{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_9969/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_9969","id":"gutenberg_9969","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/9969","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Religion/Spirituality","Future punishment -- Controversial literature","Universalism"],"text":"Produced by Juliet Sutherland, Charlie Kirschner and the\nOnline Distributed Proofreading Team.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nLOVE'S FINAL VICTORY\n\n_Ultimate Universal Salvation on the\nBasis of Scripture and Reason_\n\nBY\n\nHORATIO\n\nAn Orthodox Minister\n\n\"_That which is incredible to thee thou shalt not, at thy soul's peril,\nattempt to believe. Go to Perdition if thou must, but not with a lie in\nthy mouth. By the Eternal Maker, no.\"--Carlyle._\n\n\"_Is not Universal Salvation the Divine Corollary of Universal\nAtonement?\"--Extract of a letter from the Author to an eminent\nMethodist minister in England._\n\n\n\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n\nI.\n\nDIFFERENT THEORIES.\n\nFear of Punishment--Early Impressions--Men of Piety and Learning--Facts\nand Figures--Mental or Material Fire--The Theory of Conditional\nImmortality--Why Invented--Moody--Divine Failure Impossible--Future\nOperations of Grace--Restoration--A Plea for Charity--Other Worlds--The\nHeathen--Devout Use of the Imagination.\n\n\nII.\n\nCRUELTY OF FORMER VIEWS.\n\nUnconditional Election--Children of Believing Parents--An Arrogant\nPretension--God's Own Children--The Heathen of All Time--A Baleful\nShadow--Former Cruelty--Herbert Spencer--Dr. Farrar's Eternal Hope--A\nLady With An Open Mind--Dr. Dawson's Larger View--The Universal\nAttraction.\n\n\nIII.\n\nTHE CHURCH IN TRANSITION.\n\nNo Definite Note of Warning--Preachers Afraid of Discipline--Divided As\nto Restoration or Extinction--Plea for Liberty--Liberalism of the\nEpiscopal Church--Advance in Christian Unity--Dr. Edward\nWhite--Conditional Immortality--Endless Torment--If True Ought to Be\nPreached Morning, Noon and Night--Awful Penalty of Sin--Extinction--True\nReligion Is Reasonable--Enlarged Conceptions.\n\n\nIV.\n\nINFINITE JUSTICE.\n\nA Strong Argument--Universal Atonement--Infinite Justice Satisfied--A\nCandid Methodist Minister--Can Man Commit An Infinite Sin?--Everlasting\nPunishment Could Not Be Rendered--Uses of Suffering--Punitive and\nRemedial--The Penalty Has Been Paid--Moral Effect--Mystery of Pain--Not\nPunishment but Chastening--Extending Our Outlook Beyond--Boundless Time\nand Space--Operations of Grace in the Next Life--Infinite\nPower--Infinite Mercy--Infinite Love--Incentive to Endless Praise.\n\n\nV.\n\nHARMONY OF THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES.\n\nOur Limitations--Development--Our Capacity--Divine Foreknowledge--No\nDivine Failure--The Heathen--Unchangeable Dove--Union of Four\nAttributes--Eternal Wisdom--A Marvel of Coercion and Freedom--The Day of\nDivine Power--An Unfathomable Mystery--Future Revelations--Coming to\nZion with Songs.\n\n\nVI.\n\nTHEORY OF EQUALITY.\n\nAbraham Tucker's View--Ingenious and Reverent--Variety of\nEndowment--Maximum of Happiness--Imparting and Receiving New\nIdeas--Compensations--Infinite Justice.\n\n\nVII.\n\nPROCESSES OF PURIFICATION.\n\nDifferent Processes--The Case of Saul--Changed in a Moment--No Violence\nto Human Freedom--The Case of Nebuchadnezzar--Sudden or Slow--Basis of\nWarning--An Object Lesson--Function of Suffering.\n\n\nVIII.\n\nTHE INTERMEDIATE STATE.\n\nMeagre Details--Good Reasons Why--Extent of the Universe--Future\nGlory--Sin in Other Worlds--No Revelation--Future Abode of the\nRighteous--Solid or Ethereal--Impossible Revelations--Present Duties and\nInterests--Our Limitations--Necessity of Purification--Preaching to the\nSpirits in Prison--Stages of Progress--The Law of Gradual Development.\n\n\nIX.\n\nTHE SPIRITS IN PRISON.\n\nThe Descent of Jesus Into Hades--Singular Reserve of\nPreachers--Purgatory--Dr. Gerhardt's Book--A Bodily Resurrection--The\nSpirit World Requires a Spirit Body.\n\n\nX.\n\nDIVINE LOVE.\n\nInfinite Being and Perfection--Grades of Being--Variety--Man's\nLimitations--Moral Beings--Hopeless Surroundings--All Are the Children\nof God--Righting the Wrongs of Time--\"The Heart of the Universe Is\nLove\"--Eternal Conscious Torment Incredible--Conquering Power of\nLove--Eternal Purpose Will Not Fail--Omnipotence in the Moral Realm--The\nDivine Expression of Love--Universal Atonement Involves Universal\nSalvation--Final Success of God's Designs--Will Evil Necessarily\nPerpetuate Itself?--Triumph of Good Over Evil--Few Stripes or\nMany--Reformatory Punishment--Bringing Good Out of Evil--Possibilities\nof Redeeming Grace--The Ransomed of the Lord--Wrath but the Shadow of\nLove--Former Eternity of Sinlessness--Wrath No Constituent of the Divine\nCharacter--Pity and Indignation.\n\n\nXI.\n\nTHE ATONEMENT.\n\nExtent of the Atonement--The Dilemma of Universal Atonement and Partial\nSalvation--Human Systems of Truth--Methodist Theology--Tradition and\nReason--Dr. Dale's View--No Divine Failure--Imperfection of All\nTheological Systems--\"Sufficient but Not Efficient\"--Undeveloped\nPossibilities--The Angel in the Apocalypse--Omnipotence Both in the\nPhysical and the Moral Realm--The Short Epoch of Time--Advance of\nthe Presbyterian Church in the United States--Individual\nCongregations--Hardening Effects of the Narrower View--The Softening\nInfluence of Dreams--Divine Capacity of Suffering--Persistence of What\nIs Good--Good Men Who Are Not Christians--Insanity--Blind Tom.\n\n\nXII.\n\nA FEEBLE NOTE OF WARNING.\n\nThe Creed of Eternal Torment--Do Ministers Really Believe It?--If They\nDo, Why Not Say So?--No Decisive Note of Warning--Definite Missionary\nIncentive Is Wanting--The Phrase, \"Eternal Death,\" Often Used--Does It\nMean Annihilation, or Eternal Torment, or What?--Vague Reference to\nPunishment Fosters Unbelief--An Age of Compromise--Professor Faulkner's\nTestimony--The Idea of Restoration Would Fully Meet the\nDifficulty--Honesty and Candor--Carlyle's Scathing Warning--Ultimate\nFulfilment of Prophecy--Eternal Songs.\n\n\nXIII.\n\nPROPHECIES YET TO BE FULFILLED.\n\nEnlarging Vision--Promise to Abraham--A Host of Similar Promises--Many\nof Them Not Merely National--Their Fulfilment--Not Limited by the\nShort Epoch of Time--The Present Only One Part of the Divine\nAdministration--Why the Revelation Was Not Given Sooner--Groping in the\nTwilight--Growing Illumination--A Time for Everything--Dazzle or\nEnlighten--Discoveries in Science are Really Revelations--Our Slowness\nin Receiving Spiritual Truth--Limitations of Great Men.\n\n\nXIV.\n\nTESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE.\n\nThe Unrevealed--Scripture and Reason--Bishop Butler's Dictum--Reverence\nof Kepler--Moral Courage of Sir Oliver Lodge--Increase of Laxity--The\nSpirit's Almighty Power--Supreme Authority of Scripture--The Proper\nSphere of Reason--Fate of the Heathen--Singular Reserve of\nPreachers--Sin Is Abnormal--Union of Divine Power, Wisdom, and\nLove--Reasonableness and Harmony--A Multitude of Scripture\nPromises--Discipline Instead of Eternal Torment--Dr. Funk's View--The\nGreat Panacea for Unbelief--Ingersoll--No Divine Failure.\n\n\nXV.\n\nTESTIMONY OF REASON.\n\nDivine Gift of Reason--Its Proper Sphere--No Dogmatism--Is Sin An\nInfinite Evil?--Infinite Penalty Impossible to Be Rendered--Justice Can\nDelay--Good Cannot Perish--Testimony of Dickens--Endless Punishment\nWould Increase Moral Evil--The Divine Character Never Changes--Time but\na Short Epoch--Our Capacity of Development--Salvation of Infants--The\nInsane--Imperfect Christians--Their Destiny--Good Unchristian Men--Where\nWill They Go?--\"All Souls Are Mine\"--Worth Preserving--Fate of the\nHeathen--Reclaimed in the Next Life--Human Freedom Never\nDestroyed--Provision for All--A Dreadful Hymn--Divine Sacrifice Not in\nVain--Bringing Good Out of Evil--Final Triumph of Goodness--Sin Is\nAbnormal--Will Therefore Cease--Law of Gradual Change--Sins of the\nMind--The Race Might Easily Have Been Intercepted--Endless Torment\nCannot Be Believed--The Mind's Affinity for Truth--True Punishment Is\nReformatory--Alleged Divine Cruelty--Agony of Eternal--Ingersoll and\nHis Shafts of Ridicule--Incentive to Good Works--Unfathomable Divine\nLove--\"Joy Cometh in the Morning\"\n\n\nXVI.\n\nTHE CASE OP SAUL.\n\nDivine Methods of Reclaiming Men--\"The Chief of Sinners\"--Changed' in a\nMoment--No Violence Done to His Freedom--Yet Sovereign Power--The\nMystery of Grace--View of McCosh--Supremacy of Conscience--Sir Isaac\nNewton's Wonderful Alertness of Mind--Reason and Intuition--Capturing\nthe Most Incorrigible--Evil Environment--Suffering a Necessary\nFactor--Agony of Remorse--Eternal Hope.\n\n\nXVII.\n\nETERNAL SEPARATIONS.\n\nAn Everlasting Pang--David and Absalom--Strained Ideas of Late Momentary\nRepentance--King Solomon--King Saul--The Gracious Character of\nSympathy--George Eliot's View--A Strong Argument for Restoration--Heresy\nof a Minister's Wife--A Minister's Orthodox View--Wonderful Goodness of\na Criminal--Where Will He Finally Go?--Our Very Imperfect\nFriends--Glossing Over Their Faults When They Are Gone--Our Instinctive\nHope for the Worst--Restoration the True Solution--A Final Era of Joy.\n\n\nXVIII.\n\nNOT REALLY BELIEVED.\n\nPresent Enthusiasm for Missions--Former Lassitude--The Basis of\nMissionary Enterprise--Supposed Damnation of the Heathen--If Really\nBelieved Would Drive Us to Frenzy--Minister's Monday Meeting--Pretence\nCuts the Nerve of Enthusiasm--Restoration the True Incentive--Effective\nBecause Reasonable--Torment Not Really Believed--The Heart Often Truer\nThan the Head--Necessity for Preparatory State--Could Not Have Details\nRevealed--Orthodoxy of the Torment View--Trying to Believe It--Be Not\nAfraid of the Truth--Extreme Calvinists Signally Honored--The Reason\nWhy--Our Innate God-given Convictions--Meagre Expenditure for\nMissions--Tacit Acknowledgment That Endless Suffering Is Not Believed.\n\n\nXIX.\n\nWORKING MEN AND THE CHURCH.\n\nEfforts to Attract Working Men to the Church--Restoration Would Largely\nSolve the Difficulty--Common Sense of Working-Men--Glorious Expansion of\nTruth--Recasting Traditional Views--The True Basis for Unity.\n\n\nXX.\n\nTHE SEEN AND THE UNSEEN.\n\nBeauty Evolved from Chaos--Future Capacity of Motion--Gleams of the\nInvisible--Changing Into the Divine Image--Crying Out for God--From\nBarrenness to Beauty--The Glow of the Firefly--The Effulgent\nDivinity--Universal Sense of Beauty--Sunset on the Prairie--Guardian\nAngels--Death As Seen from This Side and That--Sunset on Yellowstone\nRiver--A Drop of Dew--Reality of Heaven--The Literal and the\nFigurative--The Spiritual Body--Expanding Glory of Creation--Sunset in\nDakota--Lights Dim and Clear--Christ's Unsullied Purity--A Rent in the\nCloud--An Imprisoned Lark.\n\n\nXXI.\n\nTHE FINAL DAY.\n\nEverlasting Love--Resources of Infinite Wisdom and Power--Redemption of\nthe Whole Race--Forecast of the Final Day--The Conquest of Love\n--Christ Is Satisfied--He Is Singing with Joy--Ancient Prophecy\nFulfilled--Adoration of the Heavenly Hosts--The Saviour Crowned.\n\n\n\n\nGENERAL INTRODUCTION.\n\nThe circumstances under which these pages came to be written are rather\npeculiar. I am in favor of church unity, and I had thought of writing\nsomething that would tend to bring the churches into closer harmony. I\nam persuaded that their unity of doctrine is greater than is usually\nsupposed; I endeavored to make this apparent by citing a long list of\ndoctrines on which the churches tacitly agree.\n\nBut in all faithfulness I had to recognize a striking difference of\nopinion when I came to speak of the doctrine of future punishment. On\nthis profound question I had to recognize that there are honest\ndifferences of opinion. These could not be summarily dismissed by a\nhasty yea or nay.\n\nThere are three views that are entertained, which may be expressed thus:\nExtinction; Restoration; Endless Suffering. Not only do these different\nviews prevail among different churches; they prevail also among\nindividuals in all the churches. In fact, it would be hard to find a\nthoughtful church of any name in which each of these views is not\nrepresented.\n\nWhile there is this diversity of view, there ought surely to be\ntoleration. It is a profound subject; I am very conscious of that; yet\nI think there may be ultimate harmony if we are only candid enough to\nlay aside all prejudice, and give the matter our serious and impartial\nconsideration. And surely, it is worthy of that. In my view, there is a\nright conception of the matter, which if generally entertained would go\nfar to lift a dark shadow from the heart of the world.\n\nFor myself, I may say that I was brought up in an orthodox church that\nprofesses to believe in endless suffering. I had not, even at a mature\nage, examined that doctrine critically. In fact, I shrunk from examining\nit; I think most people do who professedly accept it. It is the doctrine\nof the church, and the easiest way is to assume that it is all right. If\nit was formulated by our learned and pious ancestors, the usual idea is\nthat it's good enough for us.\n\nA thoughtful mind, however, could not but recognize that there is a\nserious difference on this question in different churches that are\nadmitted to be evangelical. Not only that, but there is a difference\nbetween thoughtful men in the same church. Hence, I was led to adopt,\nand to state, my own views here. The arguments that I was thus compelled\nto use expanded far beyond my expectation. Then I recognized that a plea\nfor unity along with the advocacy of a contested vital doctrine, do not\nhang well together. Moreover, the space that I felt compelled to give to\nthis doctrinal defense, induced me to cut it loose from my plea for\nunity, and present the matter separately.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nOn this most serious question I must say that I have read but very\nlittle. Even Dr. Farrar's standard work on \"Eternal Hope\" I have not\nread. But I considered this to be no serious disadvantage, on the whole.\nI conceived--and I think it was no undue egotism--that my own\noriginality and naturalness would balance in a large degree the\ncompleteness which otherwise I might have attained. I think it is no\nsmall advantage to see the natural working of an open mind, not warped\nby other people's opinions and arguments.\n\nBut there was more than that. It is said of Christ that He is \"The true\nLight that lighteth every man that cometh into the world.\" I cannot but\nthink that I have had some illumination from that Source. Once in the\nnight season, when I wished above all things to sleep, I was kept awake,\nand an idea came to me that was never in my mind before. In the morning\nthe idea was written down. The following night the same thing would\noccur again, and again a new thought was written down. The same thing\ncontinued for weeks, with hardly an intermission.\n\nIt did not strike me until afterwards that this might be a special,\ndivine illumination. Yet why should it not be, except that I was\nutterly unworthy? But then I remembered that it is to \"every man,\"\nhowever unworthy he may be, that this divine Light comes. So it may come\nto many when they do not know it.\n\nIn this case it was not really so surprising. When we think of the Power\nand Grace that are so bound up with the theory of Restoration that are\nas yet so little recognized, might we not expect special, divine aid in\nmaking known such a glorious revelation? As I have noticed elsewhere in\nthis treatise, neither of the two alternative theories brings anything\nlike such glory to Christ as the theory of Restoration. Is not this an\noverwhelming argument that the theory is true?\n\nAt all events, there is now more toleration for such views than there\nwas some time ago. I know that many Congregational ministers hold to the\ndoctrine of Conditional Immortality; and there is no bar to such views\nin that church. Dr. Farrar's \"Eternal Hope\" does him no discredit to-day\nin the Episcopal Church. So with Dr. Edward White's doctrine of\nConditional Immortality. But there are some who still hold tenaciously\nto the orthodox faith, and are quick to resent any departure from it.\n\nWell do I remember a conference that was held in Dr. Parker's Tabernacle\nin London several years ago. The occasion was the meeting with the Rev.\nHenry Ward Beecher. The large church where we met was nearly filled with\nministers. During Mr. Beecher's talk one of these zealots for orthodoxy\nflung out the inquiry, \"Do you believe in everlasting punishment?\"\nBeecher--manly man that he was--immediately responded that he did not.\nAt once there was an uproar. The great majority, I believe, whether in\nsympathy with Mr. Beecher or not, would have allowed the matter to pass\nin respectful silence. But there was a small minority who felt bound to\nstand up for orthodoxy. For a time there was great confusion. I remember\nParker's dignified protest. \"Brethren,\" he said, \"this is a Conference;\nit is not an Inquisition.\"\n\nTruly, it does seem strange that men should be ostracised for not\nbelieving that the great majority of mankind is in everlasting fire!\nThat is really the sum and substance of their offending. It seems that\nis an offense for which no greatness or goodness can atone. In the case\nreferred to the man who was condemned was confessedly head and shoulders\nabove his peers. Yet we boast of our culture and progress, and our\nemancipation from medieval darkness. Truly, it would be funny, if it\nwere not sad.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nOn the occasion referred to I had no sympathy with Mr. Beecher's view,\nnor for several years after. But the idea took hold of me about five\nyears ago. So far as I know, it came spontaneously; no, perhaps not\nspontaneously, but as a direct suggestion from the unseen. I had been\nreading nothing that would naturally lead up to it; I had no former\nleanings in that direction; nor was I in contact with any person who\nwould suggest it. But suddenly the idea took hold of me, and pursued me\nnight after night with new arguments. All the time there was nothing in\nmy reach along this line that I could read; and I had read almost\nnothing beforehand. So I sought for nothing, realizing that it might be\nbetter to present the case solely from my own point of view.\n\nI mention these matters in no spirit of egotism, but simply to show that\nthe matter occurred to me at a time unlooked for, and without any\nextraneous help. If I had resorted to outside aids, I might perhaps have\nmade the argument more complete; but would I have made it more\nconvincing?\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI am not in the habit of ventilating these views on all occasions; but\nin certain cases lately there were some remarkable results. For\ninstance: I met a Presbyterian minister whom I knew, and we drifted into\nthese ideas. I said I would give him one argument for universal\nsalvation, and one only. When I had stated the argument he said it was\nabsolutely conclusive, and that there could be no such thing as\nendless torment.\n\nLately, I met a Presbyterian D.D. on the train, and we drifted into\nthese questions. He argued the case strongly from the orthodox point of\nview, and I defended the more liberal theory. We argued the question for\ntwo hours. When we were at the end of our journey he frankly confessed\nthat he was quite with me, and that he \"had gone through the mill.\" Yet\nthat D.D. is supposed to be orthodox. I believe he is one of many who\nsuppress their honest inner convictions.\n\nA teacher in the Methodist body, a man of deep thought, and fine\nculture, during a few minutes' conversation, endorsed several of my\nviews, and began to advance some of his own.\n\nLately, I visited a highly cultured Christian lady, who was once a\nmember of my congregation, and I referred casually to some of these\nideas. Thinking afterwards that I might really have done her an injury\nby merely mooting such a subject, I went back the next evening, and went\ninto it fully. The result was that she expressed her hearty concurrence\nin such views.\n\nCases like these convince me that the public mind is more open than it\nwas some time ago, and that when the matter is presented reasonably, in\nmany instances it will be accepted. Surely, the light of God is\nbeginning to shine into our gloom!\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI suppose that the contracted view of divine love and power that\nprevailed in former times was largely due to the failure of men to see\nthat God rules in all worlds and through all time. Because grace does\nnot take effect in the case of every person now and here, it was\nconcluded that this was a part of the divine decree; for could not God\ndo as it pleased Him? But now we realize that this life is not all; that\ndivine love and power are from everlasting to everlasting; that we see\nhere but \"parts of His ways;\" that the great redemptive scheme may be\ncompleted in the ages to come.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn this treatise I have chiefly in view the great mass of people who\nbelieve in the plain statements of Scripture, and also in reason. And I\nwill say this, for the sake of those who have been brought up with the\nidea that the Scripture teaches eternal torment, that there are many\nincorrect Scripture translations, and that these largely account for the\nlong persistence of the old theory. Its origin is really due to the\nRoman Catholic Church, which invented it to keep its adherents in due\nsubjection.\n\nIt is well to note that in two of the views I have referred to there is\na degree of harmony. In the theory of Extinction and that of Restoration\nthere is a tacit repudiation of endless torment. That seems to be an\nintuition in harmony with our highest range both of thought and feeling,\nwhen thought and feeling are not unduly warped by tradition. The old\ntheory may sound orthodox; it may be consecrated by many tender\nmemories; but I would ask if you have thought over it seriously, and if\nin your inmost soul you believe it. Then be faithful to that inner\nconviction. It is the light of God. It is what Carlyle calls \"the direct\nInspiration of the Almighty.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nPending the final solution of this great problem, I think there ought to\nbe enough charity to disagree, with all good will and mutual confidence.