Abraham Tucker's View—Ingenious and Reverent—Variety ofEndowment—Maximum of Happiness—Imparting and Receiving NewIdeas—Compensations—Infinite Justice.
When I was a lad I met with an old book entitled "Equality," by Abraham Tucker. The main idea of the book, so far as I can recollect, was, that as God is infinitely just, He must treat all His creatures with absolute equality. As such a thing is evidently not in force now, the idea was that the future life will exactly rectify all the inequalities of the present, so that upon the whole there will be perfect equality. It was an ingenious and reverent theory; but on turning it over in my mind just now, I find some formidable objections to it.
For one thing, the inequalities that prevail now, when not painful, give us no serious discontent. In fact, except in extreme cases, we rather approve and enjoy them. No doubt we have a love of variety; but apart from that, we rather delight to have superiors and inferiors. It is pleasant to have some one to whom we can look up, as better endowed than ourselves; and it is pleasant to have others who can look up to us. And our best and most ethical judgment approves of this feeling. In particular, there is no feeling so ennobling as reverence; but there would be no proper place for reverence if we were equal. It would not, therefore, be easy to think that an ideal state of society demands equality.
Again: Analogy points decisively the same way. If we look above us we find that there are among the angels, thrones, dominions, principalities and powers. If we look below us, we find a striking variety among the animals. In either case, there is not equality; and so far as we know, no compensations to produce equality. It would be hard to believe that there ever will be such compensations in the case of the human race.
Moreover: The theory of equality in the long run would seem to require that some deteriorate, which is extremely unlikely, in view of the fact that the normal law of God's universe is advancement.
Then, further: We cannot conceive of equality of endowment as producing the maximum of happiness. It is a great joy to impart a new idea; and it is a great joy to receive one. But if all were equal, there could be no joy, either of imparting or receiving; which is contrary to our idea of the highest perfection and blessedness.
Again: It is reasonable to believe that in the future world there will be variety of service, calling for different endowment and capacity to perform it; and if such different equipment is required, we may be sure that it is provided. If that is so, equality cannot be the ideal condition.
Still more: As time is so short, and eternity so long, the least compensation in eternity would infinitely over-balance the greatest inequality in time. From that point of view we could not look for equality, even in the most distant age.
Add to these various considerations the Scriptural intimation that "one star differeth from another star in glory," with all that is intended to be illustrated by that statement; and the idea of equality seems to have no place.
On such grounds as these we believe that there will be forever a variety of endowment and capacity; and that such variety is in full agreement with God's infinite justice.
Different Processes—The Case of Saul—Changed in a Moment—NoViolence to Human Freedom—The Case of Nebuchadnezzar—Sudden orSlow—New Illumination—Basis of Warning—An Object Lesson—Functionof Suffering.
Here I would advert to the different processes that may be used for man's redemption. We have referred to the case of Saul. His case is a typical one. It illustrates the fact that God can use means by which the most incorrigible sinner may be entirely changed in a moment; and that, without doing any violence to his freedom.
But now, take another case. It will show just as clearly that God sometimes uses means whereby the sinner is not reclaimed in a moment, but that he requires a series of years. Take the case of Nebuchadnezzar. He was driven from his throne, and excluded from the haunts of men. According to the account he "did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles' feathers, and his nails like birds' claws."
Such was the severe discipline to which the wicked king was subjected, and subjected for a long period. But in due time the discipline had its effect. The king was reformed and restored. I suppose God could have captured him in a moment, as in the case of Saul; but He chose otherwise.
It may be asked: Whence such a difference in reclaiming these two men? They seem to have been much of the same spirit. It is said of Saul that he "breathed out threatening and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord;" and it is said of Nebuchadnezzar that he was "full of fury." It is said of Saul, too, that he witnessed against God's saints, and hounded them to their death. And it is said of Nebuchadnezzar that he cast the three faithful Hebrews into the burning fiery furnace. The main difference was, that Saul compassed the death of the saints by law; whereas Nebuchadnezzar himself was the law. In spirit and life the two men seem to have been much alike. Yet they were both reclaimed. But how? Certainly, by very different means.
As accounting for the different means so effectually used in these two cases, it may be said that they were men of different light, and hence their different treatment. Or it may be said that the world required Saul's services at once, and hence his immediate transformation; whereas the world could wait for the reformation of the king. Yet all such reasoning may be entirely beside the mark. It is a mystery profound. With our present limited outlook I think it would be wiser and more reverent to bow our heads in submission, and say, "Even so, Father; for so it seemed good in Thy sight." It seems to me that Nebuchadnezzar and Saul are typical cases of God's reformatory processes in the next life. Some of these processes may be sudden, and others more prolonged. And their severity or duration does not seem to depend on the depth of iniquity into which a man has sunk. It depends rather on his repentance. Some may require a long and severe discipline, like Nebuchadnezzar; others—possibly some of the greatest transgressors—may yield to the reformatory process without much delay. And it accords with our highest ideas of justice to believe that those who lived up to the light they had, though it were but a dim light, will experience little or no pain, except what may come of the rectifying of mistakes. Even this may be more than balanced by the illumination of new truth. But whether the needed discipline be long or short, and whether it be more or less severe, we believe it will have its due effect. Finally, all sin will be done away, and God will be all in all.
The unknown extent of suffering in the next life I think is the basis of warning for men to flee from the wrath to come. When we know that God is angry with sinners every day, we can imagine something of His wrath against sin in the next life, so long as the sin continues. In some cases this wrath may continue long, and the suffering which it entails may be severe. Certainly the divine favor will not rest on any sinner who continues alienated from God.
Is not this suffering in the future life sufficient to serve as a warning to sinners now? There is hardly any warning given by preachers at present, except a very general one which amounts almost to nothing. Preachers evidently do not believe in eternal torment. If they did, they would make that the basis of their warning, and never cease. But now that such a warning is almost never uttered, what is there to take its place? I answer, the unknown suffering of the next life, to be continued as long as sin continues.
But it may be said that such a warning would be far too mild to have any due effect. On the contrary, I venture to think it would be as effectual, and perhaps more so, than the warning of eternal torment. For this warning has always to be general. We have no definite conception of what constitutes the torment; hence men do not really believe it. Especially when it is represented as of eternal duration, the idea is entirely beyond men's imagination; and so the effect is far from proportionate to the warning.
But we can imagine something of the suffering of discipline. That comes within the scope of our imagination; yea, and of our experience, too. And when it is represented as ceasing when the desired result is secured, it commends itself to our highest ideas of benevolence, wisdom, and justice; and but for the baleful influence of tradition, would become at once credible.
