Along the same line, we would say that an infinite penalty can never be rendered. For infinitude has no end; and so, no matter how long the penalty might be drawn out, there would still be an eternity to come. So we would never come to the end of eternity; and the penalty could never be rendered. This seems to me a strong argument against everlasting punishment.
In the same connection I would venture the idea that sin is not an infinite evil, and does not call for an infinite punishment. I do not think that a finite creature like man can commit an infinite crime. The fact that an infinite punishment cannot be rendered, seems to show that the crime is not infinite. If not, then in justice there is no everlasting punishment.
Coming back to matters more strictly within our grasp, I would ask what has been so often asked: What will become of the heathen? Many of them never had a chance to be much better than they are. Restoration, so far as I can see, is the only settlement of the difficulty. But that settles it completely. In the next world they will learn the way of eternal life which they could not learn here, and ultimately they will rise to eternal blessedness. If there were nothing else, the settlement of that transcendent problem would be a strong endorsement of Restoration.
Then there were heathens who in this life rose very high in knowledge and character. On the principle that whatever is good is immortal, what they gained here will be supplemented, until they are fit for the inheritance of the saints. "The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this."
The idea of Restoration also explains the apparent cruelty of the God of the Old Testament. Sinners were often cut off; and that was a salutary lesson for others; but those who were cut off, were transferred to scenes where they would have better surroundings, and where they would in time rise to a higher moral plane.
The same theory accounts for the salvation of infants. We all believe in the salvation of infants. The heart refuses any other belief. But it is largely a matter of sentiment, apart from the idea of Restoration. They have no character whatever to begin with. But Restoration supplies—we know not how and do not need to know—all they require. The mere fact that infants require some place and process of development beyond this life, is a strong argument for such aid being rendered to others as well.
Also, take the case of suicides. There are many who in a frenzy of despair commit the crime of self-destruction. It is easy to believe that there is sympathy and helpfulness for them on the other shore.
And so with lunatics. Apart from Restoration it is difficult to think what will become of them. They are not responsible, and it would be unfair to treat them as criminals. On the other hand, they have no ideas nor character such as would fit them for a better world. But they will regain their intellect at the point they lost it; and it is not hard to conceive of their swift upward trend.
There is one very serious difficulty which we can conceive of no way of solving, except on the supposition of Restoration. I refer to the agony which a person must suffer even in heaven on finding that loved friends or relatives are not there. To know that they are in extinction, that they are fit for nothing better, and that hence they are shut out from eternal joy, would surely be an everlasting pang. And the case is infinitely worse if it is realized that they are in endless torment. We think the very thought of that would be unendurable even in a better world.
But how gladsome is the prospect of neither of these fates being in store for them. If it is known that they are in a state of discipline for a time, to emerge by and by into scenes of bliss, we can fancy that such knowledge would be a source of joy unspeakable. And who can imagine the rapture of meeting with such friends later on? This view of Restoration solves the difficulty so often felt in regard to dear ones who died in a state of alienation from God. The everlasting hope that is thus opened up for them is a source of perennial joy.
Here I would make a statement which at the first glance may seem to some rather startling. It is this: There is not punishment for sin, either in this life, or in the next. Christ has settled all that by offering Himself as the sin-bearer for all mankind. "The Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all." "He hath made Him to be sin for us." "It pleased the Lord to bruise Him." "God gave His Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." If the condition of believing on Him seems to limit the everlasting love of that statement, take the next; "God sent not His Son into the world, to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved." Yes, the world. There is no limitation there. That means the modern heathen world, and the ancient heathen world, and all grades of humanity of all time. Christ has suffered for them every one. There may be suffering, but there can be no just punishment for sin, either in this life or the next.
But then, there is the necessity for purification. And suffering is made by divine grace to serve that end. We can well conceive then that there are all grades of suffering, and all grades of the duration of suffering, in the next life. It is no contradiction of this idea, but rather a confirmation of it, that very much of this suffering is the result of former sin. Indeed, when we see, even in this life, how often that suffering is a result of sin, yet is a means of purification, we can well believe that it will so operate in the next life, and on a larger scale.
Sinners of every grade require just two things; Forgiveness and Holiness. That is, a title to heaven, and a fitness for it. Let us see how these two things are acquired, and if either of them demands eternal punishment.
Justification is acquired by the death of Christ, and by that alone. "He died for our sins," "He was wounded for our transgressions." "The Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all." "We are justified freely by his blood." That is the one reason and ground for forgiveness. So then, whether men know it or not, they are forgiven. It is the merit of Christ that counts, and that alone. Christ has paid the penalty, and it takes due effect in the forgiveness of every sinner. He "tasted death for every man." Therefore, there can be no just punishment even in the case of the most incorrigible; far less can there be eternal punishment.
But then, as I have said, the sinner needs holiness. Suffering seems to be absolutely necessary here. But in this case suffering is not punishment; for punishment implies wrong doing. But all wrong doing has been atoned for, as we have seen. Hence the suffering that is inflicted is not punishment; it is discipline; the Fatherly infliction of love. "Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth."
And what is the divine intention of this chastisement or discipline? Is it not the production of a worthy character? In this case it is no less than the re-creation of a character. In producing such a character God uses various means, and one of these, as we have seen, is discipline. But if suffering were continued through all eternity, it would surely not be discipline. We think it would have the very opposite effect, and would produce the maximum of evil. Therefore, on the ground of needed discipline, as well as on that of forgiveness, we can see no necessity for eternal torment. And if there is no necessity for it, certainly it is not inflicted.
It may be well to make this matter a little clearer, even at the risk of some repetition. If there is any doubt about sin being actually forgiven before the exercise of faith or penitence, I would ask: What is the actual ground of forgiveness? Is it not the Atonement of Christ? Necessary as faith and penitence are, could either or both procure forgiveness? If they could, Christ need not have died. But of all things, that was the prime necessity. Without shedding of blood there could be no remission. The corollary of that is, that with shedding blood there can be instant and universal remission.
* * * * *
Instant, we say? Yes; for "we are reconciled to God by the death of His Son," He was "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world," so God is reconciled now; and not only that, but from all eternity.