\nAnd in all contemplated union of the churches this liberty ought to be\nclearly recognized. For this question, though of tremendous importance,\nis not a saving one by any means. Men, of whose goodness there can be no\nquestion, hold different views. Truth is greater than orthodoxy, and is\nsometimes to be found outside of orthodoxy. In this connection, the\nwords of Professor Faulkner, of Toronto University, are well worth\npondering. He says: \"The fear of not being orthodox is, in my opinion,\nthe reason why theology is under a cloud at the present time.\"\n\nClosely related to this subject, it may be opportune to quote an article\nof mine that lately appeared in the \"_Homiletic Review_\" on the\n\"Doctrinal Basis of Union in Canada.\"\n\nThe contemplated organic union of the Presbyterian, Methodist, and\nCongregational Churches in Canada has not yet been consummated. One\nthing that involved some delay has been the discovery of a basis of\ndoctrine that would suit the three churches. At length such a basis has\nbeen formulated. It contains one statement, however, which I am rather\nsurprised to see. It says that the doom of the finally impenitent will\nbe \"eternal death,\" Now what does that mean? Might it not be honestly\ntaken to mean two very different things? Might it not be taken to mean\n\"eternal torment\" or \"eternal extinction?\" The manifest ambiguity of\nsuch a statement would seem to me highly objectionable. I quoted the\nphrase to two thoughtful friends, and asked them what it meant. They\nmade a long pause, and said they did not know.\n\nIf the phrase has been adopted on purpose to make it the expression of\nthe two views referred to, such a course is surely wanting in candor and\nhonesty. To be sure, it is a Scriptural phrase, but inasmuch as it is\ntaken to express two very different views, it ought not to be adopted.\nBy all means be clear and simple and straightforward.\n\nThere has been too much vagueness on the part of preachers on this most\nsolemn theme. Lately I heard a preacher speaking of unsaved men as\n\"miserable failures, going out into the darkness.\" Now what did he mean?\nEither he has no definite idea himself, or he judged it unwise to\nexpress it. Does not such a statement as I have quoted pander directly\nto infidelity?\n\nSurely, the time has come when we ought candidly to recognize that on\nthis question there may be a legitimate difference of opinion. There\nare men whose godliness and ability are beyond all question, who hold\ndiverse views on this matter. Whether it be the theory of eternal\ntorment or extinction or Restoration that is held, let us concede all\nhonor and confidence to the men who hold it. The more of that spirit we\nreally possess, the sooner will the divine light break upon our souls.\n\nWith regard to a basis on which conscientious men can really unite, is\nit well to go so much into detail? Mere creeds will never conserve the\ntruth. Men will think, whether we will or no; and men will have diverse\nviews. Do we not put a premium on dishonesty by constructing a creed for\nall details, and expecting men to subscribe to that creed? Have we not\nhad too much of that in the past? A noted official in the Methodist body\ntold me lately that he does not believe in eternal torment, but that if\nit were known, he would lose his position. But eternal torment is in the\nMethodist creed, and he had profest his adherence to it. It is so with\nmany Presbyterians. I have spoken privately with several, and not one\nprofest to believe in that doctrine. But we say, \"Truth is mighty and\nwill prevail.\" Yes, I believe it will; but it would surely prevail\nfaster if we were always loyal to it. Besides, is there anything that\nmakes more directly for degeneracy of character than such evasion?\n\nTo avoid all peril of this kind, how would it do to take for a basis\nof doctrine this simple statement. \"I believe the Scriptures of the Old\nand New Testaments to be the Word of God?\" Or, \"I believe the Scriptures\nof the Old and New Testaments to contain the Word of God?\" Then, with\nfurther \"light breaking from God's holy word,\" we would not need to\nexpunge anything from our creed, or add anything to it.\n\nFor the present, let us be faithful to the light we have. As Canon\nFarrar well says: \"There is but one failure; and that is, not to be true\nto the best one knows.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt will be noted that throughout this discussion I have made no attempt\nto indicate anything of the nature of the divine reformatory processes\nin the next life. That is far beyond me. The principle may be the same\nthat operates now, but the details may be very different, and the\neffects produced may be quick or slow, just as in this life. We have\ninstanced the case of Saul's conversion as exceptionally thorough and\nimmediate. There may be somewhat similar cases in the next life; we do\nnot know; but there is reasonable ground for hope. Then too, as now,\nthere may be cases of incorrigibility which ages may be required\nto redeem.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMistranslations of certain passages of Scripture on this subject are so\nnumerous, and in some cases so utterly opposed to the original, that I\nmade out a list of them, to be presented here. On second thought I have\nomitted them, for the reason that this treatise is intended more\nespecially for plain, common sense people, who do not trouble much about\ntranslations, but who are dominated largely by reason and good sense.\nFor those who give more attention to translations, I could wish that\nsome competent and impartial person would compile a list of\nmistranslations and present them as a separate treatise.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI am satisfied that in the English Bible there is abundant support for\nevery position I have taken. I do not mean merely direct, verbal\nsupport; but also the support of reason and common feeling, which come\nfrom the same divine Source.\n\nI can well conceive, however, that some may have a conscientious fear\nthat there may be something in the original that is opposed to the views\nthat I have taken. It may appear very unlikely that the orthodox views\nthat have so long prevailed should find such wide currency if they are\nnot supported by revelation. It cannot be denied, however, that the\ntranslators of the Scriptures in many instances were strongly imbued\nbeforehand with certain of those doctrines, and that in many cases they\nwrested the Scriptures to support them. So much is this the case that\ncorrections and modifications have since been made--in some cases\ntotally contrary to the original translations.\n\nAlong with this, let it be remembered that there is, and rightly, a\nstrong conservative feeling against meddling with the Divine Word.\nNotwithstanding this, there is in all honesty a feeling that certain\ntranslations call for a radical amendment. I think this statement will\nbe thoroughly borne out by some of the translations I will quote.\n\nI have thus been moved to give some instances of mistranslation. Since\nwriting the foregoing I have met with a treatise by Rev. Arthur\nChambers, an English Episcopal minister, in which he quotes a great\nnumber of these. A number of them bear so directly on the matter we are\ntreating that I feel that I cannot do better than quote some of them\nhere. And in order to do this author justice, I will give also some of\nhis own comments.\n\nMr. Chambers writes:\n\n\nTHE MEANING OF THE WORD \"HADES.\"\n\nThe Greek language contains two words which are used many times in the\nNew Testament--\"Gehenna\" and \"Hades.\"\n\nWhen the Greek New Testament was translated into English, one English\nword'--\"Hell\"--was, very unfortunately, made to do service for the two\nGreek words named above. \"Hell\" was used to express both the place of\nfuture punishments, and also the abode of those, who having departed the\nEarth-life, are existing as disembodied spirits, physically disembodied.\n\nAs was to be expected, confusion of ideas soon arose in consequence, and\nordinary readers became bewildered.\n\nSuch a passage is Acts ii. 31: \"His soul was not left in Hell,\" and the\nclause in the Apostles' Creed--\"He descended into Hell\"--instead of\nbeing understood as expressing that Christ at His crucifixion entered\ninto Hades, seem to teach that He went into the place of\npunishment--Hell; where He never went.\n\n\nTHE EARLY-CHRISTIAN CONCEPTION OF HADES.\n\nThe foregoing conclusion is well-nigh unassailable, in view of the fact\nthat the early Christians believed in an Intermediate State, which they,\nlike the Jews and Greeks, called \"Hades.\"\n\nJustin Martyr (A.D. 147) declares that \"those who say that there is no\nResurrection, but that, immediately after death, their souls are taken\nup to Heaven, these are not to be accounted either Christians or Jews.\"\n\nTertullian (A.D. 200) states that \"the souls of all men go to Hades\nuntil the Resurrection; the souls of the just being in that part of\nHades called the 'Bosom of Abraham,' or 'Paradise.'\"\n\nOrigen (A.D. 230) expresses the same views. Lactantius (A.D. 306)\nwrites, \"Let no one think that souls are judged immediately after death;\nfor they are all detained in the same common place of keeping, until the\ntime come when the Supreme Judge shall enquire into their good or\nevil deeds.\"\n\nOur English New Testament represents the rich man as being in Hell. But\nthe translation is a false one. In the original Greek it is, \"In Hades\nhe lifted up his eyes.\"\n\nSo, then, the rich man, though in another sphere than that of Lazarus,\nwas also in Hades. I am aware that some teachers have viewed this\nparable as depicting the future condition of man, in happiness or\nmisery, in Heaven or Hell. But besides the locality in which the two\npersons are placed being actually named, the context is against such a\nsupposition. At the time that Lazarus and Dives are shown in their\nafter-death experiences, this world is still in existence, and the\nbrothers of the rich man are then living on the earth, and the Judgment\nis still distant. But Heaven and Hell will follow, not precede, the\nclose of the present Dispensation and the Judgment. We conclude,\ntherefore, that this parable distinctly affirms the truth of an\nIntermediate-life.\n\nThe terms \"eternal judgment\" and \"eternal punishment,\" have been dinned\ninto their ears of many from infancy, and they are unaware of the fact\nthat \"eternal\" is not a correct translation of the original Greek word\n[Greek: aionios]; and moreover, that this word, \"eternal\" denotes\nwithout beginning as well as without end, and is misapplied to anything\nthat is not beginningless. Again, there are hosts of earnest seekers\nafter God and truth (as numbers of letters sent to me testify), whose\nacceptance of the Gospel of Christ is barred by this doctrine of\neverlasting punishment. They suppose it to be a part of the teaching of\nthe Saviour; and they cannot embrace a religion which requires assent to\nsomething that shocks all their moral instincts. For the sake of such\npersons, it seems only right that we should examine this doctrine; that\nwe should show them what it really is, and upon what foundation it has\nbeen built. Thus, and only thus, will they be brought to see that this\nugly human conception is not of God.\n\n\nTHE FOUNDATION UPON WHICH THE DOCTRINE OF EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT HAS\nBEEN BUILT.\n\nWe must look for this in the mistranslation of a few words in the Greek\nNew Testament. These words are:--(aion); (aionios); (krima); (krisis);\n(krinein); and (katakrinein).\n\nWe shall show that the translators have dealt most misleadingly and\ninconsistently with these words. They have translated them, in a number\nor passages of Scripture in which they appear, strictly in accordance\nwith their true meanings, while into the words as they occur in other\npassages they have imported meanings not only exaggerated and awful, but\nsuch as to make Scripture contradictory of itself.\n\nFor the substantiation of this serious charge, we refer the reader to\nthe following _facts_ concerning each of the words instanced.\n\n(a) The word (aion), and the adjective derived from it, (aionios).\n\nWe place these words first, because they are the terms that have been\nrendered by the translators--\"world without end,\" \"forever and ever,\"\n\"everlasting,\" and \"eternal;\" and it is upon the basis of these false\nrenderings that the terrible doctrine of everlasting punishment has\nbeen reared.\n\nThe word [Greek: aion], in the singular, denotes an age, a period of\nindefinite, but limited, duration, which may be either long or short. In\nthe plural, the word denotes ages, or periods, that may be extended, and\neven vast, but still of limited duration.\n\nThe word cannot denote unendingness, commonly, but erroneously, termed\n\"eternity\" by those who forget that eternity is without beginning as\nwell as without end. Else, how could the plural of the word be used, and\nhow could Scripture speak of \"the aions\" and \"the aions of the aions\"\n(i.e., \"the ages,\" and \"the ages of the ages\")? There can be no plural\nto \"eternity,\" and it is surely an absurdity to talk about \"the\neternities\" and \"the eternities of the eternities.\" And yet the\ntranslators, in some instances have deliberately imported into the word\n[Greek: aion] the meaning of everlastingness, while excluding it in\nother instances.\n\nHere is an example, out of many:\n\nIn Mark iii. 29, the passage, according to the Greek, is: \"He that shall\nblaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath not forgiveness all through the\naion (age), but is in danger of aionial judgment (i.e., the judgment\nof an age).\"\n\nThe translators have rendered this: \"He that shall blaspheme against the\nHoly Ghost hath never forgiveness (i.e., not forgiveness forever), but\nis in danger of eternal damnation.\"\n\nIn this case, it will be seen that they have imported the idea of\nunendingness into the word [Greek: aion] and the idea of \"eternal\" into\nits adjective, [Greek: aionios].\n\nIn Matthew xiii. 39, the passage, according to the Greek is: \"The\nharvest is the end of the aion (age);\" and in 2 Tim. iv. 10: \"Demas hath\nforsaken me, having loved the present aion (age).\"\n\nThe translators have rendered these passages: \"The harvest is the end of\nthe world.\" \"Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world.\"\nIn these cases, it will be seen that they have rightly excluded the idea\nof unendingness from the word [Greek: aion]. But why? we ask. If it was\nright to include it in Mark iii. 29, it was wrong to exclude it in the\ntwo last-named passages. Then why exclude it? The answer is, that it\nwould have been too utterly foolish to translate Matthew xiii. 39, as\n\"The harvest is the end of the forever,\" and 2 Tim. iv. 10, as \"Demas\nhath forsaken me, having loved the present eternity\"--and so the\ntranslators in these instances gave the word its true signification.\n\nBut can it, we ask, be right to treat language in this way--to make a\nword mean one thing to serve the purposes of a doctrinal idea, and to\nmake it mean something essentially opposite, when that idea is not\ninvolved? Does anyone imagine that the translators would have introduced\nthis contradiction, and have translated the Greek of Mark xiii. 29, as\nthey have done, unless they had gone to this text with the preconceived\nidea that a certain sin can never be forgiven, and therefore that the\npassage must be strained and contorted to endorse the idea? It is an\ninstance, not of founding theology upon Scripture, but of twisting\nScripture to suit theology. One thing is quite certain. It cannot be\nright to translate a word in some passages in one sense, and to\ntranslate it in other passages in an antagonistic sense. The word\n[Greek: aion] cannot denote a period of limitation, and also\nunendingness. If it denotes the one it does not denote the other. The\none definition excludes the other. No one, in his senses, dreams of\ndefining a day as a period of twelve hours under one set of\ncircumstances, and also as being the equivalent of all time under other\ncircumstances. We have to determine what is the true definition of\n[Greek: aion]. If it can be shown that the essential meaning of the word\nis that of limited duration, then the case is very clear; the\ntranslators were not justified in foisting into it the idea of\nunendingness; and this being so, a huge superstructure of doctrine,\nreared upon the mistranslation, will totter and fall, and an awful\nnightmare will be lifted from the Christian religion.\n\nAn adjective qualifies its noun, and we cannot import into the adjective\nmore than is contained in the noun. We may speak of the race of mankind\nas \"humanity,\" and describe the existence of the race as \"human life,\"\nbut we should not be so absurd as to define \"human\" in that phrase as\nsignifying \"Divine.\"\n\nAnd yet the translators have been guilty of committing a similar error\nin translating the word [Greek: aion] in the passages instanced as\n\"world,\" which is equivalent to an age, and expresses limitation; while\ntranslating [Greek: aionios] as \"everlasting\" and \"eternal;\" both of\nwhich terms exclude limitation.\n\nWe ask, does this commend itself as being a fair way of dealing with a\nbook which contains a record of Divine truth?\n\nWe pass on to the brief consideration of a few other words that have\nbeen dealt with unfairly, in order, if not to found, at all events to\nbuttress, this doctrine of everlasting punishment.\n\n(b) The word (krima). The word denotes judgment; the sentence\npronounced. As such the translators of the Authorized Version rightly\nrendered it in many passages of the Gospels, the Acts, and the Epistles\n(e.g., Matt. vii. 2; John ix. 39; Acts xxiv. 25; and Rom. ii. 2). But\nhere is the inconsistency. In Matt, xxiii. 14; Mark xii. 40; Luke xx.\n47; Rom. in. 8; xiii. 2; I Cor. xi. 29; and I Tim. v. 12, they\nsubstituted the word \"damnation\" for it. We will say nothing about this\nword \"damnation,\" except that it is an evil-sounding word, whose\noriginal meaning has been exaggerated and perverted; and a word that\nmore than any other has been employed to support the awful doctrine we\nare opposing.\n\nBut why did the translators alter the reading? Why render [Greek: krima]\nas \"judgment\" in some places, and as \"damnation\" in others? The answer\nis--These last named passages were viewed as pointing to future\npunishment; the translators' idea of future punishment was that of\nendless suffering and misery; and the word \"damnation\" was considered to\nbe better suited to the popular theological error than the proper and\nmilder word, \"judgment.\" Our contention is, if the word \"damnation\" be\nright in one passage, it is right in another. Why, for example, did they\nnot translate John ix. 39, so as to represent our Lord as saying--\"For\ndamnation ([Greek: krimas]) I came into this world?\" They gave the true\nrendering in this and other passages, because it would have been too\nabsurd not to do so.\n\nThat these criticisms are not unjustified is seen in the fact that the\nNew Testament revisers have discarded the word \"damnation\" in the above\npassages, and in Rom. xiii. 2 and I Cor. xi. 29, have correctly rendered\n[Greek: krima] as \"judgment.\"\n\nWe are thankful to them for this service in the interests of truth.\n\nWe must briefly consider--\n\n(c) The word (krisis).\n\nIt also denotes judgment, i.e., the process of judging; and in forty-one\npassages of the New Testament the translators so rendered it. But in\nMatt, xxiii. 33; Mark in. 29; and John v. 29, they deliberately\nsubstituted the word \"damnation\" for \"judgment.\" With what object?\nPlainly, to add emphasis to their preconceived idea of an endless hell.\nBut does this commend itself as being a fair and consistent way of\ndealing with Scripture?\n\nWhy,--except that it was too utterly foolish,--not have rendered the\nfollowing passages as they did the three just instanced?\n\n\"Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye ... pass over\ndamnation ([Greek: krisis]) and the love of God\" (Luke xi. 42).\n\n\"As I hear, I judge, and My damnation ([Greek: krisis]) is just\" (John\nv. 30).\n\n\"So opened He not His mouth; in His humiliation His damnation ([Greek:\nkrisis])_ was taken away\" (Acts viii. 32, 33).\n\nSeeing that the Greek word is the same in every one of these passages,\nis it not very wrong to give it an improper and grossly exaggerated\nsignificance in three texts, while translating it correctly in forty-one\nother instances?\n\nAgain, it is suggestive that the revisers of the New Testament, in Matt,\nxxiii. 33 and John v. 29, have flung away the word \"damnation,\" and in\nits place put \"judgment\" as the proper rendering of [Greek: krisis]. If\nthe translators of the Authorized Version had done this, one of the\nsupports of an ancient error would have been knocked down.\n\n(d) The word (krinein).\n\nThe word denotes--to _judge_; and eighty-one times in the New Testament\nthe translators so rendered it. And yet in regard to the same Greek word\nwhich occurs in 2 Thess. ii. 12, they made the translation run:--\"That\nthey all might be _damned_ who believed not the truth.\"\n\nBut why not have been consistent? Why not have rendered 1 Cor. vi. 2, in\nthis way; since in both passages the verb [Greek: krinein] is the\nsame,--\"Do ye not know that the saints shall damn the world? And if the\nworld shall be damned by you, are ye unworthy to damn the\nsmallest matters?\"\n\nI will trouble the reader with only one other word.\n\n(e) The word (katakrinein). Its meaning is--to condemn. It is a\nstronger word than [Greek: krinein] to judge, but there is nothing in it\nthat corresponds to that awful meaning supposed to reside in the word\n\"damn.\" And yet the translators did not hesitate to give it\nthat meaning.\n\nHow did they treat this verb, [Greek: katakrinein]? Just as they treated\nother verbs and nouns, when they wished to bolster their theological\nidea. In seventeen instances in the New Testament they translated it\nrightly as \"condemn,\" but in Mark xvi. 16 and Rom. xiv. 23, doctrinal\npreconceptions prevailed, and so these two passages were rendered--\"He\nthat believeth not shall be damned.\" \"He that doubteth is damned if\nhe eat.\"\n\nAnd for centuries, an everlasting hell-fire has been read unto the\nmistranslated word.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI might continue in this strain at great length. The quotations I have\ngiven may be taken as samples of many more. It is surely time that the\nsad and sombre clouds of so-called orthodoxy should be dispelled by the\nrising beams of the Sun of Righteousness.