If you want an example of the same principle on a smaller scale, take the case of Nebuchadnezzar to whom we referred. Was his a light punishment? Anything more dreadful it would be hard to conceive. But it was discipline; and the discipline was removed when it had accomplished its purpose. And don't you think it had a most salutary effect on the man all his days? I imagine that the same principle applies to the next life. What the discipline may be, we know not; yet we can conceive that in certain cases it may be terrible suffering. But when the desired reformation is effected, the suffering will be removed. And don't you think that the very memory of that suffering will be a wholesome object lesson to all eternity?
This is the suffering which I would have proclaimed to all men as a warning. And it can be uttered with the accent of intelligent conviction, which the warning of endless torment never can. Moreover, it is so consonant with our best instincts of necessity, justice, mercy, truth, love—that it carries men's convictions at once.
Think of this also, that for aught we know, such an object lesson may be needed to all eternity, as a warning against sin. And we can conceive that it may vary immensely in different cases. When we recognize the variety of personality that has been created, the idea dawns on us that a great variety of suffering may be required to be an effective lesson through all eternity. Some may require more; others less. And God, who knows and has ordained the mental and moral calibre of every human soul, may regulate the discipline accordingly.
It may be, therefore, that Nebuchadnezzar could have been captured in a moment, as in the case of Saul; but it may have been that such would not have been a safe proceeding. He may have required the severer discipline as a necessary object lesson to all eternity. Saul was reclaimed at once; and if we may judge from his after life, he needed no prolonged discipline; and it is probable he will need none through the endless years. Thus God may adjust his discipline to each particular case.
* * * * *
And we can well believe that the sufferings passed through in time as the result of sin may be so vividly recalled in the next life that they will be a warning against sin to all eternity. When we reflect on the vividness with which we now recall events of twenty, or forty, or sixty years ago, we can well believe that with our quickened memory in eternity, the events that happened in time will stand out in vivid reality for ever.
It does not seem far-fetched then to believe that this is the special function of suffering. Such a theory goes far to explain the mystery of pain. It may really be an everlasting warning against sin; and thus the redeemed may be preserved in eternal blessedness. This is a great mystery. The very thought of it excites our wonder, and love, and praise.
I have touched here, as I have said, on a great mystery; but it will be observed that I have advanced it only as a possibility. As such, it immensely enlarges our view of the wisdom and love of the divine administration, and that not only in this life, but in the next. It also gives us a faint light on the everlasting mystery of pain. If it should turn out that suffering in its varying form and degree is really necessary as an object lesson for all eternity, we can conceive that when we see it in this light we shall be almost overwhelmed with wonder and adoration.
Meagre Details—Good Reasons Why—Extent of the Universe—Future Glory—Sin in Other Worlds—No Revelation—Future Abode of the Righteous—Solid or Ethereal—Impossible Revelations—Present Duties and Interests—Our Limitations—Necessity of Purification—Preaching to the Spirits in Prison—Stages of Progress—The Law of Gradual Development.
There is one matter to which I would refer at this stage, because I think the settlement of it on a reasonable basis will be a great aid to many devout minds. It will be supposed by many that if there is an intermediate state of purification, some mention of it, and some details of it, would be given in revelation. To my mind, the comparative silence of revelation in regard to it, counts for almost nothing in our estimate of its probability—I might almost say of its necessity.
There is one consideration of prime importance in this connection, which ought not to be overlooked. It is this: that in regard even to the future world of final blessedness, we have very meagre details. And there are good reasons why we have not more. I think it is not generally realized how fragmentary are such details; and yet we believe in the fact itself beyond the shadow of a doubt. In fact there are few things in which we have more implicit confidence than a future world of blessedness and glory. But consider how few details of it are revealed. Think of the many subjects closely related to it on which we are in complete ignorance. It may be well to run over some of these matters briefly, that we may realize how utterly ignorant we are of affairs connected with that world of final blessedness. And if that be so in regard to heaven itself, how much less we may expect to be enlightened beforehand on the details of any intermediate state of preparation.
Think of the fact that we are surrounded by other worlds of glory; and yet we do not even know if any of those worlds are inhabited. To be sure, there are considerations founded on the material and moral order of things that assure us almost beyond a doubt that they are inhabited. But there is no proof. We simply do not know. One of those worlds is a thousand times larger than the earth; one is twelve hundred times; several are far more magnificent; yet we do not even know if they have any population.
More than that, we do not know if one of them—or our own earth—has passed through cycles of population during the uncounted centuries of the past. As little do we know if any or all of them will be theatres of life and intelligence in the future. Now if we know so little as to the history of our own and neighboring worlds in the past, and have no revelation as to their future, is it likely that we would be informed as to details of some world of purification located probably away in the realms of space?
Then this sun of ours is fourteen hundred thousand times larger than the earth. But we know almost nothing of his constitution or history. He is really a universe in himself. Of the functions he performs in reference to the worlds that surround him we know a little; but how his heat is sustained—what is attraction—what is his destiny—is all unknown. If we are so ignorant of this primal source of life in all these planetary worlds, are we likely to be informed of the methods of moral discipline, probably in some distant world?
But our sun, large and important as he is, is but a speck in creation. These myriads of stars that shine nightly in the heavens are all suns. It is calculated that the union of the telescope with the photographic plate brings five hundred millions of these stars into view. Some of them are demonstrated to be hundreds of times larger than our sun. But that is nearly all we know about them. Whether any of them has a retinue of worlds revolving around him like our sun, will never be known on this side of time. Then beyond all we can see, we recognize a probability of the existence of uncounted millions of worlds; but we know nothing of them. Therefore we would hardly expect to have details revealed of some distant sphere of purification.
Again, whether any of these worlds have fallen, we do not know; and as little do we know as to whether any of them have been redeemed. We may reason about the matter; but it is only a short way that reason will carry on such a profound question. I believe that the merit of the Sacrifice made in this world of ours might be made available in all worlds that need it, be their sin what it may. It is also very conceivable that the good news might be conveyed to those worlds by angels, just as the good news is made known in our world by men. The same principle would hold. In the one case there would be a wider application of the message than in the other; that is the main difference. And when we think of the swifter and easier movements of angels, even that difference might amount to nothing.
But the whole subject is one on which we have no revelation whatever. Now if there are millions of other worlds, with teeming populations, and if not the most meagre revelation has been made to us as to their moral character or destiny, it is surely not surprising that we have no revelation as to the details of a state of purification beyond this life. We have thankfully to recognize the fact that we are not burdened with revelations which would only confuse and distract us. It is surely a gracious providence that withholds revelations of such details for the present. But that is no argument why such details will not be revealed by and by, any more than that the unrevealed joys of heaven will be disclosed to us when we are able to understand and enjoy them.
