred forever from existence and consciousness—would not that suffice? Well; the Infinite One had that alternative. But He did not resort to it. Would He not have resorted to it if He foresaw that His choice lay between eternal extinction and eternal fire, for the great majority of our race? Would the eternal joy to which He foresaw that a few of the race would attain, compensate for the eternal woe which He foresaw would be the fate of the great majority? A thousand times No. The fact that we, with our poor, limited powers, can see that there was a way of averting unutterable and everlasting woe from even one soul, is a strong argument that there is no everlasting woe. Let us beware of imputing to God that which we can see might have been honorably avoided, and that which we would shrink in horror from doing ourselves! Think this matter over seriously, and see where it will land you.
But then, what is the use of suffering at all? Surely, God foresaw that there would be a great deal of temporary suffering in this world. Why did He not prevent it?
Well; having disposed of the idea of eternal suffering, it remains for us to see the place and use of that which is temporary only. But here, an entirely new principle comes into view. Eternal suffering is supposed to be a vindication of justice. It could be nothing else; amendment of character is entirely out of the question. But temporary suffering is a means of reformation. Eternal suffering has no regard to reformation; it would issue in the very opposite. Evil would be itensified, and intensified forever, which is unthinkable; and still more is it unthinkable in a universe governed by a God of Wisdom and Holiness. But temporary suffering is a means for the development of character.
Here our ideas are thrown upon the twofold province of suffering. It is punitive, and it is reformatory. When we inflict it on an offender it partakes of both qualities; and sometimes it is hard to say which predominates. But more and more are we rising to the idea that punishment is mainly or wholly reformatory. Strong testimony is borne to that fact by determinate sentence. It is recognized that in all justice a man need not suffer a full equivalent for his crime. No matter what his crime has been, when there is good evidence that he has reformed, he is set free. It is felt that suffering has then achieved its highest end. In nothing that I know of is there such evidence of the upward trend of the race.
Now in God's infliction of suffering these two principles come clearly into view. What Christ suffered is mainly punitive; what we suffer Is reformatory. The matter may be clearer if we glance at these two things separately.
I have said that Christ's suffering was mainly punitive. Look at some statements of Scripture concerning it, and you will see that it was chiefly of that quality. It is said that "the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all." That is, He took our place so intimately that He actually bore the punishment due to us. In another place it is said that "He was made a curse for us." The curse that was originally intended for us alighted upon Him. It is said that "He is the propitiation for our sins." It is said that "Christ died for us." It is said that we are "justified by His blood." It is said that "by the obedience of One"—that is obedience unto death, "shall many be made righteous." These are only a few of many passages of similar import.
I do not overlook the fact that Christ's life and death had a moral effect as well. Certainly His life and death are the greatest example in the world; and that example has done far more to uplift the character of the world than any force brought to bear upon mankind. At the same time, the supreme meaning of His suffering is that it was punitive. He actually bore the curse for us. And we have the glorious fact repeated again and again that He did it for every soul of man. He really "satisfied divine justice."
* * * * *
Then what further claim can God rightfully make in the way of punishment? The penalty has been paid. Does God require it paid over again? He is a just God. He claims but one payment of the penalty. To my mind, that fact does away with all possibility of eternal punishment. For all other suffering that God inflicts is entirely reformatory. Whether that suffering be inflicted in this life or the life to come, the principle is the same; it is all reformatory. It may come, and often does come, as the result of sin. In the providence of God sin and suffering are closely linked together.
Wherever there is sin there is bound to be suffering, whether in this life or in the next. That has been paid in full. Christ paid the penalty for the whole race.
Whether God might have ordained some other alternative than suffering as a means of our purification, is not the point. The fact that He has ordained suffering is proof enough that it is a good appointment. I have hinted elsewhere that suffering may be a means of safeguarding us against sin to all eternity.. But this idea is advanced only as a possible solution of the mystery of pain. We go upon surer ground when we recognize suffering as one means that God has appointed for our purification. It does not come to us, or to any soul of man, as a penalty. The penalty has been paid.