\n\nThe word \"for ever,\" taken in its rigid literal sense, is a stumbling\nblock to many. I lately asked a very eminent man in England, the\npresident of a theological college, how he would get over that\ndifficulty. He replied that he believed that the word \"aion\" would more\nfully meet the case, and that that word would more exactly accord with\nthe capacity of our finite mind, the word \"forever\" expressing an idea\nentirely beyond our comprehension. That seems to be good sense, and more\nin harmony with the whole trend of Revelation.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI have issued this treatise under an assumed name; not because I am\nspecially careful of my reputation, but rather because I wish the work\nto be regarded solely on its own merits. If any reader feels disposed to\nwrite me, either briefly or more at length, and whether in criticism or\ncommendation, I shall be glad.\n\nAddress,\n\nHORATIO,\nCare Austin Publishing Co.,\nRochester, N. Y.\n\n\n\n\nI.\n\n\nDIFFERENT THEORIES.\n\nFear of punishment--Early Impressions--Men of piety and learning--Fact\nand figures--Mental or material fire--The theory of conditional\nimmortality--Why invented--Moody--Divine failure impossible--Future\noperations of grace--Restoration--A plea for charity--Other worlds--The\nheathen--Devout use of the imagination.\n\n\nThere is a general fear of suffering after death. Such fear may be\nderived in part from early impressions and education, and in part from\nthe conscience that God has given to every man. But whatever their\nsecondary origin, these sources of fear have been divinely ordained as\nmeans to an end. Such fear could not be divinely inspired if it were not\nfounded on fact. And the fact is, that there is suffering in reserve for\nevil doers. There is no mistaking the statements of Scripture as well as\nthe voice of conscience on that point.\n\nWhat that suffering is, for what object inflicted, and how long it will\ncontinue, have been of late years much discussed, and with diverse\nviews. Some of these views are very literal interpretations of the\ndivine Word, and others of them are very figurative. The fact is, it is\nnot always easy to distinguish between symbolism and reality, whether in\nnature or in revelation. I remember that the first time that I saw Mount\nTacoma in the distance, I could not distinguish as to what was mountain\nand what was cloud. When I got very near, then I knew. And so in several\nScripture statements it is not easy, for the present, to distinguish\nbetween what is fact and what is figure. When we get nearer no doubt we\nshall know. So it is with the nature and the duration of future\npunishment. Some take a more literal, and some a more figurative view.\nThe result is, that the Christian world is at wide variance on the\nsubject. And I think he would be a bold man, and not a very wise one,\nwho could be very dogmatic in such a realm of investigation.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNow, with regard to the portion of the wicked in the next life, there\nare three main theories that are held.\n\nFirst: There is the theory of everlasting conscious torment of the most\nterrific kind. It is not clearly defined whether the suffering is of the\nbody or the mind, or both; but the general idea is that it is of both.\nThe bodily suffering is usually conceived of as being inflicted by fire;\nbut whether the fire is material or of some other kind, is not clearly\ndefined. The mental suffering is usually represented as the most\nbitter remorse.\n\nThen second: There is the theory of extinction at death or after. The\nidea is that there is utter destruction both of the body and the mind at\nsome period.\n\nThen again: Some hold that the wicked are given another opportunity\nafter this life of obtaining salvation; that many will do so, and that\nthe remainder will be destroyed. We may call this the theory of\nextinction.\n\n\nDR. EDWARD WHITE'S THEORY.\n\nSome are very definite in locating the period of a second probation as\nco-extensive with the Millenial reign. Others do not pretend to know\nwhen it will happen, or how long it will last; they simply believe it\nwill happen. This idea of a second probation is very similar to Dr.\nEdward White's theory of Conditional Immorality. He held that life in\nthe Scripture simply means life, and that death simply means death. He\nbelieved that those who are fit for life will live, and that the rest\nwill perish.\n\nI would say here that the idea of Conditional Immortality, favored by\nmany, does not seem to me to be well conceived. Evidently the theory was\ninvented in order to escape the doctrine of endless torment. The idea\nis, that if you are fit to live you are destined for a glorious\nimmortality; otherwise you are extinguished. Such a view does not seem\nto comport with our highest thoughts of God, and His ways of working. In\nmy mind, it represents God as being too dependent on circumstances.\nWhen we realize that Christ died not only for \"all,\" but for \"every\nman\"; and when we realize that the invitations of mercy are extended to\n\"every man,\" without equivocation, it does seem to me something like a\nfailure of the divine plan if \"every man\" is not saved.\n\nBut since every man is evidently not saved in this life, we project our\nview into the next life, and we think of God's operations of grace\nthere. No doubt that is a larger view than that which has so long\nprevailed. But it is not unreasonable by any means. Divine operations\nare surely not restricted to this short epoch of time. God's mercy is\nfrom everlasting to everlasting.\n\nAnd can anything defeat His purpose? He has expressed His purpose to\nsave all men, in the fact that He gave His Son to die for the world, and\nthat He invites all the world to be partakers in the great salvation.\nThat is His purpose; and \"His purpose will stand, and He will do all His\npleasure.\"\n\nWe should never forget this great truth. As Mr. Robert E. Speer well\nsays:\n\n\"We escape much difficulty from literalistic and mechanical\ninterpretations by remembering that both space and time are merely\nconceptions of our present order, and that there is neither space nor\ntime in God.\"\n\nThe third theory is, that everyone will be restored. Those who hold this\nview do not generally define the period when this will take place, or\nthe means that will be used to bring it about; but they believe that the\nwisdom, love, and power of God will somehow be effectual to that end.\n\nI think that these are mainly the views that are entertained on this\nmost solemn subject. And it must be said that each one of them is\napparently supported by one or more passages of Scripture. Men of the\nmost devout spirit, intellectual acumen, and profound scholarship,\nuphold these various theories. Such men are honest and sincere in the\nlast degree; above all things anxious to know what God has revealed\nin His Word.\n\n\nUNFOLDING LIGHT OF REVELATION.\n\nYet on this momentous question they differ. It is really no wonder. I\nthink I may say that there is no clear deliverance in Scripture, in\nabsolute support of either of these views; or if there is, it is offset\nby some other statement that seems contrary. In the unfolding light of\nrevelation we do not seem to have come to the time when this momentous\nquestion will be made absolutely and universally plain. It may be one of\nthose questions on which we are to exercise faith alone. \"Shall not the\nJudge of all the earth do right?\" That was Abraham's consolation when he\ndid not know what God was going to do. And it may be our consolation.\nThe Judge of all the earth will certainly do right. Yes, and He will do\nmore than right. He is love. We can rest on that. Uncertainty as to\ndetails may best become us now. But the eternal morning will break and\nthe shadows flee away. Meantime, while this uncertainty prevails, surely\nthere ought to be abounding charity of judgment.\n\nWhen we come to think of it, we are not so much surprised that we have\nbut a partial and limited revelation on this subject. There may be more\ndivine kindness in that than at first sight appears. When we contemplate\nthe vastness of creation, we see that there are myriads of other worlds\nfar larger and more glorious than our own. Every one of these is likely\nto have a moral history--it may be more important than ours.\n\nNow, if we had a complete revelation of the destiny of our race,\npossibly that would involve a history of some or many of those worlds;\nfor the affairs of this world may be largely involved in theirs.\nTherefore, if God would give us such a revelation now, we can easily see\nthat it is quite beyond us; the subject would be too vast for us now and\nhere; we would be utterly bewildered, and rendered unfit for the\nordinary duties of life. How much wiser and kinder it is to give us but\na limited revelation, leaving unrevealed matters entirely to faith.\n\n\nSUFFICIENT REVELATION.\n\nIt is not remarkable, then, that so little is revealed, even of Heaven.\nWe do not know what activities will have place there. What particular\nbusiness will engage redeemed souls, we do not know. We have a\nsufficient revelation to stimulate hope, but not enough to pander to\ncuriosity. Such a limited revelation as we could receive would probably\nonly confuse us. It is not remarkable, then, that we have but a meagre\naccount of the preparatory processes for final blessedness.\n\nYet, while all this is true, we can hardly help inclining more or less\nto one or other of the theories named, in reference to the future. But\nin this, as I have just said, we ought to be very charitable with each\nother, as to our special conviction. If it were a fundamental question,\nlikely the Word of God would have made it plain. But it is not a\nfundamental question. We may take whichever view seems the most\nagreeable with Scripture or with reason; and for so doing we ought not\nto be ostracised as heretics.\n\nOn this very question of future suffering there has been far too much\nintolerance. The theory of eternal torment has especially been held to\nbe the only orthodox view. Surely, it is time for more liberality. On\nthis question I would make a special appeal for charity and good-will,\non the ground that there is no positive deliverance in revelation.\n\nIf anyone claims that there is, I would ask, How comes it that men of\nthe highest character and candor take different views? The time may come\nwhen we shall see eye to eye on this matter; or it may not come in\nthis life.\n\nMeantime we can agree to differ. What are we that we should arrogate to\nourselves any assumption of certainty on a matter unrevealed, that takes\nus into the eternities, and fixes the doom of uncounted millions of\nour race?\n\n\nTHE DEPARTED MORE AMENABLE.\n\nExplain it as we may, we have always to remember that there are myriads\nof human beings living now, and other myriads who have departed, who had\nno chance to know the way of life. Will not the God of all mercy and of\nall resource provide them with a chance on the other side of death? The\nmere accident of death makes no change in them. And who knows if the\ndeparted may not be more amenable to good influence then, than now? I\nhave heard of heathens who heard the Gospel but once, and they received\nit, and were saved. It may be so with poor lost souls who had no\nopportunity on this side of time.\n\nOne thing I cannot understand; and that is, the liberal terms in which\nmen at times express themselves, who yet profess the narrow orthodox\nview. I do not say they are insincere; but it does seem as if they\ndeliberately ignored their own creed, and that they spoke for the time\nout of the conviction and sincerity of their hearts. Just now, glancing\nthrough a certain magazine, I have come on an instance of this kind. The\nwriter is a professor in a so-called orthodox Seminary. I leave any\nfair-minded reader to say if his utterances are at all in harmony with\nhis professed orthodoxy. Here are a few of his sentences, selected\nalmost at random from a long article:\n\n\"In this swift day of unmatched opportunity, the Church is laboring,\nperplexed and heavy, over its message.\" That is true enough. And I think\nthe secret of the Church being \"perplexed and heavy\" is, that preachers\nmust have an inward, unspoken conviction that their message of a limited\nsalvation is unworthy of God, and unsuited to the needs of the world. No\nwonder the Church is \"perplexed and heavy!\"\n\nAgain this author says: \"Men want to know that all the lines of diverse\nhuman life converge into one infinite, beneficent hand.\" But if that\n\"infinite, beneficent hand\" has cast by far the greater part of the\nhuman race into eternal torment, it is no wonder if thoughtful men are\n\"perplexed and heavy.\"\n\nYet the writer of this article believes in universal love. He says:\n\"Men want to see that their single life, so lost alone, is vitally bound\ninto the bundle of universal love.\" So the author's instinct is better\nthan his creed. He professes to believe in universal love. That is\nsurely all right. But notwithstanding that, he professes to believe that\nuntold millions of the human race are in endless suffering.\n\nIn another place he says: \"Men long to be assured that this is no\nuniverse of short, fortuitous details.\" He also says: \"The Kingdom of\nGod is too great for less than universal participation.\" Is this not\nuniversalism? Yet, if the author were asked, would not his creed require\nhim to repudiate such an idea?\n\nAgain, this author says: \"A few years ago science and human thought were\naccepting an account of life which let a man fall like a beast in the\nfield, or a tree in the wood. To-day that explanation satisfies no one.\nIt is agreed that the meaning of life can be complete only in terms of\nspirit and immortality.\" Is not the old doctrine of reprobation here\nutterly denied? Yet that old doctrine of reprobation stands in the creed\nof the orthodox church to-day.\n\nOne more quotation will suffice. Speaking of the divine plan, the author\nsays that it is \"a plan so complete that no sparrow falls beyond it,\nthat no act falls fruitless, that there shall never be one lost good,\nthat no living soul made in God's image can ever drift beyond His love\nand care.\" Is not this a flat contradiction of the author's orthodox\ncreed? We believe that all he claims is absolutely true. But is he\ncandid? Why has not the church the courage to expunge the old fatalism\nfrom her creed, and present to the world a statement that she really\nbelieves? I am persuaded that such candor is the desideratum of the\nworld to-day.\n\nTo a thoughtful mind, the most evangelical preachers are at times\nunintelligible, and even contradictory, on such themes. Take this\nextract from a sermon by Mr. Moody, published some time ago. He says\n\"Christ will return to the earth, for he has bought it with his own\nblood, and is going to have it. He has redeemed it; and the Father is\ngoing to give it to him.\"\n\nNow, what does Mr. Moody mean when he says that Christ has bought the\nearth, and that He is going to have it? Of course, it must be the\npopulation of the earth that he means; otherwise, the words would have\nno sense. Then, did Christ purchase the whole population? If He did,\nthere would be great equity in Him claiming the whole. But Mr. Moody\nwould be one of the last men to admit that Christ will claim the whole\nof mankind. On the contrary, he professes to believe that the greater\nportion of mankind is lost beyond all recall!\n\nSuch is the confusion and contradiction in which men involve themselves,\nwho are otherwise the excellent of the earth. There is no\ncontradiction, however, but glorious harmony, in the idea that Christ\nwill claim the whole of mankind for His own, because he has bought them\nevery one, and has omnipotent power to claim them.\n\nI feel that I ought almost to apologise for using the word \"claim\" at\nall in such a conception. It looks too much as if the Father and the Son\nwere somewhat at variance in the glorious scheme of salvation. A\nthousand times No. I even doubt if in the actual suffering of Christ,\nthe Father did not really suffer by sympathy as much as He! This is\nholy ground!\n\nConsider this. We are commanded to preach the gospel to every creature.\nBut where would be the honesty of preaching the Gospel of salvation to\none for whom no salvation is-possible? For certainly, no salvation is\npossible for anyone for whom Christ did not atone. But it is now tacitly\nadmitted by all evangelical churches that He died for all,\nnotwithstanding that the doctrine of a limited atonement is still\nasserted in the Presbyterian Confession of Faith. Well it may; for if\nthe atonement were acknowledged to be universal, then this difficulty\nwould have to be faced--Why are all not saved? According to the doctrine\nquoted elsewhere, that God infallibly accomplishes everything at which\nHe aims, all must infallibly be saved. For God certainly aimed at that\nconsummation in giving His Son as a ransom for all. Here is a crux from\nwhich, it seems to me, there is no possible escape.\n\nThere is also this weakness--I might say this contradiction--in the\nMethodist theology. They say that Christ died for all; but they teach\nthat all are not saved. Then He must have died in vain in regard to\nthose that are lost. That is the inevitable corollary. Not only did He\ndie in vain in their case; but His intention and desire was, not to die\nin vain in reference to any. He certainly aimed at their salvation in\ndying for them; but He does not accomplish it. To such horrible\nabsurdities are we reduced by denying that He died for all, or that He\nwill save all. The only logical, reverent, and divine solution seems to\nbe that He intended to save all, and that He will do it. \"God will\ninfallibly accomplish everything at which He aims.\"\n\nI lately heard an address--one of the best that I have heard--by a Canon\nof the Episcopal Church. His theme was: The work and aims of the British\nand Foreign Bible Society. The address was scholarly, lucid, earnest;\nand the language was absolutely perfect.\n\nBut like every address that I have heard on kindred subjects, it never\nso much as hinted at the results in the next life, if we failed in the\nduty the speaker so strongly recommended. Not once did he speak of\neternal torment as a possible issue. What a tremendous incitement to\nduty is here, could it be but presented with the accent of conviction.\nBut as a matter of fact, it is never presented at all, except in terms\nso vague that they actually mean nothing.\n\nI do not know, in the case I have referred to, if the Canon believes in\neverlasting fire. Nor do I know that the creed of the Episcopal Church\nendorses it. What a glorious opportunity is here for an earnest and\nconsistent minister in that church to publicly denounce such a doctrine\nas a hideous dream! So far as I know, he would not expose himself\nthereby, as in most other churches, to pains and penalties. I think, on\nthe contrary, a vast number would rally around him, both in his own\nchurch and outside of it. Is not the religious world waiting for some\npronounced leadership on this question? I am convinced that there are\nthousands of prominent ministers who do not believe in eternal torment,\nbut who keep up a pretense of doing so, in order to avoid loss of\nreputation--perhaps of livelihood. Is it not time for earnest men to be\nhonest? And many are longing to be honest, if only their way was clear.\n\nAnd what an incalculable boon would then come to the world! I am\nconvinced that honesty in this matter on the part of ministers would\nspeedily issue in a mighty revival. For what is it that mainly keeps so\nmany men, especially working men, from the Church? There may be many\ncauses; but one undoubtedly is, an undefined idea that there is no\neternal torment, and that ministers know it, but are not candid enough\nto say so. These men may not have studied the theology of the case, but\nthey cannot think of God--when they think of Him at all--as casting\ninnumerable people, and pretty good people--into everlasting fire. They\nhave an idea that that doctrine is in the orthodox creed; and so many\nhave an impression that the whole system of religion is a melancholy\nfarce. But give them a man who has the common feelings of humanity like\nthemselves, and interprets the true God to them as a God of love--and\ntheir whole attitude will be changed. I am convinced that nothing would\nhave such a wide and gracious effect, as honesty on this question of\nfuture punishment.\n\nI see that a notable Presbyterian divine has been giving a course of\nlectures on The Church and Men. For one thing, he seeks to account for\nthe fact that working men do not attend church. After glancing at the\nprogress of science, and the effect of the higher criticism, he says:\n\"It is alleged that the church has sometimes alienated thoughtful men by\nher adherence to outworn creeds.\" The lecturer, however, makes but\nlittle of this as a real cause of working men not allying themselves\nwith the church. I think it is along this line, however, but deeper,\nthat the chief cause may be found. The church has, indeed, \"adhered to\noutworn creeds\" in her confessions. The dogma of reprobation, and a\nlimited atonement, and everlasting fire, are retained. But are they\npreached? Are they believed?\n\nNot long ago, in a large evangelical congregation, the preacher asked\nfor a show of hands on the part of any who had heard a sermon on hell\nfor the last ten years. Two hands were held up. Was that doctrine\nproclaimed last Sunday in any evangelical church? Was it proclaimed for\na year past, or ten years past? I doubt it. But if it is believed, would\nit not be preached--yes, preached morning, noon, and night, with the\nearnestness of frenzy?\n\nSome preachers delicately approach the idea with hints and innuendos and\nmild threatenings, which are really worse than utter silence. I heard a\npreacher speaking lately of men as \"utter failures, going out into the\ndarkness.\" Now, what did he mean, or did he mean anything? Again:\npreachers speak of \"eternal death,\" which might mean eternal extinction,\nor eternal fire. And yet that vague phrase is actually proposed as one\nof the bases of union of the churches.