* * * * *
Still more; beyond the realm of stars whose outline is somewhat clearly marked, there is a dim shimmer of glory, suggestive of uncounted millions of stars and systems farther on. This golden glimmer of distant worlds has been likened to a candle shining through a horn. We are simply lost in the extent and glory of the starry hosts. Do we not begin to see that the universe is far too vast to be revealed to mortals? To have the essentials of truth and duty revealed to us here, in this dim corner of the universe, is as much as we ought to expect. By and by we may hope to have larger revelations.
We may realize this principle more fully if we come down again to the earth, and to enquire if this earth is to be the future abode of the righteous? Some say it is. We simply do not know. When we do not know if this earth is to be our future dwelling place, can we reasonably expect to have details of the place and manner of our purification—though it be a matter of far higher moment?
Then again: Is the earth the final abode of the righteous? Or is it only to be the initial place of future blessedness? Or, are there many heavens, each preceding one to be a preparation for a higher? Here again all our thoughts are drowned.
Or again: Is heaven to be a solid world like this earth, or is it to be an ethereal world? Such questions are far too high for us. In this narrow sphere of earth and time we know almost nothing of the glory to be revealed. I would say that a study of the extent and magnificence of creation would give us some hints of what eye hath not seen, nor ear heard. At all events the more we are acquainted with the glories of the universe, the more we shall realize how little is likely to be revealed of the details of any preparatory stage of final blessedness.
* * * * *
And besides such a revelation being unreasonable, we believe it would be impossible. There are probably millions of worlds, as well as our own. Each one of these has likely a moral history. Now it is easily conceivable that the services rendered in heaven may have a close relation to some of these worlds. Thus we could not have a revelation of our future service without being let more or less into the moral history of those worlds. But it will be seen at once that this would be utterly beyond us, as well as useless to us at present. In fact it would only perplex and confuse us, and divert our attention from the practical duties of life.
It is remarkable also that we have almost no revelation of the present active service of the better world. To give us such a revelation might involve other revelations which in the meantime are too high and too complicated for us to understand. Everything is beautiful in its season. Just as now we do not try to initiate children into the problems of life that will come with mature age, so we, real children in understanding, are not burdened with the knowledge, and all that such knowledge would involve, that will come in a future life.
Besides; such premature knowledge would probably detach our interest and attention from the duties that press upon us now. We are here with certain duties and interests; and when these are duly apprehended they are quite sufficient to engage our time and thought, without being concerned with the duties that will come with a future state.
* * * * *
Thus we see something of the wisdom and the love in giving us only such details as suit our present limitations. There may be a state of purification beyond this life; but we shall adapt ourselves to that state when the time comes; not before. When we see the character of God, as revealed in His Word; when we realize the sin and misery of our present condition; when we apprehend the wonderful sacrifice that has been made for the recovery of our race; and when we realize the unspeakable glory that may be ours—we begin to see the probability—yes, the necessity—of a process of purification beyond the sphere of time.
Yet, while we have no details given us as to the process or the time required for purification, we have certain suggestions. In the Old Testament there is a reference to "prisoners of hope." The reference is somewhat obscure, and taken by itself it is of doubtful meaning. But in the New Testament it is intimated that Christ went and "preached to the spirits in prison." There we have a gleam of light as to what is meant by "prisoners of hope." There were imprisoned souls to whom Christ took some joyful message. We have no statement as to the purport of the message, or the circumstances of the prisoners, beyond the fact that they were confined.
While not going outside of what is revealed, it does not seem too much to assume that He took to them the good news of Restoration, and perhaps kindred topics. O yes; the Saviour's death had reference not to ourselves alone, but it had a relation to those in another world.
* * * * *
Perhaps I ought to say here that this supposed state of discipline is by no means to be confounded with the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory.
The term of duration of purgatorial fire is supposed to be determined by the priest, who can effect a release at any time he pleases. It is simply a matter of payment. And the idea of purgatory may be held—I think is generally held—without conceiving of it as a means of purification. Is it not rather conceived of as a place of punishment?
But the intermediate state we conceive of is a state of purification and education. There may be intense suffering in certain cases. We can conceive that such suffering may be required as a means of purification. In other cases no great suffering, or none at all, may be necessary. By some means, specially adapted to each case, every soul will be prepared to enter a state of blessedness.
Even that final state may have lower grades, preparatory for the higher. It does not seem consistent with God's dealings with man to thrust a frail human spirit into the blinding glory of heaven. It is far more likely that there are lower stages, preparatory for higher. When a child is born into the world it is not even aware for a time that it has entered on a new mode of existence. But it adapts itself unconsciously to its new surroundings, and by easy stages develops perhaps into a poet or a philosopher. In some such way, but on a higher plane, we can believe that the soul is developed in the future life. We may confidently leave all details with Him who is "Wise in Counsel, and excellent in working," and whose love is unchangeable and everlasting.
Just now I have met with a Christian minister whom I know well, and a worthy man he is, who has tried to evade the payment of a very small debt. Now is it to be supposed that when that man dies he will go straight into glory, infected with such a streak of meanness? Then where will it be purged out of him? Will the process of death effect it? Certainly not. What remains then, but that between this life and the next there is some process of purification.
And that case is only a typical one. If we knew all, perhaps we should find that there is a mean streak of some kind in every one of us. How then shall we get rid of it? Just ponder that problem for awhile.
The Descent of Jesus into Hades—Singular Reserve of Preachers—Purgatory—Dr. Gerhardt's Book—A Bodily Resurrection—The SpiritWorld Requires a Spirit Body.
Here I would advert briefly to a topic that seems to me to have a strong bearing in the same direction. I mean the descent of Jesus into Hades, and the intimation that He "preached to the spirits in prison." On this subject the whole Christian world—at least the Protestant world—has maintained a singular reserve. In fact I have never heard the matter even once casually referred to in any Protestant pulpit. It may be that even a casual reference to it might be taken as favoring the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory. Such is the craven fear that men have of being supposed to be tainted with Romanism. In other cases it may be that the whole subject is thought to be involved in so much mystery that it is better to leave it alone. But I believe that if we had a larger and more sympathetic view of the entire domain of truth, this topic would be seen to be radiant with eternal hope.
In this spirit it is referred to by Dr. Calvin S. Gerhardt in his book on "Death and the Resurrection." That book came out some years ago, and there were some letters passed between the author and myself in reference to the contents. He holds the view that the body of Christ was not raised, but His spirit only; and he tries to sustain that view by a variety of arguments, some of which seem to me very unworthy. My own view is, that the body was actually raised, but that now being a spiritual body it had the power of transformation, so that at pleasure it could become visible or invisible to fleshly eyes.