* * * * *
And universal? Yes; for he "tasted death for every man." So every sinner is forgiven by virtue of Christ's Atonement. The benefit of that Atonement extends to the worst man of our race.
* * * * *
But are not faith and penitence necessary? Yes, they are necessary to final salvation; but if they are necessary to forgiveness, then there was no necessity for Atonement. It is Atonement alone which procures pardon; and as Atonement was for the whole race, so forgiveness is for the whole race also.
To be sure it is written that "we are justified by faith," But surely, we are not to understand those words literally or rigidly. For could faith of itself really justify us? Could it really pay the debt we owe? It is "the gift of God." Is it not therefore wholly without merit? Is not its function, rather, to bring us into the consciousness of justification? I do not see how it could do more than that.
But if we want to know the ground of justification, must we not look for it in the death of Christ? It is written that we are "freely justified by his blood." Is not that really the ground? And inasmuch as Christ is "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world," the merit of his death goes back to the first, as well as extends to the last, sinner of our race. When the matter is viewed in this light, does it not seem a moral necessity that all sin is already forgiven?
But it may be pleaded that God is "angry with sinners every day;" that "tribulation and wrath" are ordained for "every soul of man that doeth evil;" and so on. How, then, can divine anger, tribulation, and wrath rest upon a person that is forgiven?
Simply because God's very nature is opposed to sin in every form; and he must visit sin with wrath and tribulation, though it be forgiven. In fact, it is because sin is forgiven, and that thus the basis of salvation is laid, that God is so painstaking to make the most and the best of us.
It is, therefore, easy to believe that wrath and tribulation will be continued in the next life until the sinner repents, and turns to God. The fact that Christ has died for him will be no mitigation of necessary discipline, any more than it is now. The very fact that in this life we see the same principle of suffering on the part of God's own children, is proof enough of the righteousness and wisdom of a similar course being followed in the next life. The merit of Christ's Atonement does not avail for shielding sinners from necessary suffering in either life.
But did not Christ at times pronounce forgiveness in such a way as to mean that it occurred just then, and not before? Take that case of the paralytic to whom he said, "Thy sins are forgiven." Does it not look as if the man were forgiven then and there? And yet, how could It be? The man as yet had not been healed, and so there was nothing to indicate his saving faith in Christ. Yet the Saviour pronounced his forgiveness. It seems to me that Christ was rather bearing testimony to the fact that the man had been forgiven—he did not say when. It may have been that the poor paralytic was laboring under the fallacy that his suffering was owing to special sin, and so Christ wished to give him the joy of conscious pardon.
Or, take the case of the poor penitent in the house of Simon. Jesus said to her, "Thy sins are forgiven," and to "go in peace." Now were her sins forgiven the moment Jesus spoke to her? Were they not forgiven prior to that? Was there anything in the woman's mental or moral attitude to Christ to indicate that not till the moment that he spoke the word were her sins forgiven? The fact is, that he spoke the word when circumstances led up to it, and not before. There is nothing to forbid the idea, it seems to me that her sins were always forgiven; but Jesus spoke the word of comfort just when it was needed. She had now the joy of conscious forgiveness; I think that was what Jesus intended to bestow.
So it seems to me that all sin is forgiven already. The death of Christ secures that boon. And is there anything which would break a sinner's heart so effectually as to know that, let him sink in wickedness to the lowest possible depths, yet that all his sin is already forgiven? If anything would win him, can you conceive of anything so effectual as that? What a display that would be of the conquering power of love divine!
Here I would note a singular coincidence. The very day after I had written that there is no punishment for sin either in this life or the next—that it is all discipline—I received a book from some unknown friend in which the same idea occurs. Speaking of a prodigal daughter, the author says: "There was but one thing wanting to restore her to her home—a mere act of the will that should have prompted her to say, 'I will arise, and go to my father!' It is precisely so with every child of God. There is no moment in which they are not forgiven, and the Father anxiously longing for their return." In another place he says, "All sin is forgiven sin."
But, mark you; this author writes from the standpoint of orthodoxy. Then if "all sin is forgiven sin," how can it merit eternal punishment? How can future suffering be considered punishment at all if all sin is forgiven?
And this author is very sure that the suffering is absolutely endless. This is what he says: "If in the infinite love of God there might be found a shortening of the sinner's doom, it would certainly be a matter of relief to all; but the only Book that comes with answer to the great questions of the soul, it seems to me, lends no encouragement to such a hope."
Evidently, this man's heart is better than his head. He says that God has ordained everlasting suffering; but our author is not satisfied with that; he would be glad if some "shortening" of the sinner's doom could be found, but he cannot find it. He does not seem to realize that in these words he claims to be more merciful than God Himself.
Now, if "all sin is forgiven sin," as the author says, and as I believe it is, then how can there in justice be everlasting suffering? The suffering cannot in justice be punishment, since the sin is forgiven; nor can it be discipline if the suffering has no end, for no moral improvement would be attained thereby, but the very maximum of evil. Surely, a merciful and just and wise God cannot be the Author of any such scheme? Would it not be a thousand times more reasonable to conceive of suffering as being temporary; to be inflicted as a necessary discipline; and then when the discipline is attained, to cease?
The reverent and reasonable way of looking at the entire matter seems to be something like this: First; all sin is forgiven in virtue of the Atonement that has been made. The benefit of that Atonement extends to the first man of our race, as well as to the last one. The benefit of it extends to the whole family of man, whether heathen or not; and whether small sinners or great.
Further; every man is a sinner in some degree, and he needs a degree of discipline which the present life does not provide, but which is provided in the next. This will be as varied as men's character and attainments. In those who have risen high, it may well be described as a passage into glory, for it will, indeed, be realized as such. But it will be a lower glory, preparatory for a higher, to be attained later on. Others, with different degrees of evil still clinging to them, will have to undergo pains and penalties suitable to their condition, and so by gradual ascent attain to perfection and blessedness. Thus, it is reasonable to think that there will be as great a variety of character and capacity then as now; and this will largely determine the great variety of place, service, and so on.
But supposing that future punishment did issue in moral improvement, and that such improvement should go on increasing, is it thinkable that under an infinitely gracious and wise government there would come no time of such perfection as would warrant release? But in that case the suffering would not be endless. Whichever way you take it, that seems to be the inevitable, final issue.