\n\nNow, how can we expect such jugglery of sacred things to commend itself\nto honest, hard-headed men? For such is really the character of many of\nthe working men. They love truth, and honesty, and consistency, and\nabhor everything like sneaking, unmanly pietism? Give them the\nmanliness of truth and honesty, and I venture to think they will not be\nso shy of the church.\n\nOf course, that might involve the repeal of much of our creed. And\nthere's the rub. We are afraid of pains and penalties. And then we don't\nlike to go back on the fathers who made the creed. It looks like a\nreflection on their wisdom and piety. But I don't think it really is.\nThey were faithful to their light. And they had to contend with evil\ntraditions. It is not to be expected that any creed they could frame\nwould be good for all time. Besides, we should not be afraid to go back\non anything or anybody that is not true. Truth is too sacred for that.\nAnd our responsibility is too serious. 'Carlyle has a most scathing\nwarning for all who strive to believe that which in their inmost soul\nthey repudiate.\n\nIf it is thought that I am in any degree uncharitable towards ministers\nof so-called orthodoxy, let me here transcribe a few words from a highly\nhonored preacher of the opposite trend of thought. I have just met with\nthese brave and candid words. They were spoken some time after I had\nexpressed my own views regarding the want of courage and honesty on the\npart of so-called orthodox preachers. If anyone is disposed to think my\nown words too strong, let him listen to this from an old and honored\nminister, but one who repudiates the doctrine of eternal torment.\n\nHe says: \"It matters not that all the educated ministry to-day well\nknow, and would not for a moment deny, their disbelief in the doctrine\nof eternal torment, if cross-questioned. Nevertheless, many of them hate\nus and oppose us, because we show the people the true interpretations of\nGod's Word, and lift before the eyes of their understanding a God of\nLove, Just, Merciful, Righteous altogether, and fully capable both in\nwisdom and power to work out all the glorious designs which He 'purposed\nin Himself before the foundation of the world.'\n\n\"(1) They perceive that the doctrines of Purgatory and eternal torment\nhave not had a sanctifying influence upon mankind in all the sixteen\ncenturies in which they have been preached. They fear that to deny these\ndoctrines now would make bad matter worse. They fear that if the Gospel\nof the Love of God and of the Bible--that it does not teach eternal\ntorment for any--were made generally known, the effect upon the world\nwould be to increase its wickedness, to make life and property less\nsecure than now, and to fill the world still more than now with\nblasphemies.\n\n\"(2) They fear also that a certain amount of discredit would come to\nthemselves because, knowing that the Bible does not teach eternal\ntorment according to the Hebrew and Greek original, they secreted the\nknowledge from the people. They fear that this would forever discredit\nthem with their hearers. Hence, they still outwardly lend their\ninfluence to the doctrine of eternal torture, which they do not believe,\nand feel angry with us because we teach the people the Truth upon the\nsubject, which they know will bring to them hundreds of questions\ndifficult to answer or dodge.\"\n\nBut it is not often that orthodox ministers emphatically present the\nhorrors in which they profess to believe. Take, for instance, Dr.\nTorrey. In a late sermon, when warning sinners, he is reported to have\nsaid: \"You will go out into eternity disgraced forever.\" Is that all?\nOnly disgraced? Why does he not present the horrors of eternal fire in\nwhich he professes to believe?\n\nAnother minister, whom I know, spoke lately of wicked men as \"going out\ninto the darkness, miserable failures.\" Such trimming fails to command\nthe respect of sensible, honest men.\n\nThose who hold the larger view have no need for such evasions. I have\njust had a letter from one of the most eminent English theologians, in\nwhich he states his view thus:\n\n\"With regard to the future world, my faith and doctrine have always been\nthat the state of anyone entering the next world is tested and\ndetermined by his relation to Christ, Whom he will then see in the\nfullness of all His redeeming power and glory. If he then seek by a\ntouch to lay hold of Him, he is in Christ's Hand. If he should even then\nturn from Christ, he will enter into a new condition, but that condition\nis only an age-long condition, and he is not there fore outside the\nredeeming love of God; but at the end of the new age will enter upon a\nnew state.\"\n\nI have pointed out to him that, in my view, the condition he refers to\nmay not necessarily be age-long condition, but that in certain cases it\nmay be very brief. The case of Saul and others seem to favor this view.\nIn any case, he endorses my main contention--that suffering is not\nendless. The same mail brought me also a letter from another notable\nEnglish divine, in which he says candidly that he does not believe in\nendless suffering, and that this is common sense.\n\nI remember well that as a child I was confused by the following problem.\nMy saintly old minister often prayed that the earth might be filled with\nthe knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea. That was all\nvery well for those who would savingly know the Lord. But what about the\nuncounted millions in the past and the millions now, and the millions\nyet to be born, who would go out of this world in darkness, without\nknowing the Lord. The minister never said a word about that. His creed\nrequired him to believe that they would all go into endless torment; but\nhe passed over the momentous question in silence.\n\nPossibly he would say that the matter was not a proper one to be spoken\nof. But why not? If there is such a fearful possibility for anyone, why\nshould he not be warned? The very warning might be the means of averting\nsuch a fate. Surely, the most lurid picture of eternal woe would be\nbetter than the realization of it. Yet it was seldom or never spoken of,\nespecially as to its duration.\n\nHere, then, is a most serious consideration. If we can think of God\ndoing a thing, the horror of which we cannot bear to speak of, or even\nto think of, is there not in this a strong presumption that the theory\nis not true? Let this thought revolve for a while through your mind;\nremember the strong affinity which the mind has for truth; and then see\nif the thought which I am trying here to sustain is not a reasonable\none. Surely, we have here a strong argument against the theory of\nendless torment.\n\nThere was lately a great Missionary Conference in Edinburgh. Amongst\nother matters, all sorts of expedients were discussed as to how the\nheathen of different countries could be most successfully reached.\nCertain doctrines of Christianity were recognized as best fitting to be\npresented to certain countries, as especially suited to meet the special\nconditions that prevail. Strange to say, so far as I saw any report, the\ndoctrine of everlasting punishment was not once suggested as being\nespecially appropriate. Yet if it is true, what could be more\nappropriate to the heathen mind of all countries? Is it really believed\nby Missionaries, and those who support them? If it is, why not present\nit? If it is not, why not expunge it from our stated confession of\nfaith? Can we not afford to be honest on this supremely sacred question?\nWhen an intelligent heathen is converted to the Christian faith, and\nrealizes that we profess to believe what we do not really believe, what\nwill he think of us? Will not the Christian church lose more than it\ngains by this worldly wisdom, which essentially is moral cowardice?\n\nA devout use of the imagination is of great service here. Yes, I say the\nimagination. I do not mean the revelling of mere fancy in the realm of\nthe unthinkable or the impossible. I mean the vivid realization of facts\nthat lie outside the ordinary rut of thought. So exercised, imagination\nis one of our noblest powers.\n\nWe need a devout, yet chastened, imagination in dealing with such themes\nas the one we are considering now. No wonder that Ruskin says that\nimagination is the greatest power of the soul. It is but reasonable to\nimagine, then, that God has disclosures of love, and wisdom, and power,\nto make in the next life, that far transcend our present thought.\n\n\n\n\nII.\n\n\nCRUELTY OF FORMER VIEWS.\n\nUnconditional Election--Children of Believing Parents--An Arrogant\nPretension--God's Own Children--The Heathen of All Time--A Baleful\nShadow--Former Cruelty--Herbert Spencer--Dr. Farrar's Eternal Hope--A\nLady With an Open Mind--Dr. Dawson's Larger View.--The Universal\nAttraction.\n\n\nThe old doctrine of God's unconditional decrees still survives, despite\nour conviction that perfect impartiality is one of the attributes of the\ndivine character. The idea seems to have taken hold of some minds that a\nthing is right because God is the Author of it. That is certainly\nbeginning at the wrong end. God does a thing because it is right; His\ndoing of it does not make it right. But we need to have faith that His\nfuture administration will rectify all the apparent wrongs of the\npresent. It is our failure to take this larger view that has led many\npeople of the kindest heart to adopt the most cruel conclusions.\n\nJust now a lady has told me of a certain \"eminent divine\" who says that\nchildren who die in infancy are elected if they are the children of\nbelieving parents! What a revelation this \"eminent divine\" must have of\nthe eternal mysteries! Since he knows so much, I would like to ask if\none believing parent would not suffice, in an urgent case, or if both\nmust infallibly be believers! A more arrogant pretension it would be\ndifficult to conceive.\n\nThe lady who spoke to me on the subject said it would be a very\ncomfortable thing to believe. \"Yes,\" I said, \"it might be a comfortable\nthing for you, but what about the other woman down street who is not a\nbeliever? Do you think that her children are not as precious in God's\nsight as yours?\"\n\nAway with all such hard, narrowing conceptions! Can it be imagined that\nGod would consign infants to everlasting torment, simply because they\nare children of unbelieving parents? A thousand times No! Let us\nremember that they are His own children, whatever earthly parentage they\nmay have. His love and power are not going to be thwarted by any\nconsiderations of evil ancestry. Any lingering doubt of that is a\nsurvival of the old, narrow, hard doctrine of absolute election.\n\nBut in support of the idea referred to, this passage may be quoted: \"The\npromise is to you and to your children.\" Does not that exclude all\nothers? Well, let us see. Read on. \"And to all that are afar off.\" Ah!\nThat immensely widens the circle. \"All that are afar off.\" Who are\nthey? Are they not the heathen of all the world, and of all time? So the\nchildren of believing parents are bound up in the same bundle with the\nvilest of mankind. And we are not greatly surprised. For they are God's\nown children, every one; and whether they are little innocent infants or\nothers advanced in some stages of wickedness, or the most depraved of\nmankind, we believe they are all subject to redeeming power and grace.\nDifferent means may be required for their education or reclamation; but\nit is easy to believe that divine love, and power, and wisdom, will not\nfail of their effect.\n\nBut, then, something more is added in the passage we have quoted. \"Even\nto as many as the Lord our God shall call.\" Does not that look like\nrestriction, or selection? Well let us see. Who are they that are\ncalled? Here we have it, Listen. \"Look unto me, and be saved, all the\nends of the earth.\" Surely, that means the whole race. And equally it\nmeans the next life as well as the present; for there are millions and\nmillions who never heard the call, and never will hear it, on this\nside of time.\n\nWe hope we are now leaving behind us the ferocity which was formerly\nconsidered quite appropriate to religion. Indeed, a man was hardly\naccounted serious, if he was not severe. And the worst of it was, that\nGod was considered severe. Men could read over and over again that \"God\nis love;\" but somehow the great truth was not received in its fulness.\nThe idea of God's justice seems to have cast a baleful shadow over men's\nhearts and lives. Certainly heaven's own light is now breaking through\nthe gloom. Many of the highest judgment and character now entertain\nviews which their fathers would have repudiated as rank heresy.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt is a most unfortunate thing that we have derived from our\nbloodthirsty ancestors an impression of divine cruelty that is utterly\nopposed to the fact. And it is not so very long ago that such traditions\nwere handed down to us. \"What we forget,\" says the New York Evening\nPost, \"is the short distance of time and space that separates us from\nour ferocious forefathers.\" Dr. Johnson in his 'Journey to the Western\nIslands,' relates the tradition that the Macdonalds--honored name\nto-day--surrounded the Culloden Church on Sunday, fastened the doors,\nand burnt the congregation alive. The entertainment received its\nperfecting touch when the Macdonald piper mocked the shrieks of the\nperishing crowd with the notes of his bagpipes.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"Perhaps an even more striking illustration of the survival of savagery\nmay be found in men's religious beliefs--say, in the conception of a God\nwho is a cruel man endowed with omnipotence. Grave divines were telling\nus within a generation that a just and merciful Father, for his good\npleasure, had doomed certain of the non-elect to the most hideous\nphysical tortures for all eternity. It was in 1879, about thirty years\nago, that Herbert Spencer in 'The Data of Ethics,' stated the theory\nquite nakedly: The belief that the sight of suffering is pleasing to the\ngods,' He added: 'Derived from bloodthirsty ancestors, such gods are\nnaturally conceived as gratified by the infliction of pain; when living\nthey delighted in torturing other beings; and witnessing torture is\nsupposed still to give them delight. The implied conceptions\nlong survive.'\n\n\"Some of our readers may recall the attacks upon Spencer, and even upon\nclergymen otherwise orthodox, like the late Frederick William Farrar,\nwho doubted the doctrine of eternal torture.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWe hope we are beginning to survive such false and horrible ideas. Those\nferocious representations are the very contrary of the truth. To get the\ntruest conceptions of God, we have to think of man at his highest; and\neven then we are as far below the reality as the earth is below the\nstars. We are made in the image of God, however, and are a human\ntranscript of the divine. But we are finite at our best, while God is\ninfinite. Beyond all human thought His love is strong, and tender, and\nunchangeable. He is veritably our Father, and I think He is so in a far\ncloser relation than mere creation. If we can think of the possibility\nof delight in torturing our children, ten thousand times more repugnance\nwould God have in torturing us, except for a time, and for the highest\nand wisest ends.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIf we go back to medieval times we have the most revolting pictures of\nthe agonies of hell. We are told, for instance, of a certain monk who in\nthe course of his journeys came to the underworld, and there he found \"a\nfiery glen 'darkened with the mists of death,' and covered with a great\nlid, hotter than the fires themselves. On the lid sat a huge multitude\nof souls, burning, 'till they were melted, like garlic in a pan with the\nglow thereof.' Reaching the nethermost hell, he was shown the Prince of\nDarkness, black as a raven from head to foot, thousand-handed and with a\nlong thick tail covered with fiery spikes, 'lying on an iron hurdle over\nfiery gledes, a bellows on each side of him, and a crowd of demons\nblowing it.'\n\n\"As he lay there roasting, tossing from side to side, filled with rage\nand fury, he grasped the souls in his rough, thick hands, bruising and\ncrushing them, as a man would crush grapes to squeeze out the wine. With\nhis fiery, stinking breath, he scattered the souls about Hell, and as he\ndrew in his breath again he swallowed them down with it, and those whom\nhis hands could not reach he lashed with his tail. This, the angel\nexplained, was Lucifer.\"\n\nUnfortunately, however, medieval ages had no monopoly of such horrors.\nThey have survived almost to our time. In some cases they are reproduced\neven yet. It is a painful thing to recall, but even our late beloved\nSpurgeon at times fell into this snare.\n\nI have just had an interview with a lady of the highest Christian\ncharacter. She was brought up in the orthodox faith, and never doubted\nits truth. I hesitated to launch these larger views upon her, thinking\nthey might only disturb her, and that perhaps she was too old to recast\nher opinions. But I found that her mind was perfectly open; and after\nsome discussion she firmly believed in the larger hope. I was persuaded\nthat such would be the experience of thousands more, if they would but\ngive their heart and mind to a devout consideration of these questions.\nAnd oh, what a pall of gloom would thus be lifted from the heart of\nthe world!\n\nWe may well give here the noble words of Dr. Dawson, who in an address\nbefore the Royal Society of Canada, quoted this stanza:\n\n     \"For a day, and a night, and a morrow,\n      That his strength might endure for a span,\n      With travail, and heavy sorrow,\n      The holy spirit of man.\"\n\nThen he says: \"The holy spirit of man! Holy in its capacity, in its\npossibility: nay, more, in its ultimate destiny!\"\n\nThis is no self-righteousness. It is a gleam of man's potentiality, that\nmakes him truly sublime. There are many Scripture statements that make\nman pitifully little; but this is because of his present sinful\ncondition. Bye and bye he will rise into his true condition, and then\n\"The holy spirit of man\" will be not only a possibility, but an\nexperience. It is gratifying to notice that such a man as Dr. Dawson has\nthis larger hope.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn striking antithesis to such views as we have referred to, I may here\nnarrate an experience of my own in which I think there was revealed to\nme a peculiar phase of Christ's universal attractive power. One day in\nSan Francisco I saw a funeral procession passing along the street. I\njoined the procession, and went with it into the church. I saw that all\nthe company were negroes. The minister, who was also a negro,\nannounced the Hymn:\n\n     \"Safe in the arms of Jesus,\n        Safe on His gentle breast,\n      There by His love o'ershaded,\n        Sweetly my soul shall rest.\"\n\nIt was sung with all the fervor of the negro race. As it proceeded a\nstrange thought struck me: How could negroes find rest on the bosom of\nOne quite another color? It was a natural thought, for the color\nprejudice is strong. Even when we think of Christ, we instinctively\nthink of Him as a white man. How, then, could these worshippers find\nrest on His bosom, and in His arms? If He had been a negro, they might\ndo so; but how could they do such a thing when they realized that He was\nof a different color from themselves?\n\nThen suddenly, a solution same to my mind. If Christ was not black,\nneither was He white. In fact He was brown; about midway between white\nand black. So in color He was as near to the negroes as to the white\nrace. Therefore the negroes can recline on His breast, and in His arms,\nas naturally as we. That seemed to me a very happy idea; perhaps even a\nrevelation.\n\nBut then, another thought quickly followed. What if Christ took this\ncentral place, even as to color, of set purpose? He could thus appeal\nmore directly to the whole human race, and thus more effectively draw\nall men to Himself. Therefore I hazard the conjecture that one reason\nwhy He chose to come of the Jewish race was, that he might be, even as\nto color, the central attraction of the world. Oh yes; if we only widen\nthe horizon of our thought and our affection, we shall see that the\ngreat scheme of redemption is co-extensive with the race, and reaches\nforward into the eternities.\n\n\n\n\nIII.\n\n\nTHE CHURCH IN TRANSITION.\n\nNo Definite note of Warning--Preachers Afraid of Discipline--Divided\nas to Restoration or Extinction--Plea of Liberty--Liberalism of\nthe Episcopal Church--Advance in Christian Unity--Dr. Edward\nWhite--Conditional Immortality--Endless Torment--If True Ought to Be\nPreached Morning, Noon and Night--Awful Penalty of Sin--Extinction--True\nReligion is Reasonable--Enlarged Conceptions.\n\n\nThere can hardly be a doubt that the church in general is in a state of\ntransition on this question. The want of a definite note of warning, to\nwhich I have referred elsewhere, is an indication of it. Some preachers\nhave not the conviction of eternal torment and do not speak of it.\nOthers know very well that many of their hearers would resent any such\ndeclaration. But they do not preach Restoration. They are afraid, I\nsuppose, that they might expose themselves to the discipline of the\nchurch. Some, I believe, would very quickly espouse the Restoration\ntheory, if they were sure that they would escape all pains and\npenalities. Meantime they do not examine the doctrine, for I suspect\nthey fear they would be convinced that it is true. I believe that most\nministers of the Presbyterian and Methodist Churches occupy one or\nother of the positions I have indicated.\n\nA few days ago I was speaking with a mature and scholarly man who\noccupies a prominent position in the Methodist Church. In our\nconversation we drifted into the subject of Restoration, and he freely\navowed his faith in it; but he said that if such a thing were known, he\nwould lose his position.\n\nIn the Presbyterian Church there is by no means a universal loyalty to\nthe traditional doctrine of eternal torment. There was a notable\nindication of this some time ago. Somehow--I do not know how--the\nquestion of eternal punishment came up among Presbyterians in the United\nStates. A great number of letters was addressed to \"_The Interior_,\" of\nChicago. Some of these endorsed the doctrine of Extinction, and the\nothers of Restoration. So far as I can remember, none were in favor of\neternal punishment. At the close, the Editor summed up in favor of\nextinction. But he was not indicted for heresy, nor any of his\ncorrespondents, so far as I am aware.