But it may be said that God is angry with sin. How can He be angry with sin if the sin is actually forgiven? I answer that it is His very nature to be angry with sin, though it is forgiven. It is in opposition to His nature and His law. It is also in opposition to that development of character which He has designed for all His children. Anything which conflicts with that, excites His indignation. Hence the pains and penalties which follow in the track of sin, though the sin itself may be forgiven. When we consider that a person may be very angry with himself because of sin, though he knows that the sin is forgiven, we can understand something of the same feeling on the part of God.
God does visit the iniquity of the fathers upon the children. But is the suffering thus inflicted to be regarded as the penalty due to sin? No.
There is an amended verse in one of our old hymns in which the view seems to be taken, and I think rightly, that the atonement is not only the basis on which pardon can be righteously vouchsafed, but the very certainty of its being vouchsafed. The stanza is this:
"But never shall my soul despairThy pardon to secure,Who knows Thine only Son has diedTo make my pardon sure."
The whole matter of suffering is dealt with at length in the twelfth chapter of The Hebrews. Over and over again it is described as chastening. It is not penalty. The penalty has been paid. Suffering henceforth is Fatherly chastisement. And the intention and effect of chastisement are clearly intimated. It is said that we are not to despise the chastening of the Lord; for that He chastises us for our profit, that we might be partakers of His holiness. Again it is said that chastening afterwards yields the peaceable fruits of righteousness. That is the idea exactly. There is no word of punishment. The punishment has been endured in the sacrifice of Christ; and it is now clearly recognized that His sacrifice was offered on behalf of the whole world. But the necessity for chastisement remains. It is one means of our spiritual development, and but for the necessity for it, it would never be inflicted. Hence Jeremiah could say, "He doth not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of men."
An example may make this clearer. Take the case of Manasseh. He was one of the worst kings of Judah. It is recorded of him that "he built altars for all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of the Lord;" that "he made his children to pass through the fire;" that he "made Judah and Jerusalem to do worse than the heathen;" that he "shed innocent blood very much, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to the other." But he repented. We read that "when he was in affliction, he besought the Lord his God, and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers, and prayed unto him; and he was intreated of him, and heard his supplication."
Yes; but we read that "notwithstanding the Lord turned not from the fierceness of his great wrath, wherewith his anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations that Manasseh had provoked him withal."
Now there we have an example of the fact that a whole people was ordained to suffering in consequence of the evil wrought by one man. Such suffering cannot be penal, for we are told very plainly that it was due to the wickedness of one person; and even he had repented and was forgiven. In that case there was no room for penalty. It would be entirely out of place. But there was room for discipline. The monstrous evil that Manasseh had wrought would in part survive, notwithstanding his personal reformation. So the suffering could not be penalty; but it could be chastisement. There might be "the fierceness of great wrath," as we read there was; but there was love behind. The people might not have the spiritual discernment to see their suffering in that light; but we have a clearer revelation than they had; so we read that "whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth."
Even now we witness the sad spectacle of God's own people—the very people to whom we have been referring—being made a byword and a hissing among the nations. And wherefore? Because of sin? Certainly. But not as a punishment for sin, but as a necessary means of reformation. A superficial view of the case may deem it punishment; but a deeper view recognizes it as chastisement. The fundamental fact is, that Christ bore their sin, and all sin, "in His own body on the tree." Surely, justice will say that it has not to be borne again. Hence, all suffering that is now inflicted, is not inflicted as a punishment, but as a discipline. "The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." Then, "he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins." That glorious fact should settle all difficulty.
Suffering, then, is appointed solely for the uplift of character, both in this life and the next. When it has done its work—and in some cases it may take long—it will cease.
These profound questions require us to extend our outlook into the next life. And nothing can be more truly natural. For with God there is no limit as to time or space. The history of our world, and of our race in this lower life, is but a span in the eternal years.