So it seems to me that the only wise, and beneficent, and just idea of future suffering, whether it be intense or mild, or whether it be of shorter or longer duration, is, that it will be the means of working out a divinely intended degree of moral perfection; and that it will then come to an end. This course of procedure we observe here and now. It may operate on a larger scale, and with more final results, in the life to come; but we apprehend that the principle will be much the same. And the principle is enough for us now. The details, we are sure, will be worthy of Infinite Wisdom and Love.
It will thus be observed that our author's dictum that "all sin is forgiven sin" absolutely forbids the idea of endless torment. It is a marvel that he did not see this before. But somehow, likely from early training, there is a strong disposition to retain the idea of endless torment as though it were the Gospel. We think, on the contrary, that any good reasons, whether founded on Scripture or on common sense, should be hailed as a deliverance from intellectual and spiritual bondage. Above all things, let us beware of turning the divine light into darkness.
This is a mere sketch of the order that may be supposed to obtain in the next life. We need to put Scripture and reason together to get a view of such things as will commend themselves to our best judgment. And when we have done our best, what can we really know of details? Not much, certainly; but enough to appeal strongly to faith and hope. In fact, anything like a complete revelation could not be given to us now and here; for we have not the capacity nor the experience to understand it. And even if it could be given, it might largely distract us from the ordinary duties of life. It is a gracious Providence that shuts out the unseen from these mortal eyes. But we have the great consolation that "what we know not now, we shall know hereafter."
In regard to the unfolding of divine truth, I have just met with the following terse expression of it: "The inscrutable laws of the all-wise God do not reveal themselves in one generation, but ripen with the desire for knowledge on the part of mankind."
Thus, there is a progress in revelation. There are epochs when men get larger views of truth. I think the present is one of these epochs. Many statements of Scripture that were supposed formerly to relate wholly to the present life, are now seen to relate to the life beyond. This brings a wonderful naturalness and harmony into the whole scheme of grace, so far as it is revealed.
The idea of no endless torment is but an enlargement of the principle that God brings good out of evil.
Consider also that an ideal condition of the universe seems to require that sin and suffering will be forever eliminated; and that under God's administration an ideal condition will be realized.
Further; God has a personal love for every human soul. The most degraded of our race can say as truly as did Paul, "He loved me." It is reasonable to expect, then, that infinite Love will secure for the worst of mankind something better than endless torment.
I have referred to the fact that the mind has a strong affinity for truth. But certainly, it has a strong repugnance to a belief in endless torment. Men try to believe it because they think it is taught in the Bible, and that it would be a dangerous thing to doubt it. But apart from that, there is no natural or hearty concurrence of the mind in that view. And I think I may say that such an attitude is more pronounced in those of an elevated and reverent turn of mind.
Then we know that God "does not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of men." Therefore we believe all the suffering of this life and of the next is but as a means to an end.
The fact, also, that sin and suffering are abnormal features of the divine administration, indicates almost beyond doubt that they will finally be done away.
Remember, too, that it is very clearly revealed that an Atonement has been made for "every man." Thus, a divine provision has been made for every man Now the provision involves desire; and can the desire fail? Under a perfect administration, therefore, how can there be endless suffering?
Then if God gave His own Son, and if the Son gave Himself, for the redemption of the world, will that Atonement fail of its effect in a single case? Such a possibility is almost unthinkable.
Consider, also, that the possibility of eternal sin and suffering seems to imply a failure of the divine administration; which is impossible.
Then, God is forever the same. If He is love, wisdom, power, justice, mercy, now, He is the same through all eternity. At no future epoch, therefore, can we conceive of the necessity of endless torment.
We have to remember too, that God rules in all worlds, and throughout all time. Forever, and everywhere, "His counsel will stand, and He will do all His pleasure."
It is an orthodox doctrine that God cannot suffer. But that does not seem in harmony with the breathing of His sigh, "O that they were wise!" or "How can I give thee up?" or the tears of Christ over the apostate city. Now, if God is eternal Love, do not sin and suffering interfere forever with His happiness? But normally we conceive of Him as the infinitely happy One; therefore that normal condition requires that sin and suffering be ultimately done away.
Then we have the fact that we are God's children; yes, even the most debased of mankind. Paul could say to the idolaters of Athens, "We are His offspring." Now, if we are really His children, and therefore infinitely dearer to Him than our children are to us, will not the present suffering of even one of us be a source of pain to the eternal Father? On that ground we cannot think of suffering as being endless. This is holy ground; let us tread it reverently.
Further; we read that Christ "lighteth every man that cometh into the world." Now, if He loves every man, and atones for every man, and enlightens every man, is it conceivable that He will not somewhere and at some time save every man?
Likewise, we read that "the Spirit is given to every man." Is not that the initial stage of redemption? Then will not redemption be completed? Here we see but a very small part of the outgoings of Him who is from everlasting to everlasting.
Then this larger view explains God's universal call. He says, "Look unto me and be ye saved, all ye ends of the earth." There we see God's intention; and if it is not carried out in this life, will it not be in the life to come? We are accustomed in our short-sightedness to think that the dividing line of death is final. But with God it is not final. It only marks the stage from one epoch to another.
In the same way, this larger view explains God's repeated promise to Abraham. The promise was made to him that in him all the families on the earth would be blest. But uncounted millions of them have not been blest, so far as this life is concerned. Will the promise not be fulfilled? And how can it be fulfilled but by being fulfilled in the next life?
Then, of Christ it was foretold that he should "see of the travail of His soul, and should be satisfied." But surely, He is not satisfied with the comparatively small number of the human race that have been saved. If He loves each one of them individually, will He be satisfied with less than the salvation of each one?
Evidently, He looked forward to this all-conquering epoch when He said that He would draw all men unto Himself. Certainly, He did not draw all men to Himself when He was here. What remains for us but to enlarge our view, and believe that He will do it there?
Along the same line we have the promise that "all Israel shall be saved." That promise has not been fulfilled, and never can be fulfilled, in this life. Is it too much to say that it will be fulfilled in the life to come?
In like manner it is promised that "He shall have the heathen for his inheritance." But uncounted millions of the heathen have died in utter darkness; and millions more are dying now. How can the promise be fulfilled within the bourne of time? But we thank God that the whole span of time is but one short epoch with Him whose ways are from everlasting.