\n\nThe whole affair showed very clearly that there is a tacit and wide\nrepudiation of the doctrine of eternal torment. It also showed that the\nchurch is divided on the theories of restoration and extinction; while I\npresume that many would uphold the old doctrine of torment. I claim that\nthis division of opinion is allowable. There ought to be, and I think\nthat on the whole there is, Christian liberty on this topic. Some day\nthe church may see eye to eye on these matters.\n\nEspecially do I honor the Episcopal Church for always having taken this\nmore liberal ground. It is possible to hold the most diverse views on\nthis point, and yet be in good standing in that communion. I lately\nspoke with an Episcopal clergyman who believes not only in the\nRestoration of the entire human race, but who believes that Satan\nhimself will ultimately be restored. I know another Episcopal clergyman\nwho is a confirmed and advanced spiritualist; yet he believes in\nRestoration; and he is a very able, devout, and godly man. Witness also\nArchdeacon Farrar's book on \"Eternal Hope;\" yet that man held his\nposition in the church, and grew in public esteem till his dying day.\n\n\nOPENING OF THE PULPITS.\n\nAnd there was lately a remarkable expression of Christian charity on the\npart of the Episcopal Church in the United States. At a triennial\nconvention of that body held at Richmond, there was passed a resolution\nopening the pulpits of the Episcopal Church to clergymen of other\ndenominations. The resolution was then referred to the House of Bishops,\nwhich passed it by a vote that was practically unanimous.\n\nThis is a marvellous advance in Christian unity, and a tacit\nrecognition of the secondary nature of many questions that were once\nthought to be of primary importance. Amongst other topics, there may\nwell be a difference of opinion on matters pertaining to the next life.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAnd I believe that the Methodist Church is really, though not avowedly,\nin a state of transition on the same point. I was speaking a short time\nago with a noted official of that church, and one that has a wide and\nintimate acquaintance with the views of his brethern. He said to me,\nvery candidly, that the ministers of the Methodist Church do not believe\nin eternal punishment; and he said this with such an air of satisfaction\nthat I concluded that he himself took that position.\n\nAs for the Congregational Church, it makes no pretense of exacting such\na view on the part of its ministers. Some of its ministers and members\nuphold that theory; but there is perfect liberty of opinion. I know that\nmany of their ministers believe in Conditional Immortality. Dr. Edward\nWhite, of England, the apostle of that doctrine, was a highly respected\nminister of that church.\n\nI think I am right in saying that there is no Universalist Church in\nEngland. There Universalism is no barrier to membership in the\nCongregational Church.\n\nAt all events, in either of the four churches named, there is little or\nno preaching of eternal torment. That is the outstanding fact. We can\naccount for the fact only on the supposition that the doctrine is not\nbelieved. If it were really believed it would certainly be preached. If\nit is true it ought to be preached, morning, noon and night. One cannot\nconceive of believing in hell fire as the doom of sinners, and not\nwarning men of it, even with the earnestness of frenzy.\n\n\nTHERE IS NO WARNING.\n\nAnd here I would notice the great loss we sustain in having no emphatic\nnote of warning. It used to be the custom of warning men of hell fire;\nbut now there is no warning, except the very general and vague warning\nof wrath to come, which has really little meaning. We do not say in what\nit consists; therefore the vague statement has but slight significance.\nTo this may be attributed much of the comfort and carelessness of\nsinners. Many there are, even of regular church goers, who hear nothing\non these matters but what they hear from the pulpit; and from that they\nhear practically nothing. How much better it would be if they could be\nwarned very definitely of coming suffering, if they are not now\ndelivered from their sins. So long as there is sin there will be\nsuffering. I am convinced that the nerve of the preacher's message is\noften cut by this want of a definite note of warning.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLet it be clearly noted that punishment is a large factor in the theory\nof Restoration. Let no one suppose that the transition from sin to\nholiness is an easy matter under any circumstances. There are multitudes\nof men that go out of life so utterly wicked that they must suffer\nterribly, and perhaps suffer long, before they are reformed. At least we\nmay suppose such to be the rule. There may be exceptions, like that of\nSaul, to which we shall refer later. Sin unforgiven will pursue a man\ninto the next life, and exact a fearful penalty. The prodigal must eat\nof the husks before he comes back to the Father.\n\n\nA VITAL PHASE.\n\nHere, then, is the point of agreement. Suffering is entailed by Sin.\nWhatever view we espouse, that fact remains. It was mainly to emphasize\nthat fact that we entered on this discussion. It is one phase of the\nagreement, and a vital one, between the Christian churches. While there\nis much diversity of view as to the mode and the object and the duration\nof suffering, there is a broad basis of agreement as to the fact.\n\nNot only, therefore, does the doctrine of eternal punishment recognize\nsuffering as the effect of sin, but so does the doctrine of extinction.\nTo be eternally put out of being, and so precluded forever from eternal\nhappiness, is punishment beyond the power of the mind to conceive. As we\ncannot conceive of the felicity of eternal joy, so we cannot conceive of\nthe loss of it.\n\nIt is a matter of no great moment to others how I myself stand on this\ngreat question, except for the reasons which I think support it. I am by\nno means dogmatic on the subject, for the reason, as stated before, that\nrevelation does not seem to give a clear and direct deliverance on it.\nBut I do think that there are much clearer and more emphatic Scriptural\nstatements in favor of the doctrine of Restoration than any of the\nalternate theories.\n\nI think, moreover, that reason is clearly in favor of it, so far as\nreason will carry us. And I believe what an eminent minister said\nlately: \"We ought to make our faith reasonable to reasonable minds.\"\n\nThe fact is, that all true religion is reasonable, and we would see it\nto be so if we could see the truth in all its relations. But our views\nare limited; that is the trouble. Hence there are many topics that we\nshall not fully understand in this life; but \"when that which is perfect\nis come, then that which is in part shall be done away.\"\n\nIt will be seen also that details are not only unrevealed but also that\nthey could not possibly be revealed. The main fact only can be the\nsubject of investigation. Faith can wait for the revelation of the mode\nand the time.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI see that our friends of the Watch Tower are predicting a time of\ntrouble such as the world has never seen; and it is to begin, they say,\nin about seven years. On the contrary, in an article just to hand, there\nis a most optimistic outlook for the uplift of society. The writer says:\n\"It is but little more than a century ago that the church awoke to the\nfulness of the truth that God would have all men to be saved, and come\nto the knowledge of the truth.\" Then he goes on to forecast the reign of\nkindness, and good will and righteousness.\n\nI make the quotation to show how easily, yet with what limitations, we\nfall into the generally expressed view that God \"would have all men to\nbe saved,\" while really ignoring the fact. For the writer evidently\nrefers to the time when the church awoke to the necessity of missions;\nand he evidently thinks that our feeble efforts in that direction prove\nin a general way that God \"would have all men to be saved.\" He takes no\nnote of the millions and millions that have passed away without so much\nas hearing the joyful sound. And he is equally oblivious to the fact\nthat millions who are living now, and other millions yet to come, will\nnever hear the Gospel in this life. Are not these some of the \"all men\"\nwhom God would save? Does it matter to Him whether they are in this\nworld or the next? Has any one of them gone beyond the sphere of His\nlove? We must enlarge our conception of God's own words and thoughts;\nthey are as high as heaven is high above the earth.\n\nI have just received a circular from a pastor of a certain congregation.\nIt is an appeal on behalf of missions. It asks if this scheme of the\nchurch is a failure; and if not, why it is not supported. Then it goes\non to say that the churches have been assessed in certain amounts, and\nthat this particular church is far behind in raising its share. Each\nmember is then urged to pay up.\n\nBut not a word of incentive is given. We are not told what the heathen\nare to be saved from, or what they are to be saved to. Surely we would\nlike to know if they are going straight to everlasting fire if they are\nnot converted. That is the doctrine of the church; but it does not seem\nexpedient to express it. Why? Because it is not believed. If it were\nbelieved would there not be plenty of funds to carry the gospel to the\nends of the earth? So we hang on in theory to the doctrine of eternal\ntorment; but we do not dare, nor are we inclined, to express it. Surely\nit is time for a change; yes, a change to honesty and candor. If we are\nundecided, let us say so; the truth will prevail in due time. It is \"to\nthe upright there ariseth light in the darkness.\"\n\nNor, as I have said, does the circular give a hint or hope of what the\nheathen are to be saved to. There is no suggestion of \"glory, honor, and\nimmortality.\" Is not this altogether too vague a way of extorting money?\nBut let it be made clear that by our efforts the worst of the heathen\nwill be put in the way of salvation, and in many cases of possession of\nit, and I think there would be no lack of funds. Let it be shown that\nwhatever there is of future suffering is on account of sin, and that it\nis a divine preparation for eternal joy, and the most hardened and\nselfish will have a worthy appeal to their liberality.\n\nFor notwithstanding all hardness and selfishness, there is deep down in\nthe human heart a feeling of wonderful kindness for our own kith and\nkin. Witness the heroic efforts that are willingly made to save a fellow\ncreature from danger or death. See the agony that is endured by the most\nselfish when every effort seems fruitless. Yes; we see this very plainly\nin the case of temporal danger or death. Would not we see the same\nsolicitude multiplied a thousand fold if it were realized that the\nissues involved are eternal?\n\nWhen we get to that point where these great issues can be presented as\nreal facts, and not merely as half believed theories, I believe there\nwould be no difficulty in raising funds for missions. And surely, it\nwill not then be a matter of assessment, but of free will. May the\nglorious day be hastened!\n\n\n\n\nIV.\n\n\nINFINITE JUSTICE.\n\nA Strong Argument--Universal Atonement--Infinite Justice Satisfied--A\nCandid Methodist Minister--Can Man Commit an Infinite Sin--Everlasting\nPunishment Could Never Be Endured--Uses of Suffering--Punitive and\nRemedial--The Penalty has Been Paid--Moral Effect--Mystery of Pain--Not\nPunishment but Chastening--Extending Our Outlook Beyond--Boundless\nSpace and Time--Operation of Grace in the Next Life--Infinite\nPower--Infinite Mercy--Infinite Love--Incentive to Endless Praise.\n\n\nIt may be said that in this argument I am not taking sufficient account\nof divine justice. That may be so. The fact is, that the relation of\njustice to the idea of universal salvation was one of the last ideas on\nthis subject that came to my mind. But now it seems to me that in the\nidea of divine justice is involved one of the strongest arguments for\nuniversal salvation.\n\nLook at the matter simply and candidly. Did not Christ die for every\nsoul of man? All theological subtleties aside, we joyfully believe that\nHe did. The fact is stated over and over again in Scripture, with the\nutmost plainness; and it is assumed in a multitude of other passages. So\nclearly has this come to be recognized that the American Presbyterian\nChurch formally adopted it, and put it in their \"Brief Statement\" some\nyears ago. It is also proposed for acceptance in the creed of the united\nchurches of Canada, if that union is consummated. And despite all\ntheories to the contrary, it is believed and preached in most if not all\nEvangelical Churches.\n\nVery well. Consider what is involved in that article of our faith. If\nChrist really died for all, does not justice require that all will be\nsaved! If Christ paid the debt for every sinner, will not every sinner\nbe redeemed? How else could infinite justice be satisfied? I wish our\nMethodist brethern would consider this matter well. All honor to the\nMethodist Church for its noble testimony to the universality of the\natonement. But does not universal atonement imply universal salvation?\nIf we may speak of such things in the language of mathematics may we not\nsay that universal salvation is the corollary of universal atonement? To\nthis conclusion it does seem to me that we are inevitably led.\n\nI was speaking lately to a Methodist minister of a very acute but candid\nmind. He put the matter in this way: Either Christ made an atonement for\neach one, or He did not. Did He not actually bear upon His heart the\nsins of the whole world? And if the whole world, then surely each one\nsingly, so that every child of humanity may truthfully say with Paul,\n\"He loved me, and gave Himself for me.\" Does not justice then demand\nthat each one will be saved? In our present limited outlook there may be\na difficulty as to how and where; but the glorious fact seems to be\nbeyond question.\n\nThis matter is so important that I would try to make it plain from my\nown point of view, even if that involves some degree of repetition.\n\nI raise the question elsewhere: Can man commit an infinite sin? Some say\nhe can, because his sin is against God, a Being of infinite purity. If\nhis sin then is of this infinite nature, infinite justice may demand\nthat he suffer an infinite punishment. But being a finite being, he\ncannot suffer infinite punishment in quality. Therefore it is said, he\nmust suffer it in duration. Hence the necessity of everlasting\npunishment. That is the argument.\n\nBut the main premise is by no means clear. It may well be doubted if man\ncan commit an infinite sin. First; he is a finite being; and can a\nfinite being do on infinite wrong? Further; he cannot suffer everlasting\npunishment. For everlasting has no end. He would never have rendered a\ndue equivalent for his sin. When he would have suffered millions and\nmillions of years he would be as for from rendering a due equivalent as\nat the beginning. Thus the demands of God's law would never be\nsatisfied.\n\nWe have therefore to confront the idea of God inflicting a punishment\nthat could never be rendered. In that case might not God suspend all\npunishment at once? For when man shall have suffered for aeons and aeons\nuntold he would really be as far from the end as he is now. Could you\nthink of the Infinitely Wise and Holy One pronouncing a sentence that\ncould never be executed? Then add to the idea of Infinite Holiness and\nInfinite Wisdom, the idea of Infinite Power and Infinite Love, and I\nthink you will find yourself involved in a series of contradictions\nwhich you will be glad to see dissolved as an ugly dream.\n\nBut now, supposing that man, not being infinite in his nature, cannot\ncommit an infinite sin, is it not reasonable to think that a less\npunishment than an infinite one would suffice even eternal justice?\nSuppose, for instance, that God had cut off the first human pair when\nthey sinned, and thus have prevented this hideous tale of mourning,\nlamentation, and woe, would not that suffice? For us to be debarred\nforever from existence and consciousness--would not that suffice? Well;\nthe Infinite One had that alternative. But He did not resort to it.\nWould He not have resorted to it if He foresaw that His choice lay\nbetween eternal extinction and eternal fire, for the great majority of\nour race? Would the eternal joy to which He foresaw that a few of the\nrace would attain, compensate for the eternal woe which He foresaw would\nbe the fate of the great majority? A thousand times No. The fact that\nwe, with our poor, limited powers, can see that there was a way of\naverting unutterable and everlasting woe from even one soul, is a strong\nargument that there is no everlasting woe. Let us beware of imputing to\nGod that which we can see might have been honorably avoided, and that\nwhich we would shrink in horror from doing ourselves! Think this matter\nover seriously, and see where it will land you.\n\nBut then, what is the use of suffering at all? Surely, God foresaw that\nthere would be a great deal of temporary suffering in this world. Why\ndid He not prevent it?\n\nWell; having disposed of the idea of eternal suffering, it remains for\nus to see the place and use of that which is temporary only. But here,\nan entirely new principle comes into view. Eternal suffering is supposed\nto be a vindication of justice. It could be nothing else; amendment of\ncharacter is entirely out of the question. But temporary suffering is a\nmeans of reformation. Eternal suffering has no regard to reformation; it\nwould issue in the very opposite. Evil would be itensified, and\nintensified forever, which is unthinkable; and still more is it\nunthinkable in a universe governed by a God of Wisdom and Holiness. But\ntemporary suffering is a means for the development of character.\n\nHere our ideas are thrown upon the twofold province of suffering. It is\npunitive, and it is reformatory. When we inflict it on an offender it\npartakes of both qualities; and sometimes it is hard to say which\npredominates. But more and more are we rising to the idea that\npunishment is mainly or wholly reformatory. Strong testimony is borne to\nthat fact by determinate sentence. It is recognized that in all justice\na man need not suffer a full equivalent for his crime. No matter what\nhis crime has been, when there is good evidence that he has reformed, he\nis set free. It is felt that suffering has then achieved its highest\nend. In nothing that I know of is there such evidence of the upward\ntrend of the race.\n\nNow in God's infliction of suffering these two principles come clearly\ninto view. What Christ suffered is mainly punitive; what we suffer Is\nreformatory. The matter may be clearer if we glance at these two things\nseparately.\n\nI have said that Christ's suffering was mainly punitive. Look at some\nstatements of Scripture concerning it, and you will see that it was\nchiefly of that quality. It is said that \"the Lord laid on him the\niniquity of us all.\" That is, He took our place so intimately that He\nactually bore the punishment due to us. In another place it is said\nthat \"He was made a curse for us.\" The curse that was originally\nintended for us alighted upon Him. It is said that \"He is the\npropitiation for our sins.\" It is said that \"Christ died for us.\" It is\nsaid that we are \"justified by His blood.\" It is said that \"by the\nobedience of One\"--that is obedience unto death, \"shall many be made\nrighteous.\" These are only a few of many passages of similar import.\n\nI do not overlook the fact that Christ's life and death had a moral\neffect as well. Certainly His life and death are the greatest example in\nthe world; and that example has done far more to uplift the character of\nthe world than any force brought to bear upon mankind. At the same time,\nthe supreme meaning of His suffering is that it was punitive. He\nactually bore the curse for us. And we have the glorious fact repeated\nagain and again that He did it for every soul of man. He really\n\"satisfied divine justice.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThen what further claim can God rightfully make in the way of\npunishment? The penalty has been paid. Does God require it paid over\nagain? He is a just God. He claims but one payment of the penalty. To my\nmind, that fact does away with all possibility of eternal punishment.\nFor all other suffering that God inflicts is entirely reformatory.\nWhether that suffering be inflicted in this life or the life to come,\nthe principle is the same; it is all reformatory. It may come, and\noften does come, as the result of sin. In the providence of God sin and\nsuffering are closely linked together.\n\nWherever there is sin there is bound to be suffering, whether in this\nlife or in the next. That has been paid in full. Christ paid the penalty\nfor the whole race.\n\nWhether God might have ordained some other alternative than suffering as\na means of our purification, is not the point. The fact that He has\nordained suffering is proof enough that it is a good appointment. I have\nhinted elsewhere that suffering may be a means of safeguarding us\nagainst sin to all eternity.. But this idea is advanced only as a\npossible solution of the mystery of pain. We go upon surer ground when\nwe recognize suffering as one means that God has appointed for our\npurification. It does not come to us, or to any soul of man, as a\npenalty. The penalty has been paid.\n\nBut it may be said that God is angry with sin. How can He be angry with\nsin if the sin is actually forgiven? I answer that it is His very nature\nto be angry with sin, though it is forgiven. It is in opposition to His\nnature and His law. It is also in opposition to that development of\ncharacter which He has designed for all His children. Anything which\nconflicts with that, excites His indignation. Hence the pains and\npenalties which follow in the track of sin, though the sin itself may be\nforgiven. When we consider that a person may be very angry with himself\nbecause of sin, though he knows that the sin is forgiven, we can\nunderstand something of the same feeling on the part of God.