However, in the same connection Dr. Gerhardt refers to Christ's descent into Hades; and he treats that matter with a candor and eloquence, along with good sense, that in my opinion, leaves nothing to be desired. I will here transcribe some passages of his on that topic, and so dismiss further discussion of it. He says:
"The popular doctrine which teaches that the opportunity of salvationalwaysends with the present life, finds no support in sacred Scripture and is completely overthrown by Christ's descent into Hades. This important stage of His mission is often overlooked, or ignored; and we must confess that we too stand with bated breath, before the problem which its consideration presents, for we are confronted here with mysteries. But the mysteries are not closed, and are not utterly incapable of solution."
Again he says: "Christ's visits to the earth were few and brief after His resurrection. Where then was He during the forty days when not visible to His disciples? Not in heaven, for He had not yet ascended. Neither was He on earth, for if any one truth was constantly more fully enforced by Him, it was that through His death He had passed beyond the sphere of the earthly. Where else then could He have sojourned but in Hades—that unseen world of the dead into which all men pass when they lay aside their mortal bodies, and begin to live in spiritual bodies."
Again: "To the penitent thief on the cross Jesus said, 'To-day thou shalt be with Me in Paradise.' The Saviour, therefore, must have gone to the regions of the dead, for to the Jews, Paradise meant the locality in Hades to which the blessed dead were received."
Again: "St. Peter not only assures us that Christ descended into Hades, but also tells us why He went thither, 'Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that He might bring us to God; being put to death in the flesh, but quickened in the spirit,' in which he also went and preached to the spirits in prison."
Again: "Again 'For unto this end was the gospel preached even to the dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit,'"
Again: "These passages of Scripture, as well as the whole drift of the New Testament, make plain the important truth that the great work which our Saviour prosecuted on earth He continued also in Hades. His incarnation and full union with us, in our earthly, mortal life, involved Him in a similar revelation to the dead, according to their altered conditions and environment. What He did for our earthly life He did for them there in full harmony with the changed circumstances of their post-mundane form of existence."
Again: "By His descent into Hades," says Martensen, "Christ revealedHimself as the Redeemer of all souls."
Once more: "The descent into the realm of the dead gave expression to the truth, that the distinctions Here and There—the limits of space—are of no significance regarding Christ, and do not concern His kingdom. No powers of nature, no limits of space or of time, can hinder Christ from finding His way to souls. His kingdom has extended even into the region of the dead, and still includes that region; and the distinctions of living and dead, of earlier and later generations of men, of times of ignorance and times of knowledge, possess but a transient significance."
In confirmation of these views, I would add one consideration of rather an abstract character. When our Saviour died on the cross, why did He not revive at once? Instead of that we know that He waited until the third day. I have no doubt that one reason was, that He intended that all believers in Him might have a conclusive proof that He had really died and revived. But one other reason may have been this, that He intended to visit the spirits in prison, and in order to be en rapport with them, He needed to go in the spirit. They were in the spirit; and for Him to go to them in a human body would have been to interpose an effectual barrier between Himself and them. If they are somewhere in the spirit world, a spirit body alone could reach them.
Infinite Being and Perfection—Grades of Being—Variety—Man'sLimitations—Moral Beings—Hopeless Surroundings—All Are Children ofGod—Righting the Wrongs of Time—"The Heart of the Universe is Love"—Eternal Conscious Torment Incredible—Conquering Power of Love—Eternal Purpose Will Not Fail—Omnipotence in the Moral Realm—TheDivine Expression of Love—Universal Atonement Involves UniversalSalvation—Final Success of God's Designs—Will Evil NecessarilyPerpetuate itself?—Triumph of Good Over Evil—Few Stripes or Many—Reformatory Punishment—Bringing Good out of Evil—Possibilities ofRedeeming Grace—The Ransomed of the Lord—Wrath but the Shadow ofLove—Former Eternity of Sinlessness—Wrath no Constituent of the DivineCharacter—Pity and Indignation.
There can be no mistake here. The Scripture declares, again and again that God is Love. Also, the Scripture is clear in regard to His infinity. In fact our reason would almost carry us so far. For if all things had a Creator, that Creator must have had no beginning. But we take it that God will be freely conceded to be infinite in His being, and in the qualities of His character.
He is infinite then in His love. Being infinite in His being, He could be no less than infinite in His love. That surely means that He loves every being that He has made. Will He not therefore do the most and best that is possible to be done for each one of His creatures? To be sure, there are grades of being. Some have a larger capacity than others. We know of no law by which love would impel the Creator to create all beings alike. No, there is a law of variety which we shall consider later; and that accounts for beings of different function, capacity, surroundings, employment, and so on. At the same time, is it not safe to infer that there is a possible maximum of happiness which every being has attained, or will attain, under a government of divine love?
Of course there may be limitations. Man has been made a free being. He may therefore limit his own possibilities. He may deliberately choose to do wrong. Thus he may impose a limitation on himself. In one sense this may be considered a great misfortune. But how else could a moral being be created? We cannot conceive of any other way. If we had not been created moral beings, we could never rise to anything worth while. God wanted to make the most and the best of us. But with that possibility of rising there was also the possibility of falling. Therefore, so far as that consideration is concerned, our creation, on this human status, was an expression of infinite love.
But then, the present is a state of discipline. Since sin has come in, and so marred our perfection and happiness, it has been ordained that the present life will be a preparation for a better future life. Therefore our present sinful limitations are not finally disastrous. They may be even turned to benedictions. Instances are not wanting where untold suffering has issued in great moral perfection, with a corresponding high place in the world beyond. Such considerations as these show clearly that our creation, even though we are fallen, was an act of infinite love.
Yes, but what about the untold millions who do not turn their present suffering to good account? Especially what about the uncounted millions of heathen? Many of them were born into conditions of utter hopelessness; their surroundings were of the worst; it would be utterly futile to expect that their present life could be a preparation for final blessedness.
Now is it to be supposed for a moment that God does not love every heathen just as He loves every Christian? Surely, they are all His children, and He loves every one of them with a Father's love. Then what about the other millions that live in Christian lands who have no idea of making the present life a preparation for the future? Are they not all equally dear to Him? Let us rise above all insular, mean, petty love of our own, and think of the love of God—impartial, free, infinite, everlasting! Can it be believed that the few favored ones who have lived in certain surroundings, and who thus have come to hear and heed the message of salvation, are destined for everlasting bliss; while all others, naturally no worse than they, are consigned to everlasting woe? Are these few fleeting years, and circumstances which we had little or no hand in forming, charged with such eternal possibilities? Yet we profess to believe that God rules, and that He loves every one of His creatures with an everlasting love!