Judging from the revelations that we have of God, we believe that He can and will achieve the maximum of holiness and happiness for all His creatures, according to their several capacities. In harmony with this view, scientists and moralists say that it is a law of the universe that anything that is really good will endure. It is likely that in the future life we shall see the working of that principle as we cannot see it now.
It is strongly in favor of this idea that man is endowed with such amazing potentiality. There seems to be no end to his capacity of development. Now, is it to be supposed that an all-wise God would endow man with such possibilities, and create no scope for their development? Certainly, there would be no worthy development of them in the case of endless torment. This idea strongly suggests universal salvation.
In the case of eternal suffering, without hope of release, would not that condition develop every possibility of evil to all eternity? And would not such an outcome be entirely contrary to the purpose of the Holy One?
Then it is an everlasting argument for universal salvation that such a consummation would be far more glorifying to God, than any other alternative that we can conceive.
Thus, the larger view goes a long way to explain God's delay in saving the heathen. We may fail in giving them the Gospel; but will He fail? Is His success made dependent on any passing whim or indifference of ours? Surely not. He may have good reasons for saving some in this life, and others in the next. We see but a short way into the whole scheme of things.
This larger view also solves the difficulty of dealing after death with the imperfect Christian. He is not fit for the world of bliss, nor yet for the world of woe. But the discipline we are supposing fits him for his higher destiny.
And so, we may well suppose, it will be with the non-Christian good man. On the principle that what is good will endure, all that is good in him will be retained, and the evil will be eliminated.
Also, on this basis we can reasonably forecast the destiny of the insane. Since they lost their reason they are not responsible. But they will resume their reason at the point where it deserted them, and they will be prepared for the inheritance of the saints.
The same theory justifies the destruction of wicked nations. They had gone down to such depths of sin, that it was better for them to be cut off, and to have a new opportunity under more favorable conditions.
This larger view also explains why God chose to continue the human race after they sinned, and entailed on all their posterity such mourning, lamentation and woe. God did an infinitely better thing for the race than extinction. He provided a way of salvation for all. So the day may come in the endless years when all the pains and penalties of earth will be reckoned trifles as light as air, contrasted with the supernal glory that has been attained.
I would also say that according to this larger view there is no more difficulty as to supposed eternal separations. It has always been a mystery how the good can be happy when conscious that those whom they loved are in everlasting torment. Some have even tried to believe that they would rise to God's own point of view, and survey with complacency the utmost torments of the dammed!
When I was a child I often heard the dictum from the pulpit that "the nature that sinned must suffer." Therefore, it was said that our Lord took our humanity in order that He might suffer in our nature. I have believed since that if He had suffered in any other nature, His suffering would be no less efficacious. I believe that the merit of His suffering could be transferred to any other world that needs it, be the inhabitants human or otherwise, and be their sin what it may. I think it is not for us to limit that merit to our own race. But we need not follow that point farther now.
I often heard another dictum, and one of more importance, that I feel inclined to question. It was said that sin committed against God is an infinite evil, because God is infinitely holy. Therefore, it was argued, that sin deserves infinite punishment; but that as finite beings we cannot render an infinite penalty in point of quality, we must render it in point of duration; hence the justice of everlasting punishment.
I confess that to me all this show of logic items act much more than a play upon words. For one thing, it may be doubted if a finite being is capable of committing an infinite sin. If he is not, the whole argument collapses.
Then if he is capable of it, and if the sin in justice demands an infinite punishment, how can a just God forbear inflicting the punishment at once? But He waits to be gracious. Is not that a transgression of the strict law of justice? But if in justice He can wait an hour, why not a year? And if a year, why not a hundred years? And if a hundred years, why not forever? Thus the penalty would be avoided altogether.
Further; if sin demands an infinite penalty, the penalty could never be rendered. For infinity has no end; and so, prolong the penalty as we might through uncounted aeons, there would still be an eternity to come. Therefore, the penalty would never be exacted. It requires the whole of eternity; and eternity will never end. Therefore, on this showing, with all reverence, God might as well stop at once, and claim no penalty, for the penalty goes on forever; and forever has no end. Not even a moiety of the penalty could be inflicted; for a moiety can be measured, but infinity has no measurement.
Besides; if the penalty is to be infinite in duration, might not a very mild punishment suffice as well as a more intense punishment? For the sum total would be equal. One infinity of duration and of suffering is equal to another; so there would be no need to inflict any severe suffering; infinity of duration would make the suffering infinite in amount, however slight it might be in quality. So if an eternity of suffering could be endured, which it cannot, the smallest degree of discomfort would be sufficient to meet the demand.
And it is not to be forgotten that all these assumptions are based upon the theory that God is only strict justice, whereas we know that He is love as well; yes, and wisdom; so we believe He would find a better method than the one we have sketched, even if it could be realized.
Thus, the whole argument breaks down. It is but a human invention, and not a good invention; designed, it would seem, to support a foregone conclusion. Ten thousand times better than all such absurd elaboration is the simple statement that "His mercy endureth forever."
Some time ago I presented this argument to a Presbyterian minister, not suspecting in the least that he was wanting in orthodoxy. He said the argument was conclusive, and that there is no such thing as eternal punishment. I have since spoken with many ministers on the same topic; and in no case was there any opposition. Many are hesitating and halting between this view and the one that has so widely prevailed. Especially is there a natural hesitation to speak about the matter publicly. The main question is, Is it true? If it is, it is good news indeed for our poor, suffering world.
I may state here that there is another possibility which, if it had been adopted, would have avoided all necessity for punishment. I refer to the fact that when Adam and Eve sinned, God might have cut them off, and so avoided the hideous tale of suffering that has resulted since. Or He might have rendered them childless, and have thus anticipated and avoided all difficulty. Either of these measures would certainly have been fraught with far less suffering than the consignment of so many uncounted millions, or even one individual, to eternal torment. The fact that any better measure was available, is a strong argument for the ultimate restoration of the race.