\n\nGod does visit the iniquity of the fathers upon the children. But is the\nsuffering thus inflicted to be regarded as the penalty due to sin? No.\n\nThere is an amended verse in one of our old hymns in which the view\nseems to be taken, and I think rightly, that the atonement is not only\nthe basis on which pardon can be righteously vouchsafed, but the very\ncertainty of its being vouchsafed. The stanza is this:\n\n     \"But never shall my soul despair\n         Thy pardon to secure,\n      Who knows Thine only Son has died\n         To make my pardon sure.\"\n\nThe whole matter of suffering is dealt with at length in the twelfth\nchapter of The Hebrews. Over and over again it is described as\nchastening. It is not penalty. The penalty has been paid. Suffering\nhenceforth is Fatherly chastisement. And the intention and effect of\nchastisement are clearly intimated. It is said that we are not to\ndespise the chastening of the Lord; for that He chastises us for our\nprofit, that we might be partakers of His holiness. Again it is said\nthat chastening afterwards yields the peaceable fruits of righteousness.\nThat is the idea exactly. There is no word of punishment. The punishment\nhas been endured in the sacrifice of Christ; and it is now clearly\nrecognized that His sacrifice was offered on behalf of the whole world.\nBut the necessity for chastisement remains. It is one means of our\nspiritual development, and but for the necessity for it, it would never\nbe inflicted. Hence Jeremiah could say, \"He doth not afflict willingly,\nnor grieve the children of men.\"\n\nAn example may make this clearer. Take the case of Manasseh. He was one\nof the worst kings of Judah. It is recorded of him that \"he built altars\nfor all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of the Lord;\"\nthat \"he made his children to pass through the fire;\" that he \"made\nJudah and Jerusalem to do worse than the heathen;\" that he \"shed\ninnocent blood very much, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to\nthe other.\" But he repented. We read that \"when he was in affliction, he\nbesought the Lord his God, and humbled himself greatly before the God of\nhis fathers, and prayed unto him; and he was intreated of him, and heard\nhis supplication.\"\n\nYes; but we read that \"notwithstanding the Lord turned not from the\nfierceness of his great wrath, wherewith his anger was kindled against\nJudah, because of all the provocations that Manasseh had provoked\nhim withal.\"\n\nNow there we have an example of the fact that a whole people was\nordained to suffering in consequence of the evil wrought by one man.\nSuch suffering cannot be penal, for we are told very plainly that it was\ndue to the wickedness of one person; and even he had repented and was\nforgiven. In that case there was no room for penalty. It would be\nentirely out of place. But there was room for discipline. The monstrous\nevil that Manasseh had wrought would in part survive, notwithstanding\nhis personal reformation. So the suffering could not be penalty; but it\ncould be chastisement. There might be \"the fierceness of great wrath,\"\nas we read there was; but there was love behind. The people might not\nhave the spiritual discernment to see their suffering in that light; but\nwe have a clearer revelation than they had; so we read that \"whom the\nLord loveth He chasteneth.\"\n\nEven now we witness the sad spectacle of God's own people--the very\npeople to whom we have been referring--being made a byword and a\nhissing among the nations. And wherefore? Because of sin? Certainly. But\nnot as a punishment for sin, but as a necessary means of reformation. A\nsuperficial view of the case may deem it punishment; but a deeper view\nrecognizes it as chastisement. The fundamental fact is, that Christ\nbore their sin, and all sin, \"in His own body on the tree.\" Surely,\njustice will say that it has not to be borne again. Hence, all suffering\nthat is now inflicted, is not inflicted as a punishment, but as a\ndiscipline. \"The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.\" Then,\n\"he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins.\" That glorious fact\nshould settle all difficulty.\n\nSuffering, then, is appointed solely for the uplift of character, both\nin this life and the next. When it has done its work--and in some cases\nit may take long--it will cease.\n\nThese profound questions require us to extend our outlook into the next\nlife. And nothing can be more truly natural. For with God there is no\nlimit as to time or space. The history of our world, and of our race in\nthis lower life, is but a span in the eternal years.\n\nThe trouble has been that men have had no idea of the operation of grace\nbeyond this life. This is no disparagement of the limitations of able\nand saintly men in the past. We have simply had a growing revelation. It\nis no credit to us that we have larger views.\n\nWe see now that the yearnings of divine love will be satisfied. There is\na harmony in this view which commends it at once to our highest\nconceptions of fitness. God is infinite in His being, and in His\nperfections. Hence His operations are not limited to the mere span of\ntime. The outgoings of His Wisdom, and power, and love, are from\neverlasting to everlasting.\n\nIn my view, there is nothing that will so effectually break down sin, as\na belief that all sin has been atoned for. That is God's royal way of\nbestowing favors. But then we need renewal. That may require a shorter\nor a longer process, but it will come, either in this life or the next.\nIn a multitude of passages in the divine Word we know that God desires\nthis. Not only so, but God has expressed His desire in the gift of His\nSon. If we had any doubt, surely that might convince us. And I believe\nit will convince us yet. The doctrine of a universal atonement is now\ngenerally accented. Even Calvinists have declared almost unanimously\nthat Christ died for the whole world. And if we had not that declaration\nin words, we have it even more emphatically in missionary enterprise.\nStill there is a remnant of the old belief that Christ died only for the\nsins of the elect. I believe the day is coming when there will be the\nassured conviction that He died for the sins of the world. Then there\nwill follow the joyous assurance that there is salvation for the world,\nto be realized either in this life or the next.\n\nWe have said that God desires this consumation. He has expressed that\ndesire again and again in His Word. And He has expressed it with\ninfinite emphasis in the gift of His Son. Men, ask yourselves this\nquestion: Can any desire of His ultimately fail? Let us never forget\nthat \"his counsel will stand, and he will do all His pleasure.\"\n\n\n\n\nV.\n\n\nHARMONY OF THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES.\n\nOur Limitations--Development--Our Capacity--Divine Foreknowledge--No\nDivine Failure--The Heathen--Unchangeable Love--Union of Four\nAttributes--Eternal Wisdom--A Marvel of Coercion and Freedom--The Day\nof Divine Power--An Unfathomable Mystery--Future Revelations--Coming\nto Zion with Songs.\n\n\nSince trying to see the relation of absolute Justice to the Idea of\nRestoration, it has struck me that it may be well to take a glance at\nsome others of the Divine attributes, and see if they also sustain the\nsame theory. Any theory that is really true must be in harmony with the\nDivine character. The trouble is, that our knowledge of all that\npertains to the Infinite is necessarily limited. At the same time, if it\nseems that when any quality of the Divine character is contradicted or\ndisparaged by any theory of ours, that is a strong argument that the\ntheory is not true. But if, on the other hand, our theory is seen to\nglorify the Divine character, that is strong evidence that the theory is\nright. While well aware, then, of our limitations, in this direction, it\nis fair to inquire if the Divine attributes, or any of them, appear to\nsustain our theory.\n\nWe have dealt already with the attribute of Justice. Some have regarded\nthat as the fundamental quality of the Divine character. I am not sure\nthat it is so. I think Love and Wisdom are equally fundamental. In a\nformer age the idea of Divine Justice overshadowed all other conceptions\nof God. But the fact that He is infinite in His being, seems to imply\nthat He is also infinite in His perfections. So we shall give our\nattention for a little to the qualities of Power, of Wisdom, and of\nLove, and try to combine them with the idea of Justice, at which we have\nglanced already.\n\nTake Divine Wisdom. That means that God knows all things. Ponder for a\nmoment what that implies. It means that to the Eternal Mind, every\nevent, whether it be past, present, or future, is as clear as if it were\nnow transpiring. He knows, without any peradventure, everything that\nwill happen throughout all eternity. And He sees every circumstance that\nwill cause every event to transpire. Not only that, but He has the\nfullest knowledge of the best means to adopt to bring about any\ndesirable end.\n\nSuch an idea is altogether too vast and high for us adequately to\ncomprehend. At the same time, it seems to imply certain things that are\nbeyond peradventure. God must have foreseen, for instance, that He would\nmake man. He must have foreseen, too, that man would fall. He foresaw,\nalso, and arranged, the great scheme of Redemption. But He must have\nknown with the utmost certainty that millions and millions of the human\nrace would pass out of this life without once hearing the joyful sound.\nAnd because they did not know it, if annihilation or torment is true, He\nknew that He would utterly extinguish them, or consign them to\neverlasting fire!\n\nNow, can you think of a Being of Infinite Wisdom doing either? Apart\naltogether from the idea of Love, could you think of Infinite Wisdom\nacting in this way? Would you not think it as a most horrid stigma on\nhuman wisdom, and infinitely more so on Divine? To think that God made\nthe human race, at the same time knowing well that the vast majority of\nthe race would come to such an end--an end which they could not forsee\nnor prevent! Is that the way Infinite Wisdom would act? The idea seems\nalmost blasphemy. Yet that is what you must believe if you accept the\nidea either of annihilation or of endless torment.\n\nMore than that. Consider that the Creator endows every one of the race\nwith mental powers of almost infinite expansion; yea, better still,\nwith moral powers and affections akin to those of the angels. Then\nconsider that in the case of most, these divine powers were to be\nextinguished, and that the unfortunate beings who had been endowed with\nthem were to pass back into nonentity, or be cast into everlasting\ntorment. In the one case there would be utter abortion; in the other,\nthere would be everlasting development of evil. Could you conceive of\nanything more unworthy of Eternal Wisdom?\n\nStill more. God foresaw and arranged the great scheme of Redemption.\nThat it was to be available for the whole race was divinely intended. We\nare told again and again that God gave His Son for the world. It is said\nthat He \"tasted death for every man.\" But God did not take means to\napply it to every man in this life. He could easily have done so. He\ncould have sent His angels to proclaim to men the good news of\nsalvation. Such an idea is not so far-fetched as at first sight it may\nappear. We follow the same principle when we send missionaries to the\nheathen. Oceans were formerly almost impassable. There is still more or\nless risk, both from the voyage and the climate and the hostility of\nsavages. We may well suppose that angels could pass more easily from\nstar to star than that man can pass from continent to continent. And all\nthe savagery of evil men could have no effect on angels.\n\nWhy, then, did He not send them? He must have foreseen that men would\nfail in giving the Gospel to the heathen. But was the eternal destiny of\nthe great majority of our race to depend on the whim of men? If God\nprovided salvation for the heathen, would He not convey it to them in\nsome way? Evidently, He has not done so in this life. Do we not begin,\nthen, to see that there must be some other time, or some other means, of\neffecting His purposes? For \"His purpose will stand, and he will do all\nhis pleasure.\"\n\nAnd when we consider the eternity of His being, and of our own, nothing\nis more reasonable than that He has ordained a fitting opportunity\nbeyond the boundary of time. Let us only rid ourselves of our insular,\ncontracted ideas, and we will see how worthy of the Infinite Wisdom is\nsuch a scheme of grace.\n\nThen there is another consideration. God loves every soul of man. And\nevery man was endowed with a capacity of worshipping Him, and of having\ncommunion with Him to all eternity. If any failed from any cause\nwhatever to rise to this great experience, would not God's own happiness\nbe curtailed?\n\nI know that it has been an orthodox doctrine that God cannot suffer. I\nhave long had my doubts of it. To be sure, we read that He is \"without\nvariableness or shadow of turning.\" Does not that apply to His\ncharacter? In that respect He is absolutely unchangeable. It is no\ninfringement of that great truth to believe that He can suffer. I spoke\nof this matter lately to a minister of profound mind. He replied: \"I\nwould not think much of Him if He could not suffer.\"\n\nI have even thought that in the incarnation and death of Christ, the\nFather suffered equally with the Son. It is a great mystery; I do not\npress it. But my thought has been that there was such infinite sympathy\nbetween them that the Father actually suffered as much as the Son. If a\nchild is sick, does not the mother suffer as much as the child? And do\nwe not all suffer if our children are in pain? Now, we inherit as much\nof the Divine nature as is possible to be communicated to human nature.\nThe root of such suffering is love. And is not God's love for His\nchildren infinitely greater than ours? Therefore, would not His\nhappiness be curtailed by seeing His children in pain? We know that \"He\ndoth not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of men.\" Can He,\nthen, contemplate with changeless equanimity the wickedness and final\nsuffering of the great majority of our race? So far as I know, there is\nno such idea in Scripture; and it is certainly not suggested by our own\nhuman nature in its highest development.\n\nNow, can it be supposed that the sin of puny man will finally impair the\nhappiness of God? It may for a time; but Divine Love will win; God will\nbe all in all. Surely it accords with our highest reason to believe that\nHis happiness will not finally be lessened. There is a manifest and\neternal unfitness in such a supposition. The Divine Wisdom that rules in\nall worlds will surely make it impossible.\n\nThink next of Divine Power. Now with regard to this attribute, there is\none thing to be recognized; but it is not self-evident. It is this: that\nGod is omnipotent in the moral realm, as in the physical. This may be\ndisputed. It will be freely granted that in the physical world God has\nall power. But in the moral sphere, is not even divine power limited by\nour free will?\n\nNow, I do not intend to go into the metaphysics of the matter. That\nwould perhaps but involve us in deeper mystery. I think the question\nwill be clearer if we take one example. It is that of Saul of Tarsus, on\nthe occasion of his conversion. He was changed in a moment by omnipotent\npower. So radical was the change that from being \"the chief of sinners\"\nhe became the chief of saints. Nothing short of omnipotent power could\neffect such a change.\n\nBut at the same time, was not Saul a free agent? Afterwards, when\nreferring to this wonderful experience, he says: \"I was not disobedient\nto the heavenly vision.\" Surely, that implies freedom. Yet while he was\nfree, divine power constrained him. Such a mystery no man can\nunderstand.\n\nCould Saul have withstood the change? I reverently say that I do not\nknow. If Paul, in the time of his great inlightenment, had been asked if\nhe could have withstood it, I can imagine that he would have said that\nhe did not know, and did not want to know. Even if he were asked the\nsame question to-day, I can believe that he would still give the\nsame answer.\n\nSuch is the mystery of the operation of the Divine Spirit. We are really\n\"made willing in the day of His power.\" What a wonderful expression that\nis of the union of divine coercion and human freedom! I doubt if all the\nmetaphysics of the schools will ever get beyond it.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBut now, looking at the matter in this light, what wonderful operations\nof grace are opened up to our faith! The power that redeemed Saul can\nsurely redeem the worst of mankind, while yet conserving their moral\nliberty. And surely divine love will incline God to take such action. O\nyes; Divine Love, and Divine Wisdom, come in here to act in concert with\nDivine Power. O, the depths of the riches both of the Wisdom and\nKnowledge--and surely, we may add the Love--of God!\n\nTo be sure, it may be asked, \"Why does nor God put forth such redeeming\npower in this life?\" There may be good reasons why, but we must beware\nof intruding into divine mysteries. We might as well ask, Why did not\nGod interfere sooner in the case of Saul? When we think of the havoc he\nwas making of the church, and the suffering he was inflicting on God's\nown saints, we might ask, Why was he permitted to run such an evil\ncourse so long? Both questions are of the same order; and we could point\nto ten thousand more. In all such cases we can but reverently say,\n\"Secret things belong unto the Lord.\" \"Even so. Father; for so it seemed\ngood in thy sight.\"\n\nWe have already anticipated the general operation of divine Love in the\nnext life. But now let us look at the matter more particularly.\n\nWe have always to remember that we are God's own children, not in name\nonly, but in the most real sense. The mere fact that we are transferred\nto another world, implies only a change of location and of surroundings;\npossibly a very slight change in locality when we consider the amazing\namplitude of creation. Surely, a mere change of locality can make no\nchange in everlasting love! In that thought, if we see no farther, is\nthere not enough to stimulate eternal hope?\n\nBut then, think that God has made the Sacrifice of all sacrifices of\ngiving His Son for our salvation. We can never fathom that mystery of\nLove Divine. Now, if he made this Sacrifice for only a part of mankind,\nas we formerly taught, we would be constrained to think of His Love as\nbeing limited and partial. In that case, we could think it possible that\nHe might consign all the rest of our race to eternal torture with the\nutmost complacence. But when we realize that He loved the whole of\nmankind, and that the Sacrifice was made for the whole of mankind, are\nwe not forced to the conclusion that all mankind will be saved?\n\nFor that Love is as intense as it is universal. Yes; think of its\nintensity, as well as its scope. Surely, such Divine Love will attain\nits end. All the methods that Divine Wisdom sees to be necessary will be\nused, so that Divine Love will not fail. This looks like the\ncompleteness we would expect from Divine plans and purposes. Anything\nless would seem like a failure of Him who is Eternal Love as well as\nEternal Wisdom.\n\nThink over this matter reverently, and I believe you will arrive at the\nconclusion we are trying to recommend. When we realize that Infinite\nLove is changeless, and that it is united with Infinite Power, and\nInfinite Wisdom, as well as with Infinite Justice, we cannot but believe\nthat it will have the victory. O, yes; we believe that the present\nabnormal conditions will be done away with; that grace will triumph over\nsin; that suffering will disappear; that all the ransomed of the Lord\nshall yet come to Zion with songs!\n\n\n\n\nVI.\n\n\nTHEORY OF EQUALITY.\n\nAbraham Tucker's View--Ingenious and Reverent--Variety of\nEndowment--Maximum of Happiness--Imparting and Receiving New\nIdeas--Compensations--Infinite Justice.\n\n\nWhen I was a lad I met with an old book entitled \"Equality,\" by Abraham\nTucker. The main idea of the book, so far as I can recollect, was, that\nas God is infinitely just, He must treat all His creatures with absolute\nequality. As such a thing is evidently not in force now, the idea was\nthat the future life will exactly rectify all the inequalities of the\npresent, so that upon the whole there will be perfect equality. It was\nan ingenious and reverent theory; but on turning it over in my mind just\nnow, I find some formidable objections to it.\n\nFor one thing, the inequalities that prevail now, when not painful, give\nus no serious discontent. In fact, except in extreme cases, we rather\napprove and enjoy them. No doubt we have a love of variety; but apart\nfrom that, we rather delight to have superiors and inferiors. It is\npleasant to have some one to whom we can look up, as better endowed than\nourselves; and it is pleasant to have others who can look up to us. And\nour best and most ethical judgment approves of this feeling. In\nparticular, there is no feeling so ennobling as reverence; but there\nwould be no proper place for reverence if we were equal. It would not,\ntherefore, be easy to think that an ideal state of society\ndemands equality.\n\nAgain: Analogy points decisively the same way. If we look above us we\nfind that there are among the angels, thrones, dominions, principalities\nand powers. If we look below us, we find a striking variety among the\nanimals. In either case, there is not equality; and so far as we know,\nno compensations to produce equality. It would be hard to believe that\nthere ever will be such compensations in the case of the human race.\n\nMoreover: The theory of equality in the long run would seem to require\nthat some deteriorate, which is extremely unlikely, in view of the fact\nthat the normal law of God's universe is advancement.\n\nThen, further: We cannot conceive of equality of endowment as producing\nthe maximum of happiness. It is a great joy to impart a new idea; and it\nis a great joy to receive one. But if all were equal, there could be no\njoy, either of imparting or receiving; which is contrary to our idea of\nthe highest perfection and blessedness.\n\nAgain: It is reasonable to believe that in the future world there will\nbe variety of service, calling for different endowment and capacity to\nperform it; and if such different equipment is required, we may be sure\nthat it is provided. If that is so, equality cannot be the ideal\ncondition.