The trouble has been that men have had no idea of the operation of grace beyond this life. This is no disparagement of the limitations of able and saintly men in the past. We have simply had a growing revelation. It is no credit to us that we have larger views.
We see now that the yearnings of divine love will be satisfied. There is a harmony in this view which commends it at once to our highest conceptions of fitness. God is infinite in His being, and in His perfections. Hence His operations are not limited to the mere span of time. The outgoings of His Wisdom, and power, and love, are from everlasting to everlasting.
In my view, there is nothing that will so effectually break down sin, as a belief that all sin has been atoned for. That is God's royal way of bestowing favors. But then we need renewal. That may require a shorter or a longer process, but it will come, either in this life or the next. In a multitude of passages in the divine Word we know that God desires this. Not only so, but God has expressed His desire in the gift of His Son. If we had any doubt, surely that might convince us. And I believe it will convince us yet. The doctrine of a universal atonement is now generally accented. Even Calvinists have declared almost unanimously that Christ died for the whole world. And if we had not that declaration in words, we have it even more emphatically in missionary enterprise. Still there is a remnant of the old belief that Christ died only for the sins of the elect. I believe the day is coming when there will be the assured conviction that He died for the sins of the world. Then there will follow the joyous assurance that there is salvation for the world, to be realized either in this life or the next.
We have said that God desires this consumation. He has expressed that desire again and again in His Word. And He has expressed it with infinite emphasis in the gift of His Son. Men, ask yourselves this question: Can any desire of His ultimately fail? Let us never forget that "his counsel will stand, and he will do all His pleasure."
Our Limitations—Development—Our Capacity—Divine Foreknowledge—No Divine Failure—The Heathen—Unchangeable Love—Union of Four Attributes—Eternal Wisdom—A Marvel of Coercion and Freedom—The Day of Divine Power—An Unfathomable Mystery—Future Revelations—Coming to Zion with Songs.
Since trying to see the relation of absolute Justice to the Idea of Restoration, it has struck me that it may be well to take a glance at some others of the Divine attributes, and see if they also sustain the same theory. Any theory that is really true must be in harmony with the Divine character. The trouble is, that our knowledge of all that pertains to the Infinite is necessarily limited. At the same time, if it seems that when any quality of the Divine character is contradicted or disparaged by any theory of ours, that is a strong argument that the theory is not true. But if, on the other hand, our theory is seen to glorify the Divine character, that is strong evidence that the theory is right. While well aware, then, of our limitations, in this direction, it is fair to inquire if the Divine attributes, or any of them, appear to sustain our theory.
We have dealt already with the attribute of Justice. Some have regarded that as the fundamental quality of the Divine character. I am not sure that it is so. I think Love and Wisdom are equally fundamental. In a former age the idea of Divine Justice overshadowed all other conceptions of God. But the fact that He is infinite in His being, seems to imply that He is also infinite in His perfections. So we shall give our attention for a little to the qualities of Power, of Wisdom, and of Love, and try to combine them with the idea of Justice, at which we have glanced already.
Take Divine Wisdom. That means that God knows all things. Ponder for a moment what that implies. It means that to the Eternal Mind, every event, whether it be past, present, or future, is as clear as if it were now transpiring. He knows, without any peradventure, everything that will happen throughout all eternity. And He sees every circumstance that will cause every event to transpire. Not only that, but He has the fullest knowledge of the best means to adopt to bring about any desirable end.
Such an idea is altogether too vast and high for us adequately to comprehend. At the same time, it seems to imply certain things that are beyond peradventure. God must have foreseen, for instance, that He would make man. He must have foreseen, too, that man would fall. He foresaw, also, and arranged, the great scheme of Redemption. But He must have known with the utmost certainty that millions and millions of the human race would pass out of this life without once hearing the joyful sound. And because they did not know it, if annihilation or torment is true, He knew that He would utterly extinguish them, or consign them to everlasting fire!