Surely every candid mind and every human heart will repel such a possibility as their final extinction or damnation. And when we realize that God has all eternity to right the wrongs of time, we begin to realize that the present is but one epoch of His administration.
I have just read these words of an orthodox divine: "The heart of the universe is love." Yes, that is the language of the heart in its best moods, whatever our creed may be. And the heart will sometimes speak its conviction strongly. It does seem that orthodox divines at times forget that according to their belief God consigns untold millions of His creatures to eternal fire. Yet surely He is "the heart of the universe;" and "the heart of the universe is love." Does it not seem the blackest of contradictions?
And when we think of His wisdom to arrange, and His power to execute, it does seem hard to believe that eternal conscious torment will be the fate of any of His creatures. We may see but a short way into the whole scheme of the divine administration; but the heart will refuse to believe in such a paradox.
"Omnia vincet amor"—love conquers all things. We accept that as a proverb even in this selfish and cruel world. Yes, and despite all hindrances, we often see love's triumphs. When everything else fails, love will win. And is it to be conceived that God, Who is Love Personified, will not win? Yes; if we knew nothing more than the general principle, we might make a confident forecast that He will not fail. But how overwhelming is our conviction when we see infinite love joined with infinite wisdom and infinite power! What will not this triumvirate of infinites accomplish?
We may be told that sin is an infinite evil, and that even infinite love cannot conquer it. We refuse to believe it. God is omnipotent in the moral, as well as in the material realm. Surely His infinite love will incline Him, His infinite wisdom will show Him how, and His infinite power will accomplish His desire.
Now again: The advocates of eternal torment will freely grant that God loves every soul that He has made. They will also concede that He is omniscient. Very well. Then He must have known that the millions of beings, now supposed to be in torment, were coming into the world; and He must have known that there was no possible way for them to avert their doom. And though He loved each of them with an infinite love, He made no way of escape, but consigned them to eternal torment. Foreseeing in His omniscience that all this would happen, He did not intercept their coming, which He could easily have done; nor did He provide any means of escape.
Is this the way infinite love, joined with divine foreknowledge, would act? Do not say that the matter is too high for us to understand. Even on a human plane we would expect a more beneficent result. How much more in the case of Him who foresees and arranges all contingencies, and whose love is from everlasting to everlasting. Do not such considerations as these absolutely prohibit the idea of endless suffering? Just take counsel with your own heart and mind.
Again, it is written that "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son." Now if He loved the world, He loved every individual in the world. He loves every soul of the human race. Not color, nor climate, nor civilization, nor any special epoch of the world's history, can make any restriction.
Now if God loved the world, He expressed His love for the world; and how did He express it? By giving his Son. Then He must have given His Son for every soul of man. It would be no expression of His love for me to give His Son for somebody else. But He loved me personally, and gave His Son for me personally. Hence Paul could say: "He loved me, and gave Himself for me." And so everyone of the human race may truly say.
Generality here tends to confusion and mistakes. It has been too much the habit to think and speak of God as giving His Son for the world, and yet holding a reserved and unexpressed idea that He gave His Son only for the saved. Such an idea is not often expressed publicly, and I believe is not held heartily, But it is formally professed; it is theory in a certain creed. Not only so, but it is felt that universal atonement involves universal salvation; and that is an issue which in many cases men are not prepared to accept In fact many plain statements of Scripture are twisted and tortured out of their plain meaning, apparently to avoid the issue of universal salvation.
But let universal salvation be once granted, and all difficulty disappears. Then the plain statements of Scripture do not need to be modified, or explained away. Then all may freely accept the corollary that universal atonement involves universal salvation; only in a far larger sense than believed heretofore. We take in eternity now, as well as the small span of time. We begin to realize that the sweep of the eternal years makes no difference in the divine love or the divine purpose. In God's administration of the universe there may be good reasons for saving some of our race in this life; and some in the next; but the principle is the same; infinite wisdom, infinite power, and infinite love, will not fail of their purpose.
It is this belief in the final success of God's designs that gives us the assurance of ultimate Restoration. For if God loves the world—that is, every soul in the world—and if He gave His Son for the Salvation of the world—and if the sacrifice of the Son is sufficient for the salvation of the world—then we may be sure that infinite wisdom, love, and power will find a way of attaining the end in view. Somehow—some time—somewhere—the divine purpose will be accomplished.
I am fortified in this view by the words of an eminent Presbyterian divine that I have just chanced to meet with. He says: "God infallibly accomplishes everything at which He aims." I take that principle in a wider application than he intended; and taking it so, it is a strong argument for ultimate Restoration.
Just apply that principle to the theory of everlasting torment. Is it to be supposed that God really "aims" at that, and that hence He "infallibly accomplishes" it? It is almost blasphemy to think so. Yet that is the idea that has been held to be orthodox, and any apparent swerving from it has been treated as a serious departure from the faith. But men's hearts are sometimes better than their heads; hence we hear little now of eternal torment.
And the heart is a good place for a reform in doctrine to begin. When these larger ideas simmer for a while in men's hearts, they will gradually find expression on their tongues. There are many men who feel the truth now that they will speak bye and bye. There is at present a fear, and a natural fear, of being disloyal to orthodoxy: but I believe the truth will come triumphantly to the front later on. There is a stage of silence, and there is a stage of speech. Meantime I plead for toleration; that is as much as can be expected now. It is well if we have advanced so far. Not long ago there was persecution.
To all this it may be objected that if men remain obdurate in this life, withstanding all the overtures of mercy that are addressed to them, is it not likely that they will remain so for ever? This is a serious question. Let us seriously consider it.
Roughly, there are two classes of men to be recognized. First there are those who have sat under the Gospel for years, but who have not yielded to its claims. The question is, Will they ever yield, even if they are favored with another opportunity? Will not the habit of their life culminate in an eternal refusal?
Some think it will. My old minister used to say that it is the nature of evil to perpetuate itself. Hence it was argued that grace refused here will be always refused, even though it were offered. It was argued that the increased evil character which will come to a wicked man on entering the next life, together with the evil influences and surroundings of that life, will so absolutely steel him against all good that he will inevitably go on from bad to worse for ever. Hence the eternity of suffering.
To my mind, all this is only theory. We really know very little of the next life. The influences that may be used for reformation may really be overpowering. Just think how it has fared with this world of ours since the introduction of evil. Has evil perpetuated itself? Or will it perpetuate itself? No! the very opposite has been the case, and will be the case. A scheme of redemption above all human thought has been enacted here, by which the world has in part regained the innocence that if lost, and is destined to regain it fully.