\n\nStill more: As time is so short, and eternity so long, the least\ncompensation in eternity would infinitely over-balance the greatest\ninequality in time. From that point of view we could not look for\nequality, even in the most distant age.\n\nAdd to these various considerations the Scriptural intimation that \"one\nstar differeth from another star in glory,\" with all that is intended to\nbe illustrated by that statement; and the idea of equality seems to\nhave no place.\n\nOn such grounds as these we believe that there will be forever a variety\nof endowment and capacity; and that such variety is in full agreement\nwith God's infinite justice.\n\n\n\n\nVII.\n\n\nPROCESSES OF PURIFICATION.\n\nDifferent Processes--The Case of Saul--Changed in a Moment--No\nViolence to Human Freedom--The Case of Nebuchadnezzar--Sudden or\nSlow--New Illumination--Basis of Warning--An Object Lesson--Function\nof Suffering.\n\n\nHere I would advert to the different processes that may be used for\nman's redemption. We have referred to the case of Saul. His case is a\ntypical one. It illustrates the fact that God can use means by which the\nmost incorrigible sinner may be entirely changed in a moment; and that,\nwithout doing any violence to his freedom.\n\nBut now, take another case. It will show just as clearly that God\nsometimes uses means whereby the sinner is not reclaimed in a moment,\nbut that he requires a series of years. Take the case of Nebuchadnezzar.\nHe was driven from his throne, and excluded from the haunts of men.\nAccording to the account he \"did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet\nwith the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles' feathers,\nand his nails like birds' claws.\"\n\nSuch was the severe discipline to which the wicked king was subjected,\nand subjected for a long period. But in due time the discipline had its\neffect. The king was reformed and restored. I suppose God could have\ncaptured him in a moment, as in the case of Saul; but He chose\notherwise.\n\nIt may be asked: Whence such a difference in reclaiming these two men?\nThey seem to have been much of the same spirit. It is said of Saul that\nhe \"breathed out threatening and slaughter against the disciples of the\nLord;\" and it is said of Nebuchadnezzar that he was \"full of fury.\" It\nis said of Saul, too, that he witnessed against God's saints, and\nhounded them to their death. And it is said of Nebuchadnezzar that he\ncast the three faithful Hebrews into the burning fiery furnace. The main\ndifference was, that Saul compassed the death of the saints by law;\nwhereas Nebuchadnezzar himself was the law. In spirit and life the two\nmen seem to have been much alike. Yet they were both reclaimed. But how?\nCertainly, by very different means.\n\nAs accounting for the different means so effectually used in these two\ncases, it may be said that they were men of different light, and hence\ntheir different treatment. Or it may be said that the world required\nSaul's services at once, and hence his immediate transformation; whereas\nthe world could wait for the reformation of the king. Yet all such\nreasoning may be entirely beside the mark. It is a mystery profound.\nWith our present limited outlook I think it would be wiser and more\nreverent to bow our heads in submission, and say, \"Even so, Father; for\nso it seemed good in Thy sight.\" It seems to me that Nebuchadnezzar and\nSaul are typical cases of God's reformatory processes in the next life.\nSome of these processes may be sudden, and others more prolonged. And\ntheir severity or duration does not seem to depend on the depth of\niniquity into which a man has sunk. It depends rather on his repentance.\nSome may require a long and severe discipline, like Nebuchadnezzar;\nothers--possibly some of the greatest transgressors--may yield to the\nreformatory process without much delay. And it accords with our highest\nideas of justice to believe that those who lived up to the light they\nhad, though it were but a dim light, will experience little or no pain,\nexcept what may come of the rectifying of mistakes. Even this may be\nmore than balanced by the illumination of new truth. But whether the\nneeded discipline be long or short, and whether it be more or less\nsevere, we believe it will have its due effect. Finally, all sin will be\ndone away, and God will be all in all.\n\nThe unknown extent of suffering in the next life I think is the basis of\nwarning for men to flee from the wrath to come. When we know that God is\nangry with sinners every day, we can imagine something of His wrath\nagainst sin in the next life, so long as the sin continues. In some\ncases this wrath may continue long, and the suffering which it entails\nmay be severe. Certainly the divine favor will not rest on any sinner\nwho continues alienated from God.\n\nIs not this suffering in the future life sufficient to serve as a\nwarning to sinners now? There is hardly any warning given by preachers\nat present, except a very general one which amounts almost to nothing.\nPreachers evidently do not believe in eternal torment. If they did, they\nwould make that the basis of their warning, and never cease. But now\nthat such a warning is almost never uttered, what is there to take its\nplace? I answer, the unknown suffering of the next life, to be continued\nas long as sin continues.\n\nBut it may be said that such a warning would be far too mild to have any\ndue effect. On the contrary, I venture to think it would be as\neffectual, and perhaps more so, than the warning of eternal torment. For\nthis warning has always to be general. We have no definite conception of\nwhat constitutes the torment; hence men do not really believe it.\nEspecially when it is represented as of eternal duration, the idea is\nentirely beyond men's imagination; and so the effect is far from\nproportionate to the warning.\n\nBut we can imagine something of the suffering of discipline. That comes\nwithin the scope of our imagination; yea, and of our experience, too.\nAnd when it is represented as ceasing when the desired result is\nsecured, it commends itself to our highest ideas of benevolence, wisdom,\nand justice; and but for the baleful influence of tradition, would\nbecome at once credible.\n\nIf you want an example of the same principle on a smaller scale, take\nthe case of Nebuchadnezzar to whom we referred. Was his a light\npunishment? Anything more dreadful it would be hard to conceive. But it\nwas discipline; and the discipline was removed when it had accomplished\nits purpose. And don't you think it had a most salutary effect on the\nman all his days? I imagine that the same principle applies to the next\nlife. What the discipline may be, we know not; yet we can conceive that\nin certain cases it may be terrible suffering. But when the desired\nreformation is effected, the suffering will be removed. And don't you\nthink that the very memory of that suffering will be a wholesome object\nlesson to all eternity?\n\nThis is the suffering which I would have proclaimed to all men as a\nwarning. And it can be uttered with the accent of intelligent\nconviction, which the warning of endless torment never can. Moreover, it\nis so consonant with our best instincts of necessity, justice, mercy,\ntruth, love--that it carries men's convictions at once.\n\nThink of this also, that for aught we know, such an object lesson may\nbe needed to all eternity, as a warning against sin. And we can conceive\nthat it may vary immensely in different cases. When we recognize the\nvariety of personality that has been created, the idea dawns on us that\na great variety of suffering may be required to be an effective lesson\nthrough all eternity. Some may require more; others less. And God, who\nknows and has ordained the mental and moral calibre of every human soul,\nmay regulate the discipline accordingly.\n\nIt may be, therefore, that Nebuchadnezzar could have been captured in a\nmoment, as in the case of Saul; but it may have been that such would not\nhave been a safe proceeding. He may have required the severer discipline\nas a necessary object lesson to all eternity. Saul was reclaimed at\nonce; and if we may judge from his after life, he needed no prolonged\ndiscipline; and it is probable he will need none through the endless\nyears. Thus God may adjust his discipline to each particular case.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAnd we can well believe that the sufferings passed through in time as\nthe result of sin may be so vividly recalled in the next life that they\nwill be a warning against sin to all eternity. When we reflect on the\nvividness with which we now recall events of twenty, or forty, or sixty\nyears ago, we can well believe that with our quickened memory in\neternity, the events that happened in time will stand out in vivid\nreality for ever.\n\nIt does not seem far-fetched then to believe that this is the special\nfunction of suffering. Such a theory goes far to explain the mystery of\npain. It may really be an everlasting warning against sin; and thus the\nredeemed may be preserved in eternal blessedness. This is a great\nmystery. The very thought of it excites our wonder, and love,\nand praise.\n\nI have touched here, as I have said, on a great mystery; but it will be\nobserved that I have advanced it only as a possibility. As such, it\nimmensely enlarges our view of the wisdom and love of the divine\nadministration, and that not only in this life, but in the next. It also\ngives us a faint light on the everlasting mystery of pain. If it should\nturn out that suffering in its varying form and degree is really\nnecessary as an object lesson for all eternity, we can conceive that\nwhen we see it in this light we shall be almost overwhelmed with wonder\nand adoration.\n\n\n\n\nVIII.\n\n\nTHE INTERMEDIATE STATE.\n\nMeagre Details--Good Reasons Why--Extent of the Universe--Future\nGlory--Sin in Other Worlds--No Revelation--Future Abode of the\nRighteous--Solid or Ethereal--Impossible Revelations--Present Duties\nand Interests--Our Limitations--Necessity of Purification--Preaching\nto the Spirits in Prison--Stages of Progress--The Law of Gradual\nDevelopment.\n\n\nThere is one matter to which I would refer at this stage, because I\nthink the settlement of it on a reasonable basis will be a great aid to\nmany devout minds. It will be supposed by many that if there is an\nintermediate state of purification, some mention of it, and some details\nof it, would be given in revelation. To my mind, the comparative silence\nof revelation in regard to it, counts for almost nothing in our estimate\nof its probability--I might almost say of its necessity.\n\nThere is one consideration of prime importance in this connection, which\nought not to be overlooked. It is this: that in regard even to the\nfuture world of final blessedness, we have very meagre details. And\nthere are good reasons why we have not more. I think it is not generally\nrealized how fragmentary are such details; and yet we believe in the\nfact itself beyond the shadow of a doubt. In fact there are few things\nin which we have more implicit confidence than a future world of\nblessedness and glory. But consider how few details of it are revealed.\nThink of the many subjects closely related to it on which we are in\ncomplete ignorance. It may be well to run over some of these matters\nbriefly, that we may realize how utterly ignorant we are of affairs\nconnected with that world of final blessedness. And if that be so in\nregard to heaven itself, how much less we may expect to be enlightened\nbeforehand on the details of any intermediate state of preparation.\n\nThink of the fact that we are surrounded by other worlds of glory; and\nyet we do not even know if any of those worlds are inhabited. To be\nsure, there are considerations founded on the material and moral order\nof things that assure us almost beyond a doubt that they are inhabited.\nBut there is no proof. We simply do not know. One of those worlds is a\nthousand times larger than the earth; one is twelve hundred times;\nseveral are far more magnificent; yet we do not even know if they have\nany population.\n\nMore than that, we do not know if one of them--or our own earth--has\npassed through cycles of population during the uncounted centuries of\nthe past. As little do we know if any or all of them will be theatres of\nlife and intelligence in the future. Now if we know so little as to the\nhistory of our own and neighboring worlds in the past, and have no\nrevelation as to their future, is it likely that we would be informed as\nto details of some world of purification located probably away in the\nrealms of space?\n\nThen this sun of ours is fourteen hundred thousand times larger than the\nearth. But we know almost nothing of his constitution or history. He is\nreally a universe in himself. Of the functions he performs in reference\nto the worlds that surround him we know a little; but how his heat is\nsustained--what is attraction--what is his destiny--is all unknown. If\nwe are so ignorant of this primal source of life in all these planetary\nworlds, are we likely to be informed of the methods of moral discipline,\nprobably in some distant world?\n\nBut our sun, large and important as he is, is but a speck in creation.\nThese myriads of stars that shine nightly in the heavens are all suns.\nIt is calculated that the union of the telescope with the photographic\nplate brings five hundred millions of these stars into view. Some of\nthem are demonstrated to be hundreds of times larger than our sun. But\nthat is nearly all we know about them. Whether any of them has a retinue\nof worlds revolving around him like our sun, will never be known on this\nside of time. Then beyond all we can see, we recognize a probability of\nthe existence of uncounted millions of worlds; but we know nothing of\nthem. Therefore we would hardly expect to have details revealed of some\ndistant sphere of purification.\n\nAgain, whether any of these worlds have fallen, we do not know; and as\nlittle do we know as to whether any of them have been redeemed. We may\nreason about the matter; but it is only a short way that reason will\ncarry on such a profound question. I believe that the merit of the\nSacrifice made in this world of ours might be made available in all\nworlds that need it, be their sin what it may. It is also very\nconceivable that the good news might be conveyed to those worlds by\nangels, just as the good news is made known in our world by men. The\nsame principle would hold. In the one case there would be a wider\napplication of the message than in the other; that is the main\ndifference. And when we think of the swifter and easier movements of\nangels, even that difference might amount to nothing.\n\nBut the whole subject is one on which we have no revelation whatever.\nNow if there are millions of other worlds, with teeming populations, and\nif not the most meagre revelation has been made to us as to their moral\ncharacter or destiny, it is surely not surprising that we have no\nrevelation as to the details of a state of purification beyond this\nlife. We have thankfully to recognize the fact that we are not burdened\nwith revelations which would only confuse and distract us. It is surely\na gracious providence that withholds revelations of such details for the\npresent. But that is no argument why such details will not be revealed\nby and by, any more than that the unrevealed joys of heaven will be\ndisclosed to us when we are able to understand and enjoy them.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nStill more; beyond the realm of stars whose outline is somewhat clearly\nmarked, there is a dim shimmer of glory, suggestive of uncounted\nmillions of stars and systems farther on. This golden glimmer of distant\nworlds has been likened to a candle shining through a horn. We are\nsimply lost in the extent and glory of the starry hosts. Do we not begin\nto see that the universe is far too vast to be revealed to mortals? To\nhave the essentials of truth and duty revealed to us here, in this dim\ncorner of the universe, is as much as we ought to expect. By and by we\nmay hope to have larger revelations.\n\nWe may realize this principle more fully if we come down again to the\nearth, and to enquire if this earth is to be the future abode of the\nrighteous? Some say it is. We simply do not know. When we do not know if\nthis earth is to be our future dwelling place, can we reasonably expect\nto have details of the place and manner of our purification--though it\nbe a matter of far higher moment?\n\nThen again: Is the earth the final abode of the righteous? Or is it\nonly to be the initial place of future blessedness? Or, are there many\nheavens, each preceding one to be a preparation for a higher? Here again\nall our thoughts are drowned.\n\nOr again: Is heaven to be a solid world like this earth, or is it to be\nan ethereal world? Such questions are far too high for us. In this\nnarrow sphere of earth and time we know almost nothing of the glory to\nbe revealed. I would say that a study of the extent and magnificence of\ncreation would give us some hints of what eye hath not seen, nor ear\nheard. At all events the more we are acquainted with the glories of the\nuniverse, the more we shall realize how little is likely to be revealed\nof the details of any preparatory stage of final blessedness.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAnd besides such a revelation being unreasonable, we believe it would be\nimpossible. There are probably millions of worlds, as well as our own.\nEach one of these has likely a moral history. Now it is easily\nconceivable that the services rendered in heaven may have a close\nrelation to some of these worlds. Thus we could not have a revelation of\nour future service without being let more or less into the moral history\nof those worlds. But it will be seen at once that this would be utterly\nbeyond us, as well as useless to us at present. In fact it would only\nperplex and confuse us, and divert our attention from the practical\nduties of life.\n\nIt is remarkable also that we have almost no revelation of the present\nactive service of the better world. To give us such a revelation might\ninvolve other revelations which in the meantime are too high and too\ncomplicated for us to understand. Everything is beautiful in its season.\nJust as now we do not try to initiate children into the problems of life\nthat will come with mature age, so we, real children in understanding,\nare not burdened with the knowledge, and all that such knowledge would\ninvolve, that will come in a future life.\n\nBesides; such premature knowledge would probably detach our interest and\nattention from the duties that press upon us now. We are here with\ncertain duties and interests; and when these are duly apprehended they\nare quite sufficient to engage our time and thought, without being\nconcerned with the duties that will come with a future state.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThus we see something of the wisdom and the love in giving us only such\ndetails as suit our present limitations. There may be a state of\npurification beyond this life; but we shall adapt ourselves to that\nstate when the time comes; not before. When we see the character of God,\nas revealed in His Word; when we realize the sin and misery of our\npresent condition; when we apprehend the wonderful sacrifice that has\nbeen made for the recovery of our race; and when we realize the\nunspeakable glory that may be ours--we begin to see the\nprobability--yes, the necessity--of a process of purification beyond the\nsphere of time.\n\n\nIMPRISONED SOULS.\n\nYet, while we have no details given us as to the process or the time\nrequired for purification, we have certain suggestions. In the Old\nTestament there is a reference to \"prisoners of hope.\" The reference is\nsomewhat obscure, and taken by itself it is of doubtful meaning. But in\nthe New Testament it is intimated that Christ went and \"preached to the\nspirits in prison.\" There we have a gleam of light as to what is meant\nby \"prisoners of hope.\" There were imprisoned souls to whom Christ took\nsome joyful message. We have no statement as to the purport of the\nmessage, or the circumstances of the prisoners, beyond the fact that\nthey were confined.\n\nWhile not going outside of what is revealed, it does not seem too much\nto assume that He took to them the good news of Restoration, and perhaps\nkindred topics. O yes; the Saviour's death had reference not to\nourselves alone, but it had a relation to those in another world.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nPerhaps I ought to say here that this supposed state of discipline is by\nno means to be confounded with the Roman Catholic doctrine of\nPurgatory.\n\nThe term of duration of purgatorial fire is supposed to be determined by\nthe priest, who can effect a release at any time he pleases. It is\nsimply a matter of payment. And the idea of purgatory may be held--I\nthink is generally held--without conceiving of it as a means of\npurification. Is it not rather conceived of as a place of punishment?\n\nBut the intermediate state we conceive of is a state of purification and\neducation. There may be intense suffering in certain cases. We can\nconceive that such suffering may be required as a means of purification.\nIn other cases no great suffering, or none at all, may be necessary. By\nsome means, specially adapted to each case, every soul will be prepared\nto enter a state of blessedness.\n\nEven that final state may have lower grades, preparatory for the higher.\nIt does not seem consistent with God's dealings with man to thrust a\nfrail human spirit into the blinding glory of heaven. It is far more\nlikely that there are lower stages, preparatory for higher. When a child\nis born into the world it is not even aware for a time that it has\nentered on a new mode of existence. But it adapts itself unconsciously\nto its new surroundings, and by easy stages develops perhaps into a poet\nor a philosopher. In some such way, but on a higher plane, we can\nbelieve that the soul is developed in the future life. We may\nconfidently leave all details with Him who is \"Wise in Counsel, and\nexcellent in working,\" and whose love is unchangeable and everlasting.