Now, can you think of a Being of Infinite Wisdom doing either? Apart altogether from the idea of Love, could you think of Infinite Wisdom acting in this way? Would you not think it as a most horrid stigma on human wisdom, and infinitely more so on Divine? To think that God made the human race, at the same time knowing well that the vast majority of the race would come to such an end—an end which they could not forsee nor prevent! Is that the way Infinite Wisdom would act? The idea seems almost blasphemy. Yet that is what you must believe if you accept the idea either of annihilation or of endless torment.
More than that. Consider that the Creator endows every one of the race with mental powers of almost infinite expansion; yea, better still, with moral powers and affections akin to those of the angels. Then consider that in the case of most, these divine powers were to be extinguished, and that the unfortunate beings who had been endowed with them were to pass back into nonentity, or be cast into everlasting torment. In the one case there would be utter abortion; in the other, there would be everlasting development of evil. Could you conceive of anything more unworthy of Eternal Wisdom?
Still more. God foresaw and arranged the great scheme of Redemption. That it was to be available for the whole race was divinely intended. We are told again and again that God gave His Son for the world. It is said that He "tasted death for every man." But God did not take means to apply it to every man in this life. He could easily have done so. He could have sent His angels to proclaim to men the good news of salvation. Such an idea is not so far-fetched as at first sight it may appear. We follow the same principle when we send missionaries to the heathen. Oceans were formerly almost impassable. There is still more or less risk, both from the voyage and the climate and the hostility of savages. We may well suppose that angels could pass more easily from star to star than that man can pass from continent to continent. And all the savagery of evil men could have no effect on angels.
Why, then, did He not send them? He must have foreseen that men would fail in giving the Gospel to the heathen. But was the eternal destiny of the great majority of our race to depend on the whim of men? If God provided salvation for the heathen, would He not convey it to them in some way? Evidently, He has not done so in this life. Do we not begin, then, to see that there must be some other time, or some other means, of effecting His purposes? For "His purpose will stand, and he will do all his pleasure."
And when we consider the eternity of His being, and of our own, nothing is more reasonable than that He has ordained a fitting opportunity beyond the boundary of time. Let us only rid ourselves of our insular, contracted ideas, and we will see how worthy of the Infinite Wisdom is such a scheme of grace.
Then there is another consideration. God loves every soul of man. And every man was endowed with a capacity of worshipping Him, and of having communion with Him to all eternity. If any failed from any cause whatever to rise to this great experience, would not God's own happiness be curtailed?
I know that it has been an orthodox doctrine that God cannot suffer. I have long had my doubts of it. To be sure, we read that He is "without variableness or shadow of turning." Does not that apply to His character? In that respect He is absolutely unchangeable. It is no infringement of that great truth to believe that He can suffer. I spoke of this matter lately to a minister of profound mind. He replied: "I would not think much of Him if He could not suffer."
I have even thought that in the incarnation and death of Christ, the Father suffered equally with the Son. It is a great mystery; I do not press it. But my thought has been that there was such infinite sympathy between them that the Father actually suffered as much as the Son. If a child is sick, does not the mother suffer as much as the child? And do we not all suffer if our children are in pain? Now, we inherit as much of the Divine nature as is possible to be communicated to human nature. The root of such suffering is love. And is not God's love for His children infinitely greater than ours? Therefore, would not His happiness be curtailed by seeing His children in pain? We know that "He doth not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of men." Can He, then, contemplate with changeless equanimity the wickedness and final suffering of the great majority of our race? So far as I know, there is no such idea in Scripture; and it is certainly not suggested by our own human nature in its highest development.
Now, can it be supposed that the sin of puny man will finally impair the happiness of God? It may for a time; but Divine Love will win; God will be all in all. Surely it accords with our highest reason to believe that His happiness will not finally be lessened. There is a manifest and eternal unfitness in such a supposition. The Divine Wisdom that rules in all worlds will surely make it impossible.