No one could have foreseen this. We can imagine some sinless world, cognizant of the evil that had entered here, forecasting our eternal doom. They might reason that evil would perpetuate itself, and that therefore there could be nothing in store for us but eternal sin and suffering. They did not know the provision that was to be made for our redemption; hence their conclusion would be all wrong.
It may just be so in our forecasts of the next life. In fact there is more likelihood of the triumph of good over evil in the next life than there could have been originally in this. And why? Because we know that a ransom has not to be provided, but that it is provided. We also know that it has been provided at a fearful cost, and we know that the glory of God is to a large extent bound up in its success. Moreover, we know that Christ is yet to see of the travail of His soul, and be satisfied. And will anything less satisfy Him than the salvation of every one for whom He died? He has said, too, that He will draw all men to Himself. It is plain that He does not draw all men in this life; will He not then draw them in the next life? Therefore I think it is not too much to say that so far as we know, there does seem a greater probability of grace triumphing over sin in the next life than there was antecedently in the present life. What a door of hope is thus opened for our lost race!
I recall another passage of wonderful import in this connection. Our Lord said: "That servant which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes."
Now it is very dear that in thousands of cases those words are not fulfilled in this life. There are atrociously wicked men who are not beaten with any, not to say many, stripes. That was the Psalmist's trouble. He saw that the ungodly prospered. He said that they were not in trouble as other men, nor plagued as other men. He said that they had more than heart could wish. Plainly, the threatening was not executed upon them in the present life. If the words are to come true at all, they must be fulfilled in the next life. It is one of many passages that require our purview to be extended into the future life to understand them. But if the words are to be fulfilled in the next life, must not their fulfillment be conditioned on the theory of Restoration? Suppose there is extinction at death. How could any stripes be laid on a man who is extinct? Does not that consideration settle the idea of extinction?
And what about endless torment? Certainly many stripes are laid on the man in endless torment. But what about the man who is to be beaten with few stripes? Would it be possible to conceive of endless torment as being only a few stripes? To be sure, there might be degrees of torment; and the man in a mild degree of suffering would not suffer so much as the man in an intense degree. But then, the suffering is to be for ever and ever. It is to be an eternity of suffering. In that case, the suffering might be reduced to the mildest form of discomfort; but as it is to be eternal in duration, the sum total of it would be infinite. Could any stretch of imagination conceive of such suffering being only a few stripes? It does seem to me that both the theory of extinction, and that of torment, utterly break down under that test.
But how natural and reasonable is the statement on the theory of Restoration. In that case the words come literally true. We can well believe that atrocious sinners have terrible pains and penalties before they repent, and are redeemed. On the other hand, we can imagine that sins of a milder type, especially sins of ignorance, will call for but few stripes. We would go further, and believe that in the case of advanced Christians, there will be only such suffering as is inseparable from the discovery of mistakes, and consequent development.
In the case of all suffering, of whatever degree, we believe that it will be rather of a reformatory, than of a punitive character. Suffering may or may not be proportionate to sin. The idea is this, that, when it has accomplished the reformation of the sinner it will cease.
Thus the statement of our Lord will find its due fulfillment. It is one of many statements which can be explained only on the basis of its application to the next life. But when we give such statements their true application, they require no forcing to make them seem natural and reasonable.
Further, I think it is fair to imagine, as we said before, that the suffering induced by sin will be an object lesson to all eternity of the evil of sin. Possibly it may be an infallible safeguard against sin in every form. This would be an expansion of the principle that God brings good out of evil; and it would be the grandest expansion of that principle that we can conceive.
When we put all these considerations together, and when we add to them the further consideration that God's love is from everlasting to everlasting, we begin to see wonderful possibilities of redeeming grace.
* * * * *
Along the same line, take as an illustration the salvation of particular individuals. We see what has been enacted in the case of a lost world. Now take the case of one lost soul; and the matter may become a little clearer.
Take the case of Saul of Tarsus. I have referred to him elsewhere as a man who went as far as man could go in crime. But he was arrested and saved in a moment. And mark you, he was not coerced. No violence was done to his perfect freedom. Every man is free; that is his birthright; in Saul's case he was not asked to surrender an iota of it. Yet by some mysterious divine power he changed in a moment of time. Henceforth he was a new man, with a new heart, new ideals, new hopes, new ambitions, a new life.
Now what I contend is, that the power and grace that could so radically and so quickly change a man like that, is not to be limited to this little span of life, nor to the most incorrigible transgression. What are a few years of time to Him whose power, whose presence, whose love, fill all eternity? I imagine that He who knew how to convert Saul in a moment, can convert the most abandoned of mankind.
Then, as I said, there is another class of men to be considered. I mean the heathen, and all those who never had the means of knowing the way of life. What about the untold millions that passed away in the darkness? Will not the grace and power that redeemed such a man as Saul be available in their case? Yes! we think that—judged by the highest standards we know—there would be far more mercy for them, and the work of saving them would be a thousand fold easier. But we are dealing here with power and love that are infinite. No doubt the sin that has to be overcome is great; but we believe it will come true again that "where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." After all, it is infinite grace against human sin. In such a case, it is not hard to forecast which will win the day. God will evermore be triumphant.
O yes! the ransomed of the Lord will come home at last. What a day it will be when they will come to Zion with songs! The old prophecy will then have its complete fulfillment: "They shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away."
Though I lay so much stress on the omnipotence of divine love, I do not forget that divine wrath must be reckoned with as well. "God is angry with sinners every day." "Tribulation, and anguish upon every soul of man that doeth evil." "Our God is consuming fire." But the essential thing is love. "God is love." It is a constituent of His character. That could not be said of wrath. It is but the dark shadow of love. In a state of innocence it could not exist. When sin is done away, wrath will be seen no more.
If we only go back far enough in our thought we will certainly come to a time when divine wrath could not exist. Go back to the time before the angels sinned. Go back to the time before there was sin of any kind in all God's universe. But mark, no matter how far that takes you back—there was an eternity of sinlessness before it. Yes; an eternity of sinlessness. There was no wrath then. It could not exist. Therefore we could not say that it was a constituent of the divine character. No; but it was a potentiality of the divine character. It could have no existence until sin appeared. But love is from everlasting. It is by far the mightier attribute. It is of the very essence of God. United with infinite wisdom and power, we would expect it to have the final victory.
Even when there is divine wrath, there is infinite love blended and mingled with it. We shall see this as in a picture if we look at that scene in the life of Christ when He healed a certain man in the Synagogue. It was the Sabbath day. Knowing the hardness and hypocrisy of those present, He flung out this challenge—"Is it right to do good on the Sabbath day?" They could make no answer without committing themselves. Then we read that Christ "looked round about them with indignation." Ah, but listen. It is added immediately that he "was grieved for the hardness of their hearts." His face that was stern for the moment was strangely softened. O yes; love was ever behind His wrath. His indignation was never far removed from tears. And so God can be angry with sinners, at the same time that He loves them with an everlasting love.