We believe that God has made a provision for all mankind, ten thousand times better than the cutting off or rendering childless of the first pair. When we realize that the whole race is yet to be restored, we begin to see something of the unbounded love and wisdom that rule through all time and all eternity. Even the suffering of the present may be made conducive to our ultimate happiness and glory. A little farther on we may see that sin and suffering have been permitted for a time as an object lesson for all eternity. In view of such a possibility we feel like exclaiming, "O, the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom, and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!"
Very recently there came to me a new idea; and it came with such suddenness that I can believe it was a suggestion from another Mind. I was listening to a very able and thoughtful sermon. The theme was the retention of the Canaanites in the land, instead of driving them out. We read that "When Israel was strong, they put the Canaanites to tribute, and did not utterly drive them out." The very natural and telling application that was made by the preacher was, the many compromises with evil that are made in our own time for the sake of gain.
But the preacher took the ground that it was a very cruel and barbarous thing to exterminate those nations, or to put them to the sword. He dwelt on the barbarous ideas that then prevailed, contrasting them with the toleration that prevails now. He said that we convert men now, instead of killing them. He took the ground that the extermination of those people was due to an entire misconception of the divine command.
It struck me at the moment that such an idea was entirely contrary to the fact. Here is the command, and the substance of it was often repeated: "Ye shall utterly destroy all the places wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree; and ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place."
The divine command, then, was not misconceived. We may see plainly now its wisdom and real kindness. But Israel made an unwise and unholy compromise. By this compromise that was made, the surrounding heathen tribes in some cases were spared. The consequence was that there was a constant incitement to idolatry. Again and again, Israel fell into this sin, and paid severely for their crime. I think it is not too much to say that had Israel inflexibly carried out the divine command, the Jewish nation might have been the strongest in the world to-day.
But what has all this to do with the theory of Restoration? A great deal. In the light of that larger truth, extermination was not the harsh measure that at the first glance it seems. It was simply the removal of those incorrigible races to other scenes where they would have better chances of reform; and it was the removal of a constant snare to Israel.
Under the old idea, those heathen tribes were consigned to eternal torment. Even for the women and children there was no escape. They were not fit for Heaven; so they must all go to hell; that was the naked, bald idea. Even if the children were saved, how were they prepared for the scenes of bliss? But when we once entertain the idea of a future process of reformation, a door of hope is opened for the worst of them.
That seems to be the grand solution of what has always seemed a barbarous proceeding. The want of such a solution has furnished Ingersoll and men like him with many a shaft of ridicule at the so-called merciful God of the Old Testament. This larger view shows Him to be all He claims; that His mercy is not confined to this short span of time; that it is from everlasting to everlasting.
One great advantage in believing in Restoration is, that any good influence effected on any person will have its legitimate effect in the next life. I need to explain. There are many persons who are not believers who yet rise to a high plane of character. But no matter how high they may rise, if they are not Christians the old theory would consign them to everlasting torment. No doubt, degrees of suffering are recognized, varying with the goodness or badness of the sinner. Still, if a person is not a Christian when he dies, the idea is that he must go to eternal torment, be his moral character what it may. Thus, any good influence that may be exerted upon him here is largely or entirely lost. Even the incentive to do him good in a great degree is neutralized. An inevitable, though it may be an unconscious, arrest, is thus put upon every good impulse to benefit men except they are true Christians.
But consider how different is the incentive on the Restoration theory. In that case, you can have the certainty that any good accomplished in this life will have its due effect in the next. A man may not be a Christian, but he may have risen to such a high character in this life that he will not have to pass through very severe pains and penalties in the next. There is, therefore, every incentive to do the most and the best we can for all men, be their character what it may, and whether they are Christians or not. We may be sure that any good effect attained will not be lost.
Is not this a strong plea for good works? And is it not a strong argument that Restoration is true? Is it to be supposed that the divine government is based on any possibility of good efforts being abortive? Surely, in God's perfect government of the world it is so arranged that every good influence will have its due effect. To my mind, this consideration makes strongly for the truth of the theory of Restoration.
It may possibly be charged on me that all through this discussion I have ignored divine justice. I would say that nothing could be farther from my intention. To be sure, I have tried to magnify divine love. "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son" for the world. There we see a depth of love that will never be fathomed. But then, He gave His Son. There was infinite justice, too. "He spared not His own Son." "It pleased the Lord to bruise Him." O, mystery of mysteries! The union of infinite love with infinite justice! I believe that will be the marvel of eternity. Let that stand, whatever I may seem to say to the contrary. In dealing with problems that are so high, and yet so deep, it would not be surprising if there are some apparent contradictions. Our limited range of thought, and our poor vehicle of speech, make seeming contradiction almost inevitable. But there will be harmony by and by.
I would say here that in what is advanced there are some repetitions. But often these are in new connections, and are therefore in order. Besides, I have not been careful to avoid repetition; for I have in view many readers to whom such topics as are treated here are comparatively new, and by all such, repetition is needed.
The foregoing are some, but only some, of the arguments that occur to me in support of the theory of Restoration. It may be that in some cases I may be considered too dogmatic on a theme which is involved in much obscurity. But apart from the manner, judge of the matter. Is it not reasonable? And is not the very conception of it like the rising of a new sun in a new world?
I have claimed that such views are reasonable. They may appear strange—even impious—at the first glance; but the longer the mind dwells upon them the more reasonable they will appear.
The old view is not reasonable; and that is one of its most damaging features. For all true religion is reasonable. In fact, religion is one of the most reasonable things in the world. It is so in God's mind, who sees all parts of it in all their relations. But our view for the present is limited. We see only a part of the divine scheme. But it is a great consolation that "what we know not now we shall know hereafter."
Let us always remember that our highest thoughts of God's wisdom and love are as nothing to the reality. In this regard I believe the future has revelations that will surprise us. Oh, yes; the words will come true by and by, in a larger sense than our poor faith can anticipate: "Weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning."
Divine Methods of Reclaiming Men—"The Chief of Sinners"—Changed in aMoment—No Violence Done to His Freedom—Yet Sovereign Power—TheMystery of Grace—View of McCosh—Supremacy of Conscience—Sir IsaacNewton's Alertness of Mind—Reason and Intuition—Capturing the MostIncorrigible—Evil Environment—Suffering a Necessary Factor—Agonyof Remorse.