Think next of Divine Power. Now with regard to this attribute, there is one thing to be recognized; but it is not self-evident. It is this: that God is omnipotent in the moral realm, as in the physical. This may be disputed. It will be freely granted that in the physical world God has all power. But in the moral sphere, is not even divine power limited by our free will?
Now, I do not intend to go into the metaphysics of the matter. That would perhaps but involve us in deeper mystery. I think the question will be clearer if we take one example. It is that of Saul of Tarsus, on the occasion of his conversion. He was changed in a moment by omnipotent power. So radical was the change that from being "the chief of sinners" he became the chief of saints. Nothing short of omnipotent power could effect such a change.
But at the same time, was not Saul a free agent? Afterwards, when referring to this wonderful experience, he says: "I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision." Surely, that implies freedom. Yet while he was free, divine power constrained him. Such a mystery no man can understand.
Could Saul have withstood the change? I reverently say that I do not know. If Paul, in the time of his great inlightenment, had been asked if he could have withstood it, I can imagine that he would have said that he did not know, and did not want to know. Even if he were asked the same question to-day, I can believe that he would still give the same answer.
Such is the mystery of the operation of the Divine Spirit. We are really "made willing in the day of His power." What a wonderful expression that is of the union of divine coercion and human freedom! I doubt if all the metaphysics of the schools will ever get beyond it.
* * * * *
But now, looking at the matter in this light, what wonderful operations of grace are opened up to our faith! The power that redeemed Saul can surely redeem the worst of mankind, while yet conserving their moral liberty. And surely divine love will incline God to take such action. O yes; Divine Love, and Divine Wisdom, come in here to act in concert with Divine Power. O, the depths of the riches both of the Wisdom and Knowledge—and surely, we may add the Love—of God!
To be sure, it may be asked, "Why does nor God put forth such redeeming power in this life?" There may be good reasons why, but we must beware of intruding into divine mysteries. We might as well ask, Why did not God interfere sooner in the case of Saul? When we think of the havoc he was making of the church, and the suffering he was inflicting on God's own saints, we might ask, Why was he permitted to run such an evil course so long? Both questions are of the same order; and we could point to ten thousand more. In all such cases we can but reverently say, "Secret things belong unto the Lord." "Even so. Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight."
We have already anticipated the general operation of divine Love in the next life. But now let us look at the matter more particularly.
We have always to remember that we are God's own children, not in name only, but in the most real sense. The mere fact that we are transferred to another world, implies only a change of location and of surroundings; possibly a very slight change in locality when we consider the amazing amplitude of creation. Surely, a mere change of locality can make no change in everlasting love! In that thought, if we see no farther, is there not enough to stimulate eternal hope?
But then, think that God has made the Sacrifice of all sacrifices of giving His Son for our salvation. We can never fathom that mystery of Love Divine. Now, if he made this Sacrifice for only a part of mankind, as we formerly taught, we would be constrained to think of His Love as being limited and partial. In that case, we could think it possible that He might consign all the rest of our race to eternal torture with the utmost complacence. But when we realize that He loved the whole of mankind, and that the Sacrifice was made for the whole of mankind, are we not forced to the conclusion that all mankind will be saved?
For that Love is as intense as it is universal. Yes; think of its intensity, as well as its scope. Surely, such Divine Love will attain its end. All the methods that Divine Wisdom sees to be necessary will be used, so that Divine Love will not fail. This looks like the completeness we would expect from Divine plans and purposes. Anything less would seem like a failure of Him who is Eternal Love as well as Eternal Wisdom.
Think over this matter reverently, and I believe you will arrive at the conclusion we are trying to recommend. When we realize that Infinite Love is changeless, and that it is united with Infinite Power, and Infinite Wisdom, as well as with Infinite Justice, we cannot but believe that it will have the victory. O, yes; we believe that the present abnormal conditions will be done away with; that grace will triumph over sin; that suffering will disappear; that all the ransomed of the Lord shall yet come to Zion with songs!