We see the same union of pity with indignation in that scene where Christ wept over the sinful city. He had to weep tears of pity over the nation's coming doom; yes, but He could pronounce that doom; and in His wonderful providence He could even arrange for effecting it. So I do not overlook the fact that we have manifestations of divine wrath, as well as divine love; yes, fiery indignation as well as tender compassion. But let us not forget that love is the positive, essential, eternal attribute; and it would be strange indeed if it is not finally victorious.
You may bring this idea of the union of love and indignation close home to yourself. We will suppose that you are a father, and that a son of yours has turned out to be a prodigal. He has gone away from home, bent on a course of crime. Will you not have alternations of love and indignation? Yes, you will sigh and pine for his return; and you will have righteous anger at times over his evil course. And if the son repents, and one day comes home again, will you not receive him with joy? O yes, you will run to meet him, like the father in the Gospel story.
And do you think that your love is more enduring than God's? Are not we all His children, though we have strayed away from Him? Does He not look and long for our return? O yes; and He will accomplish it. The difference is, that He has all power, and He has ways and means of attaining His ends. Let us be assured that "His counsel will stand, and He will do all His pleasure."
In this connection there is a very important consideration. It is this—that no design of God can ultimately fail. We read that He "willeth not the death of a sinner." We read that He "desires all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth." Have we ever stopped to think how unlikely it is that the Infinite One has any desire which He cannot accomplish? If any of His creatures are consigned to eternal torment, and if He wishes, as He says He does, to save them from that fate, does He not desire what He cannot accomplish? Remember that he has all moral as well as all physical power; remember that his love will impel Him to use His power; remember that in His infinite wisdom He knows how; and it will be seen that He has no design which He cannot effect. Just ponder this idea for a while before you go farther.
I was revolving this thought in my mind when I chanced to meet with, a very terse expression of it. I have already quoted an eminent divine who said: "God infallibly accomplishes everything at which He aims." The theologian did not think that his dictum would be given such a wide application. But it commends itself to our judgment nevertheless, be the application what it may. The same thought was differently expressed recently, from a scientific point of view. Sir Oliver Lodge said in a recent lecture: "The Creator of the Universe is not going to be frustrated by the insignificant efforts of His own creatures."
In the light of this fact sin appears but an episode in eternal providence; and we can conceive that it is permitted for a time, for the realization of a greater good. It is but an expansion of the acknowledged principle that God brings good out of evil. Sin is not the normal condition of the universe. It is abnormal, and in time will give way to normal conditions. We are accustomed to believe in this principle on a small scale; but if we accustom ourselves to regard the same principle or a large scale it will not be difficult to believe that sin will ultimately be done away. In the history of eternity, we can imagine it to be but a transient circumstance, like a fleck of cloud in a summer sky; and even that fleck will disappear.
* * * * *
Just now, since writing these lines, I have had a very singular experience. A gentleman had written me a year ago in warm appreciation of my books. But I did not meet with him until a few days ago. In our conversation he told me that on reading a certain passage—he quoted the passage—be was so overpowered that he fell backward in a kind of swoon or trance. Then he was struck by something like a spark of fire. His impulse was to cry out, but he restrained himself, and had such a vision of the love of God that he wept, and wept, and wept, in an ecstasy of joy. Indeed he was overcome when he told me the story. And this man is no weakling, by any means. He is a strong man, physically, intellectually, and spiritually. When I realized that I could be used to produce an effect like that, I was filled with wonder, and love, and praise.
Now I hesitated about giving this experience, for to some it may look like egotism. But it may be taken on a higher ground. I would like to ask: Is it conceivable that such divine love, united with divine wisdom, and divine power, has no better way of disposing of the great majority of the human race than consigning them to everlasting torment? And more than that; each one of these myriads is God's own child, as truly—perhaps more intimately—than our children are our own. I say, is it conceivable that he has nothing better for them in store? Except our mind and heart have been utterly warped by traditional views, surely we will refuse to believe it.
Extent of the Atonement—The Dilemma of Universal Atonement and PartialSalvation—Human Systems of Truth—Methodist Theology—Tradition andReason—Dr. Dale's View—No Divine Failure—Imperfection of AllTheological Systems—"Sufficient but not Efficient"—UndevelopedPossibilities—The Angel in the Apocalypse—Omnipotence Both in thePhysical and the Moral Realm—The Short Epoch of Time—Advance of thePresbyterian Church in the United States—Individual Congregations—Hardening Effects of the Narrower View—The Softening Influence ofDreams—Divine Capacity of Suffering—Persistence of What is Good—GoodMen Who Are Not Christians—Insanity—Blind Tom.
In this larger view all difficulty disappears in regard to the extent of the Atonement. Sometime ago men had little conception of the operation of saving grace beyond this life. It was believed that every man fixed his eternal destiny here and now. But then there would arise in thoughtful minds a difficulty about the extent of the Atonement. To a candid mind it was manifestly universal. The statements of Scripture are full and clear on that point, yet it would appear very strange that there would be universal Atonement, but not universal salvation. Would not that look very like a failure of the divine plan? If Christ gave Himself for the sins of the world, would not the sins of the world be put away? If He is called the Saviour of the world, is He so only in name, and not in fact?
But clearly, all the world was not saved. Here was the dilemma. The difficulty was, to square universal Atonement with partial salvation. So the difficulty was solved by one party in adopting the theory of a limited Atonement, and so that doctrine became a cardinal plank in the Calvinistic theology. It could not be conceived of as a possibility that God would make provision for the salvation of the whole world, and thus express His desire for the salvation of the whole world, yet that His provision and His desire should fail of their effect.
Surely this was right. But it was not right to ignore the plain teaching of Scripture for the sake of building up any human system. It would have been better to accept the clear statements of the word, contradictory though they might appear, and trust that some day divine harmony would be revealed.
That revelation has come now. The harmony consists in the fact that all the world will be redeemed yet, in accordance with the provision that God made for, and desires, such a consummation. The difference is, that the operations of divine grace are not restricted to this short span of time, as men supposed. But the time will come! Oh, yes; it will come! If Christ tasted death for every man, He will save every man! Praise His name forever! The very thought is enough to awaken our everlasting songs!
Herein consists, as it seems to me, the weakness of the Methodist theology. In that Communion it is believed that the Atonement is universal, but that salvation is not universal. Thus the divine intention is supposed to fail of its effect. So I think it would appear to any mind untrammelled by tradition.