We must remember that God has ways and means of reclaiming men that we do not see ordinarily put forth in this life. But we do see singular exhibitions of grace and power sometimes. I have referred to the case of Saul. Witness his conversion. He was a blaspheming, malignant persecutor. He says he was "exceedingly mad" against God's saint. It is said that he "breathed out threatening and slaughter." He said that he was the "chief of sinners." Possibly that was no mere rhetoric. He may actually have been the worst of mankind.
But in a moment he was changed. He was utterly transformed. His blasphemy was turned to prayer. From that day forward he would do anything, or go anywhere, or suffer the utmost persecution, if only he might serve Him whom he had before persecuted and blasphemed. And what was it that effected such a marvellous change? The Lord manifested Himself to him, and spoke to him; that was all. How we adore the grace and power that can work such marvels!
And in the life to come who can say but such marvels will be used, and with similar effect? We simply do not know, but we can see that such means can be used, and we can imagine that they will be, especially in the case of those who had no chance before. In such a case, the period of suffering may not need to be greatly prolonged. In other cases we can imagine that the suffering may be long continued before the sinner repents.
And it is wonderful how, in the case of Saul, no violence was done to the freedom of his will. He was no mere machine. He was simply taken captive. He willingly, gladly, surrendered. He could say afterward, "I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision." It was a case of divine sovereignty combined with human freedom. It may be that we shall never understand how these two forces unite. But one thing we do know; it is the Lord's way, and it is marvellous in our eyes. Meantime, we take these words of Tennyson as the best definition of the mystery that we know:
"Our wills are ours, we know not how;Our wills are ours, to make them thine."
Who can say but some such divine yet free constraint may be exercised in the life to come?
It will be seen that I do not think of freedom as the prime faculty of the soul. I rather think, with McCosh, that conscience is supreme. And why? For two reasons: First, conscience deals only with questions in the moral realm. This gives it a peculiar dignity and sacredness. It does not concern itself with questions of mere expediency, but with questions of right and wrong, and discriminates intuitively between truth and error. Yes, even in mathematical truth I think there is an element of morality. If a man could believe that two and two are five, he would appear to me a worse man, morally, for so believing. So then, conscience rather than freewill is the highest quality of the soul, because it deals with questions solely in the higher realm.
Then, as I have said, there is another reason why we think of conscience as our highest faculty. That is, that it acts instinctively. It has a sensitiveness of feeling towards questions of right and wrong, and of truth and error. This seems to me to be a higher faculty than mere reason. It seems to ally conscience more closely with the divine. We cannot think of God arriving at conclusions by reasoning. He is conscious of the truth without any intermediate process of reasoning. It is said of Sir Isaac Newton that he perceived at a glance the truth of many propositions that had to be tediously reasoned out step by step by inferior minds. We recognize at once the superiority of such an order of mind; and in the realm of morals it is such a faculty with which conscience is endowed.
Thus in both respects that have been indicated, freewill seems to occupy a lower plane. For one thing it has largely to do with matters in a lower realm. It concerns itself, not chiefly with higher questions, but often with matters of the most trifling character. Its daily operation is mainly with the commonplace. And besides, it has not the gift of intuition but of reason, and often of conflicting reason. For such reasons as these freewill—important as it is—must be conceived as a lower faculty than that of conscience. Because conscience operates solely in a higher realm, and because its operations are of a higher quality, I think of it as a superior function of the soul.
If there is too much theory here, consider the matter for a moment in its practical aspect. We often see that one strong will can dominate a weaker one, without in the least impairing its freedom. There is no doubt that the weaker will is as free as ever. It freely yields to the influence of the stronger will. And it may yield intelligently. It is easy to conceive that influences may be brought to bear on it by which it is captured, without losing a particle of its freedom.
We may reasonably conceive, then, of Christ acting on the most incorrigible of mankind, and entirely capturing them without in the least depriving them of freewill. What influences He may bring to bear upon them, who can say? What unfoldings of eternal love He may reveal are impossible to be imagined. We can thus believe that the worst of mankind might be captured and redeemed. I appeal to the capture of Saul of Tarsus as an example of such a possibility. What a door of hope is opened here for our lost race!
* * * * *
It may be asked why such a redemption is not effected in the present life. Let us beware of intruding into divine mysteries. We might as well ask why Saul was not arrested and redeemed before he made such a havoc of the church, and went down to such a low depth of infamy. Or we might inquire why he was arrested at all. Or we might inquire why God went to that idolatrous people in Ur of the Chaldees, and took Abraham from among them, and made him not only the progenitor of the chosen race, but one of the greatest and most noble men in history. Yet God in his sovereign pleasure took that course, leaving the rest of those heathen people in their idolatry. And so through all the ages we see the manifestation of God's electing favor. I say, we must beware of intruding into the divine mysteries. To all such inquiries we can only say, "Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Thy sight."
It is well, however, to remember that the environment may be much more favorable in a future world than here. There are many who are almost of necessity sinners from their youth up, because of their evil surroundings. It would be hard to expect them to be much better than they are. But their surroundings may be entirely different in the next life; and they may yield speedily to the better influences. We see such effects so often in this life that we may well cherish hopes for their larger operation in the next. No details are revealed; but we can imagine this as a reasonable possibility. In such a case there may be the most surprising reformations.
It may be objected that I have taken very little notice of suffering as a necessary factor in the process of future redemption. I may say that I have always had it in view; but we have no details as to the nature of it, or the duration of it, or how it will be inflicted. That there will be suffering I have no doubt. But I regard suffering rather as reformatory than punitive.
Take the example of Saul, to whom we have just referred. If ever there was a case of sudden conversion, surely we see it there. It did not take him long to pass out of the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light. But he went through a very agony of remorse. He passed through such a horror of darkness that for three days and nights he did not eat. Certainly, the intensest suffering accompanied his conversion.
In the light of such facts as these we can see how possible, and how reasonable it is to expect the most wonderful transformation in the next life. The greatest sinners may become the greatest saints. I have taken the case of Saul to show how such marvels of redemption may be effected in a future life. Possibly his case is the most notable that has occurred. And yet, who can say? From cases that we have known we can well believe that there are thousands of such cases that have never got into any history. But we have seen enough to warrant the belief that in the next life there will be marvels of spiritual transformation.
An Everlasting Pang—David and Absalom—Strained Ideas of LateMomentary Repentance—King Solomon—King Saul—The Gracious Characterof Sympathy—George Eliot's View—A strong Argument for Restoration—Heresy of a Minister's Wife—The Minister's Orthodox View—WonderfulGoodness of a Criminal—Where Will He Finally Go?—Our Very ImperfectFriends—Glossing Over Their Faults When They Are Gone—OurInstinctive Hope for the Worst—Restoration the True Solution—A FinalEra of Joy.
We might glance here at another difficulty which is solved by the theory of Restoration. Apart from this theory, those who are saved we think must have everlasting regret that friends whom they have known and loved are not with them. Suppose those friends are annihilated. Will not the knowledge of that fact be an everlasting pang to the friends who have attained eternal joy? To think that those who were so dear to them were worthy of no better fate! To think of the honor and glory which might have been eternally theirs, which now they have forever missed! What a joy it would be, too, to have their companionship! But that joy is eternally forfeited. We think that if regret in heaven can be, it would arise from the fact that those whom we hoped to meet there we shall never see.
Take one case as an illustration. Is it to be conceived that David would not have an everlasting regret in regard to his son Absalom? We know how his heart was broken when he received the tidings of Absalom's death; yes, though Absalom was utterly opposed to him, and was trying to wrest the kingdom from him. It is one of the most pathetic scenes in Scripture history, when the king received the news of his son's death. We see him going up the stairs to the chamber over the gates, and we hear his sobs and cries, and his broken words: "O Absalom, my son, my son Absalom; would God I had died for thee; O Absalom, my son, my son."
Now can it be supposed that David will have no regret for his son Absalom if he does not meet him in the abodes of bliss? The tenderness of heart that characterized him here will surely not be suppressed there. Will not the absence of his son be an everlasting pang?
It may be supposed—it has been supposed—that somehow at the last moment, Absalom repented, and was saved. We put no limit on the grace of God; but such a supposition is entirely gratuitous. It is a far-fetched invention to square with the idea of supposed final perseverence. The difficulty is, to believe that Absalom died in a state of grace. How much more likely it is that Absalom came to himself in the next life; and that his father could endure—yea, rejoice in—his absence for a time, knowing that the result would be everlasting reunion.
And so with Solomon. We read of the high hopes that David cherished about Solomon, and how Solomon so terribly declined in character in his later life, and died, so far as the record goes, in apostasy from God. If he is absent from heaven, will not his absence cause David an everlasting pang?
And so with King Saul, and many more whom we recall, both in Bible history, and in our own experience. The unsolved difficulty stares us in the face; but it is no longer a difficulty, but everlasting harmony, when we believe in Restoration.
And if the fate of extinction would thus cause everlasting regret how much more would the knowledge that our friends are in everlasting torment. Surely our knowledge of such a fate would be unendurable. Would there not be everlasting distress in that world of joy? In fact it would be no world of joy. We shall have the same nature then as now. It will be only ennobled and purified. Certainly sympathy—which is one of the noblest of our feelings—will be more tender and intense than now. George Eliot said that she estimated her entire moral condition by her capacity of sympathy. We may imagine then the horror of the situation if we have to think of our friends as being in everlasting torment.
Surely this is a strong argument for Restoration. We might endure, and even rejoice in, a mild degree of suffering on the part of friends, if we knew that such was a necessary process of purification, and that by and by they would rise to eternal happiness. But to think of them as being forever in torment—inflicted for punishment, and not for purification—would be unspeakable torture. We have indeed heard of zealots who taught that the saved would even rejoice in the sufferings of the damned, as the effect of God's glorious justice. For the credit of humanity we would believe that such lurid representations were rare, and but the product of temporary excitement, or perhaps a mistaken zeal for orthodoxy.
* * * * *
I was lately staying at a Presbyterian Manse. The minister was from home, but his wife engaged me in several topics of conversation. Among other things she instanced the case of a family some members of which were saved, and some were lost; and she asked me if there was any means of explaining away the agony of such a separation. Thinking she might not be ready for a thorough discussion of the subject, I tried to dismiss it by some casual remark. But it would not do; again and again she returned to the point. At length I stated plainly that I did not believe in endless torment, or eternal separation. At once, and with evident relief, she responded that such was her own view.
Now I think that case is typical of thousands and thousands more. They have been brought up in the orthodox idea of eternal torment; it is enshrined in their thought by the sacredness of childish association; they have the conception that it is an evidence of soundness in the faith. But by and by, when they begin to think, their heart rebels; the idea hitherto accounted true seems opposed to every humane instinct, and much more opposed to that mercy that is from everlasting to everlasting. There is thus a sea of conflicting ideas, and they know not which way to turn. My hope is, that when they read these pages they will see that a large pan of the church has been for a long time under a dark cloud of error, and that their humane instinct is but a dim reflection of Eternal Love.
The lady referred to told me that her husband's view and hers do not agree. It is his idea, she said, that the point of view of the saved will gradually be uplifted until it coincides with God's, and that then they will be able to contemplate the tortures of the damned with perfect satisfaction! And this is orthodoxy! O, for the day when this dark pall will be lifted from the heart of the world!
* * * * *
Thus men have distorted the finest feelings of their nature that they might view with complacency the eternal torments of the damned. They really believed, or tried to believe, that such was God's feeling and attitude; and to that divine ideal they felt that they must aspire. It was surely hard work, and would naturally issue in a degree of sanctimoniousness and unreality. Yet it was necessary, if the doctrine of eternal torment were true. But the moment that doctrine is seen to be untrue, what a change of ideal! Then it is discerned that all this hardening process is opposed to the best that is in human nature, and utterly contrary to the character of God. We can never estimate the spiritual loss that it has been to mankind to have had such ideas of the Infinitely Merciful One.
* * * * *
When it is once discerned that there is no endless torment, but that suffering in the next life is a divinely appointed means of reformation, how the mind is enlarged in the contemplation of the wisdom, power, and love of God! Yea, and what an uplift, and what a new direction, is given to our ideas of human perfection and blessedness! If there were nothing else, we have surely here a strong argument for final Restoration.