But putting tradition aside, what does reason say? And what do our highest thoughts of divine love, and power, and purpose say? Are not our best ideas of fitness in accord with the view that Atonement and Salvation are co-extensive? When we once receive the idea that divine love and power have no petty restrictions of place or time, will we not accept the larger theory? And this one conception will transform and transfigure all our thoughts of redemption. I wish some of our Methodist brethren would look into this matter candidly, and say if I am not right.
Thus the Calvinists made one mistake, and the Arminians made another. If both would now adopt the larger view, that one idea would compose nearly all their differences, and unite them in a bond which our fathers never dreamed of. Would it be too much to hope for that? I suppose it would, just at present. But the spirit of unity is here, and I believe that some day it will embody itself in form.
* * * * *
I quote elsewhere the saying of an orthodox divine that "God infallibly accomplishes everything at which He aims." Then what does He "aim" at? Dr. R. W. Dale tells us. He says: "Every man bears the image of God, and was created to abide in the Home of God." Is not that direct and clear? "Every man was created to abide in the Home of God." That was God's aim. But is it "accomplished?" The orthodox view is that it is not. According to that view there are untold millions of men who will never see "the Home of God." Here is a manifest contradiction. Surely if "every man was created to abide in God's home," and if every purpose of God will infallibly be accomplished, there is salvation for the whole race.
* * * * *
This question has a very direct bearing on the idea of Restoration. An important section of the church believes that whoever is atoned for will infallibly be saved; and no others. But as all men are not saved, to be logical the framers of that system inferred that the Atonement is limited in its extent. They had no idea of the Atonement operating beyond this life; so their theory necessarily consigned the majority of the human race to everlasting torment.
What a pity it was that they had not the larger view. Then there would have been no logical need to limit the Scriptural idea of Atonement. In that case, they would have to admit on their own ground that the Atonement issues in the salvation of the whole race. But their system of doctrine was logically welded together by a number of propositions; and not one of these propositions could be omitted without dissolving the whole structure. So the limited Atonement idea was adopted as a necessity; and I suppose men schooled themselves to believe it was Scriptural.
As a matter of fact, however, and to a mind not biased by any previous opinion, the Universality of the Atonement is taught in Scripture with absolute clearness. So much is this the case that the doctrine is regularly preached in most if not all Evangelical Churches to-day, even in those which deny it in their creed. And if the question were put to the people generally, both lay and clerical of all churches, and a candid spontaneous answer required, there is no doubt that an overwhelming majority—perhaps a thousand to one—would say that Christ died for the whole race. We ought to take warning, then, not to make our systems of theology too complete, realizing how little we know as yet of God's works and ways.
* * * * *
But now, if we take the framers of that system on their own ground, what is the result? They believed that the Atonement would issue in salvation for every one for whom it was intended. That is not a far-fetched idea, by any means. It is only saying that God will accomplish that which He intended. A universal Atonement will therefore mean universal salvation. Certainly that is not attained in the present life; therefore it will be attained in the life to come. It is a strong argument for universal salvation.
If only this larger view had broken on men's vision there would have been no difficulty. But the "due time" for such a revelation had not come. It was no fault of our fathers, therefore, that they could not see that which was not as yet revealed. The only fault was, that they tried to make their theological system too perfect. The fact is, that it is not for us to make any theological system perfect. New light may come, and cause us to re-arrange or enlarge our ideas. "O the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge, of God!"
Another argument for the ultimate salvation of all, is this: that Christ identifies Himself with the suffering and the unfortunate of the whole race. It will be remembered that in the last judgment He is supposed to say, "I was hungry, and ye fed me; I was thirsty and ye gave me drink;" and so on. Then he explains: "Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye did it unto me." You observe that He makes no distinction between those whom He atoned for, and those for whom he did not. He includes all the unfortunate of the whole race, even the criminals who were in prison. He identifies Himself with them every one. And if He does, is it to be supposed that He died for only some of them? How could He identify Himself with those for whom He had not atoned, and for whom there could not be any salvation? It is said that His Atonement is "sufficient" for all; yet on the theory of a limited Atonement it is claimed that it is not "efficient" for all. But whether it be "sufficient" or "efficient," our Lord makes no difference. How could He so utterly and so tenderly ally Himself with any for whom He had not provided the possibility of salvation—a salvation admittedly "sufficient" for all? The inevitable presumption is, that He atoned for them every one, and so could identify Himself with them every one.
It is therefore reasonable to conclude that salvation is provided for each one of them; and that if they do not attain to it in this life, they will in the next. That may appear a vast problem to us whose views of time and space are so limited; but it may be easy to Him to whom the whole span of time is but a passing epoch in the everlasting years.
Apart from this somewhat legal aspect of the case, there is another aspect of it which must appeal with great force to every reflective mind. I mean the undeveloped possibilities stored up in every human soul. We may sink so low as to appear but as dull clods; but the glory of man is the potentiality within him, capable, it would seem, of everlasting development.
Witness that "angel" who conducted St. John through the world of bliss, and explained to him the meaning of the wonderful scenes that were witnessed. So glorious was that "angel" in form, and so vast in knowledge, that John fell down at his feet to worship him. Then it turned out that the "angel" was just a man. He said he was one of the prophets. Perhaps he was Moses or Isaiah or Ezekiel, or some one of the writers of the Old Testament. They lived in a very primitive age. But see this prophet now. In a few centuries he has been developed to amazing heights of knowledge and blessedness. And we may well believe that such a process of development will go on to all eternity.
Now are we to believe that God has created such possibility of development; yet that it will issue in a single case in utter failure? Utter failure! No; not merely utter failure, but a fate ten thousand times worse than that. For endless torment would mean the development of all possible evil to all eternity. Are we prepared to say that such will be the issue in a single instance, of God's wise, and powerful, and righteous administration? Surely, surely, there will be no such failure.
We cited elsewhere that it is the law of the universe that what is good will endure. But here we have not merely a contravention of that law, but an utter and everlasting breakdown of the divine administration. In a universe where God rules in wisdom, in righteousness, and in love; and where moreover He is possessed of all power, not only physical but moral, it seems almost blasphemy to think of such failure.
There is a passage in the Epistle to the Romans that seems to me to put the question beyond doubt. I refer to the fifth chapter. We have there the fulness of salvation set forth in wonderful terms. In particular, we have the doctrine of the Atonement presented in all its divine efficacy. And you will notice that it is set forth both as to its quality, and its extent.
As to its quality, it is said to be more than sufficient; and as to its extent it is represented to be as wide as the human race. As to its quality, take these words: "Where sin abounded grace did much more abound." As to its extent, take these: "As by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."