Eternal blessedness is consonant with our nature; and though details of it are not revealed, it is reasonable to believe that it will ultimately be attained. But eternal suffering is abnormal and repugnant. Especially is it so as we rise in the moral scale. As a worthy ultimatum it cannot be entertained. It is far more reasonable to believe that under the perfect government of God, sin and all its resulting pain will finally be done away.
Further; it would be hard to find a case of such utter wickedness as not to have some mixture of good as well. That gives us the reasonable hope that ultimately the good will triumph. And sometimes we find great goodness mixed with great evil. Just now I notice a very affecting report in the newspaper of a criminal in whom there must have been a wonderful mixture of good and bad. He was convicted of a serious crime, and sentenced to three years in the penitentiary. When he was leaving the city under arrest, and being taken on board the train that was to convey him to the place of confinement, a number of his late companions in crime appeared on the railway platform. They had come to bid him good-bye. And it was no formal leave-taking. With tears and sobs they flung their arms about his neck, and kissed him. So affecting was the scene that the policeman in charge was utterly broken down. But the man had to go to prison; and the chances are that the evil influences of prison life will dissipate much of that extraordinary goodness which must have been in him to develop so much affection.
Be that as it may, the question must suggest itself to every thoughtful mind, "Where will that man go should he die in the meantime?" He is far too good for the world of woe; yet he is not fit for the better world until his criminal propensities are eliminated. How reasonable it is to believe in—we might say what a moral necessity there is for—a process of development of the good, and elimination of the evil. On the principle that what is good will survive, and that the evil will be extinguished, we can hope for nothing less. And when we remember that all men, and all conditions, and all worlds, are under the control of Him whose love is from everlasting to everlasting, we may believe that such a man's final destiny is the inheritance of the saints.
Another argument is derived very naturally from the case of departed friends whose spiritual condition was doubtful. Have we not known of acquaintances who passed away, of whose spiritual condition we could have no well grounded assurance? But the moment they were gone we became charitable, glossed over their faults, and hoped for the best. Would it not be a far more reasonable thing to do, to imagine them as having passed into some purifying process, from which they would emerge in due time? In the case of many we can believe that such a purifying process might involve no great suffering; and we could endure the thought of it when we believed in its glorious issue. In fact we would become more like God Himself, who is inflicting pain every day with a view to moral perfection by and by.
Well do I remember spending an evening with a personal friend. He was a man of sterling character. In his ordinary demeanor, however, he was a very John Bull of a man; you would not think there was a particle of sentiment in his whole composition. During our conversation, reference was made to the case of departed friends whose spiritual condition was doubtful; and before I knew, my friend utterly broke down and wept. No doubt he was thinking of one in such a case. I could not at that time offer him the consolation of the larger hope; and it is doubtful if with his education he could have accepted such consolation. What a solace it will be, when we can think of departed friends in whom the work of grace was manifestly very incomplete—possibly not begun—as having gone, not into a state of hopeless, everlasting torment—but as having passed into a state where the work of grace will be completed.
But speaking of the reformatory process, there is one circumstance that may seem to indicate that it may be very long. I refer to the fact that Satan has been so long incorrigible. I take him of course to be a conscious personality. In the Word of God I suppose there are a hundred references to him as a person. If you have any doubt on that point look up the references, and I think you will be convinced.
Now, since his temptation of Adam, and we know not how long before, Satan has been persevering in a course of evil. Does not that fact seem to indicate that sinners must have a long period of suffering in the next life before they are reclaimed, if they ever are?
To this view a number of answers may be given. In the first place, Satan is of another race; we know very little of his former history, or the circumstances of his fall; and we know not if any means for his recovery have been provided. In the next place, a few thousand years may be but a span in the long sweep of his existence. Then further, he does not seem to be in a state of suffering at present. There is a hint in the Book of Revelation that he will be so by and by; and we know not what may be in store for him. As intimated before, some think he will be restored; others think he will be annihilated. With such ignorance of the circumstances of the case, it is plain that we have no data for forming an opinion one way or the other. At the same time, we cannot help being in sympathy with the words of Burns; they certainly touch a chord in all our hearts:
"Then fare ye weel, auld nickey Ben;O wad ye tak' a thought and men'Ye aiblins micht—I dinna ken—Hae still a stake."
As I have said, there are those who teach that Satan will be ultimately extinguished. And they lay down that theory with great positiveness. While there are some hints to that effect in the Word of God, it does not seem to me that they are clear enough to warrant us in being positive. We would hardly expect so much. It is not our business to know much of "other world" affairs for the present.
So far as we may judge, it would appear instead that Satan's long continuance in sin gives some hope of his ultimate Restoration. For the question will naturally arise: Why should God spare him so long, if He foresees that he must be extinguished at last? Why not extinguish him at once, and thus avoid so much temptation to evil? I am by no means curious on such a question. I merely cite these possibilities to show that the subject is utterly beyond us.
It really comes to this, that on such high topics it is wise to be reverently silent. But with the fact that we do not know, we ally the privilege of eternal hope. So we would say with Tennyson:
"Behold, we know not anything;We can but trust that good shall fall,At last far off, at last to all;And every winter change to spring."
If you dissent from some of the views I have advanced, I would ask you not to be hasty in forming conclusions. It may be that after some years you will see differently. I was myself many years before coming to entertain these views. But they were growing on me, perhaps unconsciously, and at length they took this pronounced form. It may be so with you. The ideas which you entertain now may be perhaps the result of early training as much as of patient study. Let us ever look for divine guidance. We have the promise. "Ye shall know the truth; and the truth shall make you free."
* * * * *
I cannot but forecast the new era of joy that will come to the world when the doctrine of Restoration is generally accepted. It will be like a burst of sunlight from behind a dark cloud. The world is sad; and I am convinced that one cause of its sadness is the dark view of endless torment that has so long prevailed. The view, from long habit, may be held almost unconsciously; but the dark shadow of it has cast a heavy gloom over human life. What an uplift all hearts will have, what a radiance of joy will be infused into life, we can now but dimly anticipate. Then we can adopt the dictum of Browning, and it will be no cheap optimism:
"God's in His heaven;All's right with the world."
After all, that is only our poor human way of expressing the majestic thought, "The Lord God omnipotent reigneth!"