\n\nJust now I have met with a Christian minister whom I know well, and a\nworthy man he is, who has tried to evade the payment of a very small\ndebt. Now is it to be supposed that when that man dies he will go\nstraight into glory, infected with such a streak of meanness? Then where\nwill it be purged out of him? Will the process of death effect it?\nCertainly not. What remains then, but that between this life and the\nnext there is some process of purification.\n\nAnd that case is only a typical one. If we knew all, perhaps we should\nfind that there is a mean streak of some kind in every one of us. How\nthen shall we get rid of it? Just ponder that problem for awhile.\n\n\n\n\nIX.\n\n\nTHE SPIRITS IN PRISON.\n\nThe Descent of Jesus into Hades--Singular Reserve of Preachers\n--Purgatory--Dr. Gerhardt's Book--A Bodily Resurrection--The Spirit\nWorld Requires a Spirit Body.\n\n\nHere I would advert briefly to a topic that seems to me to have a strong\nbearing in the same direction. I mean the descent of Jesus into Hades,\nand the intimation that He \"preached to the spirits in prison.\" On this\nsubject the whole Christian world--at least the Protestant world--has\nmaintained a singular reserve. In fact I have never heard the matter\neven once casually referred to in any Protestant pulpit. It may be that\neven a casual reference to it might be taken as favoring the Roman\nCatholic doctrine of Purgatory. Such is the craven fear that men have of\nbeing supposed to be tainted with Romanism. In other cases it may be\nthat the whole subject is thought to be involved in so much mystery that\nit is better to leave it alone. But I believe that if we had a larger\nand more sympathetic view of the entire domain of truth, this topic\nwould be seen to be radiant with eternal hope.\n\nIn this spirit it is referred to by Dr. Calvin S. Gerhardt in his book\non \"Death and the Resurrection.\" That book came out some years ago, and\nthere were some letters passed between the author and myself in\nreference to the contents. He holds the view that the body of Christ was\nnot raised, but His spirit only; and he tries to sustain that view by a\nvariety of arguments, some of which seem to me very unworthy. My own\nview is, that the body was actually raised, but that now being a\nspiritual body it had the power of transformation, so that at pleasure\nit could become visible or invisible to fleshly eyes.\n\nHowever, in the same connection Dr. Gerhardt refers to Christ's descent\ninto Hades; and he treats that matter with a candor and eloquence, along\nwith good sense, that in my opinion, leaves nothing to be desired. I\nwill here transcribe some passages of his on that topic, and so dismiss\nfurther discussion of it. He says:\n\n\"The popular doctrine which teaches that the opportunity of salvation\n_always_ ends with the present life, finds no support in sacred\nScripture and is completely overthrown by Christ's descent into Hades.\nThis important stage of His mission is often overlooked, or ignored; and\nwe must confess that we too stand with bated breath, before the problem\nwhich its consideration presents, for we are confronted here with\nmysteries. But the mysteries are not closed, and are not utterly\nincapable of solution.\"\n\nAgain he says: \"Christ's visits to the earth were few and brief after\nHis resurrection. Where then was He during the forty days when not\nvisible to His disciples? Not in heaven, for He had not yet ascended.\nNeither was He on earth, for if any one truth was constantly more fully\nenforced by Him, it was that through His death He had passed beyond the\nsphere of the earthly. Where else then could He have sojourned but in\nHades--that unseen world of the dead into which all men pass when they\nlay aside their mortal bodies, and begin to live in spiritual bodies.\"\n\nAgain: \"To the penitent thief on the cross Jesus said, 'To-day thou shalt\nbe with Me in Paradise.' The Saviour, therefore, must have gone to the\nregions of the dead, for to the Jews, Paradise meant the locality in\nHades to which the blessed dead were received.\"\n\nAgain: \"St. Peter not only assures us that Christ descended into Hades,\nbut also tells us why He went thither, 'Because Christ also suffered for\nsins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that He might bring us to\nGod; being put to death in the flesh, but quickened in the spirit,' in\nwhich he also went and preached to the spirits in prison.\"\n\nAgain: \"Again 'For unto this end was the gospel preached even to the\ndead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live\naccording to God in the spirit,'\"\n\nAgain: \"These passages of Scripture, as well as the whole drift of the\nNew Testament, make plain the important truth that the great work which\nour Saviour prosecuted on earth He continued also in Hades. His\nincarnation and full union with us, in our earthly, mortal life,\ninvolved Him in a similar revelation to the dead, according to their\naltered conditions and environment. What He did for our earthly life He\ndid for them there in full harmony with the changed circumstances of\ntheir post-mundane form of existence.\"\n\nAgain: \"By His descent into Hades,\" says Martensen, \"Christ revealed\nHimself as the Redeemer of all souls.\"\n\nOnce more: \"The descent into the realm of the dead gave expression to\nthe truth, that the distinctions Here and There--the limits of\nspace--are of no significance regarding Christ, and do not concern His\nkingdom. No powers of nature, no limits of space or of time, can hinder\nChrist from finding His way to souls. His kingdom has extended even into\nthe region of the dead, and still includes that region; and the\ndistinctions of living and dead, of earlier and later generations of\nmen, of times of ignorance and times of knowledge, possess but a\ntransient significance.\"\n\nIn confirmation of these views, I would add one consideration of rather\nan abstract character. When our Saviour died on the cross, why did He\nnot revive at once? Instead of that we know that He waited until the\nthird day. I have no doubt that one reason was, that He intended that\nall believers in Him might have a conclusive proof that He had really\ndied and revived. But one other reason may have been this, that He\nintended to visit the spirits in prison, and in order to be en rapport\nwith them, He needed to go in the spirit. They were in the spirit; and\nfor Him to go to them in a human body would have been to interpose an\neffectual barrier between Himself and them. If they are somewhere in the\nspirit world, a spirit body alone could reach them.\n\n\n\n\nX.\n\n\nDIVINE LOVE.\n\nInfinite Being and Perfection--Grades of Being--Variety--Man's\nLimitations--Moral Beings--Hopeless Surroundings--All Are Children of\nGod--Righting the Wrongs of Time--\"The Heart of the Universe is Love\"\n--Eternal Conscious Torment Incredible--Conquering Power of Love\n--Eternal Purpose Will Not Fail--Omnipotence in the Moral Realm--The\nDivine Expression of Love--Universal Atonement Involves Universal\nSalvation--Final Success of God's Designs--Will Evil Necessarily\nPerpetuate itself?--Triumph of Good Over Evil--Few Stripes or Many\n--Reformatory Punishment--Bringing Good out of Evil--Possibilities of\nRedeeming Grace--The Ransomed of the Lord--Wrath but the Shadow of\nLove--Former Eternity of Sinlessness--Wrath no Constituent of the Divine\nCharacter--Pity and Indignation.\n\n\nThere can be no mistake here. The Scripture declares, again and again\nthat God is Love. Also, the Scripture is clear in regard to His\ninfinity. In fact our reason would almost carry us so far. For if all\nthings had a Creator, that Creator must have had no beginning. But we\ntake it that God will be freely conceded to be infinite in His being,\nand in the qualities of His character.\n\nHe is infinite then in His love. Being infinite in His being, He could\nbe no less than infinite in His love. That surely means that He loves\nevery being that He has made. Will He not therefore do the most and best\nthat is possible to be done for each one of His creatures? To be sure,\nthere are grades of being. Some have a larger capacity than others. We\nknow of no law by which love would impel the Creator to create all\nbeings alike. No, there is a law of variety which we shall consider\nlater; and that accounts for beings of different function, capacity,\nsurroundings, employment, and so on. At the same time, is it not safe to\ninfer that there is a possible maximum of happiness which every being\nhas attained, or will attain, under a government of divine love?\n\nOf course there may be limitations. Man has been made a free being. He\nmay therefore limit his own possibilities. He may deliberately choose to\ndo wrong. Thus he may impose a limitation on himself. In one sense this\nmay be considered a great misfortune. But how else could a moral being\nbe created? We cannot conceive of any other way. If we had not been\ncreated moral beings, we could never rise to anything worth while. God\nwanted to make the most and the best of us. But with that possibility of\nrising there was also the possibility of falling. Therefore, so far as\nthat consideration is concerned, our creation, on this human status,\nwas an expression of infinite love.\n\nBut then, the present is a state of discipline. Since sin has come in,\nand so marred our perfection and happiness, it has been ordained that\nthe present life will be a preparation for a better future life.\nTherefore our present sinful limitations are not finally disastrous.\nThey may be even turned to benedictions. Instances are not wanting where\nuntold suffering has issued in great moral perfection, with a\ncorresponding high place in the world beyond. Such considerations as\nthese show clearly that our creation, even though we are fallen, was an\nact of infinite love.\n\nYes, but what about the untold millions who do not turn their present\nsuffering to good account? Especially what about the uncounted millions\nof heathen? Many of them were born into conditions of utter\nhopelessness; their surroundings were of the worst; it would be utterly\nfutile to expect that their present life could be a preparation for\nfinal blessedness.\n\nNow is it to be supposed for a moment that God does not love every\nheathen just as He loves every Christian? Surely, they are all His\nchildren, and He loves every one of them with a Father's love. Then what\nabout the other millions that live in Christian lands who have no idea\nof making the present life a preparation for the future? Are they not\nall equally dear to Him? Let us rise above all insular, mean, petty love\nof our own, and think of the love of God--impartial, free, infinite,\neverlasting! Can it be believed that the few favored ones who have lived\nin certain surroundings, and who thus have come to hear and heed the\nmessage of salvation, are destined for everlasting bliss; while all\nothers, naturally no worse than they, are consigned to everlasting woe?\nAre these few fleeting years, and circumstances which we had little or\nno hand in forming, charged with such eternal possibilities? Yet we\nprofess to believe that God rules, and that He loves every one of His\ncreatures with an everlasting love!\n\nSurely every candid mind and every human heart will repel such a\npossibility as their final extinction or damnation. And when we realize\nthat God has all eternity to right the wrongs of time, we begin to\nrealize that the present is but one epoch of His administration.\n\nI have just read these words of an orthodox divine: \"The heart of the\nuniverse is love.\" Yes, that is the language of the heart in its best\nmoods, whatever our creed may be. And the heart will sometimes speak its\nconviction strongly. It does seem that orthodox divines at times forget\nthat according to their belief God consigns untold millions of His\ncreatures to eternal fire. Yet surely He is \"the heart of the\nuniverse;\" and \"the heart of the universe is love.\" Does it not seem\nthe blackest of contradictions?\n\nAnd when we think of His wisdom to arrange, and His power to execute, it\ndoes seem hard to believe that eternal conscious torment will be the\nfate of any of His creatures. We may see but a short way into the whole\nscheme of the divine administration; but the heart will refuse to\nbelieve in such a paradox.\n\n\"Omnia vincet amor\"--love conquers all things. We accept that as a\nproverb even in this selfish and cruel world. Yes, and despite all\nhindrances, we often see love's triumphs. When everything else fails,\nlove will win. And is it to be conceived that God, Who is Love\nPersonified, will not win? Yes; if we knew nothing more than the general\nprinciple, we might make a confident forecast that He will not fail. But\nhow overwhelming is our conviction when we see infinite love joined with\ninfinite wisdom and infinite power! What will not this triumvirate of\ninfinites accomplish?\n\nWe may be told that sin is an infinite evil, and that even infinite love\ncannot conquer it. We refuse to believe it. God is omnipotent in the\nmoral, as well as in the material realm. Surely His infinite love will\nincline Him, His infinite wisdom will show Him how, and His infinite\npower will accomplish His desire.\n\nNow again: The advocates of eternal torment will freely grant that God\nloves every soul that He has made. They will also concede that He is\nomniscient. Very well. Then He must have known that the millions of\nbeings, now supposed to be in torment, were coming into the world; and\nHe must have known that there was no possible way for them to avert\ntheir doom. And though He loved each of them with an infinite love, He\nmade no way of escape, but consigned them to eternal torment. Foreseeing\nin His omniscience that all this would happen, He did not intercept\ntheir coming, which He could easily have done; nor did He provide any\nmeans of escape.\n\nIs this the way infinite love, joined with divine foreknowledge, would\nact? Do not say that the matter is too high for us to understand. Even\non a human plane we would expect a more beneficent result. How much more\nin the case of Him who foresees and arranges all contingencies, and\nwhose love is from everlasting to everlasting. Do not such\nconsiderations as these absolutely prohibit the idea of endless\nsuffering? Just take counsel with your own heart and mind.\n\nAgain, it is written that \"God so loved the world that He gave His only\nbegotten Son.\" Now if He loved the world, He loved every individual in\nthe world. He loves every soul of the human race. Not color, nor\nclimate, nor civilization, nor any special epoch of the world's\nhistory, can make any restriction.\n\nNow if God loved the world, He expressed His love for the world; and how\ndid He express it? By giving his Son. Then He must have given His Son\nfor every soul of man. It would be no expression of His love for me to\ngive His Son for somebody else. But He loved me personally, and gave His\nSon for me personally. Hence Paul could say: \"He loved me, and gave\nHimself for me.\" And so everyone of the human race may truly say.\n\n\nA THEORY.\n\nGenerality here tends to confusion and mistakes. It has been too much\nthe habit to think and speak of God as giving His Son for the world, and\nyet holding a reserved and unexpressed idea that He gave His Son only\nfor the saved. Such an idea is not often expressed publicly, and I\nbelieve is not held heartily, But it is formally professed; it is theory\nin a certain creed. Not only so, but it is felt that universal atonement\ninvolves universal salvation; and that is an issue which in many cases\nmen are not prepared to accept In fact many plain statements of\nScripture are twisted and tortured out of their plain meaning,\napparently to avoid the issue of universal salvation.\n\nBut let universal salvation be once granted, and all difficulty\ndisappears. Then the plain statements of Scripture do not need to be\nmodified, or explained away. Then all may freely accept the corollary\nthat universal atonement involves universal salvation; only in a far\nlarger sense than believed heretofore. We take in eternity now, as well\nas the small span of time. We begin to realize that the sweep of the\neternal years makes no difference in the divine love or the divine\npurpose. In God's administration of the universe there may be good\nreasons for saving some of our race in this life; and some in the next;\nbut the principle is the same; infinite wisdom, infinite power, and\ninfinite love, will not fail of their purpose.\n\nIt is this belief in the final success of God's designs that gives us\nthe assurance of ultimate Restoration. For if God loves the world--that\nis, every soul in the world--and if He gave His Son for the Salvation of\nthe world--and if the sacrifice of the Son is sufficient for the\nsalvation of the world--then we may be sure that infinite wisdom, love,\nand power will find a way of attaining the end in view. Somehow--some\ntime--somewhere--the divine purpose will be accomplished.\n\nI am fortified in this view by the words of an eminent Presbyterian\ndivine that I have just chanced to meet with. He says: \"God infallibly\naccomplishes everything at which He aims.\" I take that principle in a\nwider application than he intended; and taking it so, it is a strong\nargument for ultimate Restoration.\n\n\nA SERIOUS DEPARTURE.\n\nJust apply that principle to the theory of everlasting torment. Is it to\nbe supposed that God really \"aims\" at that, and that hence He\n\"infallibly accomplishes\" it? It is almost blasphemy to think so. Yet\nthat is the idea that has been held to be orthodox, and any apparent\nswerving from it has been treated as a serious departure from the faith.\nBut men's hearts are sometimes better than their heads; hence we hear\nlittle now of eternal torment.\n\nAnd the heart is a good place for a reform in doctrine to begin. When\nthese larger ideas simmer for a while in men's hearts, they will\ngradually find expression on their tongues. There are many men who feel\nthe truth now that they will speak bye and bye. There is at present a\nfear, and a natural fear, of being disloyal to orthodoxy: but I believe\nthe truth will come triumphantly to the front later on. There is a stage\nof silence, and there is a stage of speech. Meantime I plead for\ntoleration; that is as much as can be expected now. It is well if we\nhave advanced so far. Not long ago there was persecution.\n\nTo all this it may be objected that if men remain obdurate in this\nlife, withstanding all the overtures of mercy that are addressed to\nthem, is it not likely that they will remain so for ever? This is a\nserious question. Let us seriously consider it.\n\n\nEVEN IF THEY ARE FAVORED.\n\nRoughly, there are two classes of men to be recognized. First there are\nthose who have sat under the Gospel for years, but who have not yielded\nto its claims. The question is, Will they ever yield, even if they are\nfavored with another opportunity? Will not the habit of their life\nculminate in an eternal refusal?\n\nSome think it will. My old minister used to say that it is the nature of\nevil to perpetuate itself. Hence it was argued that grace refused here\nwill be always refused, even though it were offered. It was argued that\nthe increased evil character which will come to a wicked man on entering\nthe next life, together with the evil influences and surroundings of\nthat life, will so absolutely steel him against all good that he will\ninevitably go on from bad to worse for ever. Hence the eternity of\nsuffering.\n\nTo my mind, all this is only theory. We really know very little of the\nnext life. The influences that may be used for reformation may really be\noverpowering. Just think how it has fared with this world of ours since\nthe introduction of evil. Has evil perpetuated itself? Or will it\nperpetuate itself? No! the very opposite has been the case, and will be\nthe case. A scheme of redemption above all human thought has been\nenacted here, by which the world has in part regained the innocence that\nif lost, and is destined to regain it fully.\n\nNo one could have foreseen this. We can imagine some sinless world,\ncognizant of the evil that had entered here, forecasting our eternal\ndoom. They might reason that evil would perpetuate itself, and that\ntherefore there could be nothing in store for us but eternal sin and\nsuffering. They did not know the provision that was to be made for our\nredemption; hence their conclusion would be all wrong.\n\n\nTRIUMPH OF GOOD OVER EVIL.\n\nIt may just be so in our forecasts of the next life. In fact there is\nmore likelihood of the triumph of good over evil in the next life than\nthere could have been originally in this. And why? Because we know that\na ransom has not to be provided, but that it is provided. We also know\nthat it has been provided at a fearful cost, and we know that the glory\nof God is to a large extent bound up in its success. Moreover, we know\nthat Christ is yet to see of the travail of His soul, and be satisfied.\nAnd will anything less satisfy Him than the salvation of every one for\nwhom He died? He has said, too, that He will draw all men to Himself. It\nis plain that He does not draw all men in this life; will He not then\ndraw them in the next life? Therefore I think it is not too much to say\nthat so far as we know, there does seem a greater probability of grace\ntriumphing over sin in the next life than there was antecedently in the\npresent life. What a door of hope is thus opened for our lost race!\n\nI recall another passage of wonderful import in this connection. Our\nLord said: \"That servant which knew his lord's will, and prepared not\nhimself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many\nstripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes,\nshall be beaten with few stripes.\"\n\nNow it is very dear that in thousands of cases those words are not\nfulfilled in this life. There are atrociously wicked men who are not\nbeaten with any, not to say many, stripes. That was the Psalmist's\ntrouble. He saw that the ungodly prospered. He said that they were not\nin trouble as other men, nor plagued as other men. He said that they had\nmore than heart could wish. Plainly, the threatening was not executed\nupon them in the present life. If the words are to come true at all,\nthey must be fulfilled in the next life. It is one of many passages that\nrequire our purview to be extended into the future life to understand\nthem. But if the words are to be fulfilled in the next life, must not\ntheir fulfillment be conditioned on the theory of Restoration? Suppose\nthere is extinction at death. How could any stripes be laid on a man who\nis extinct? Does not that consideration settle the idea of extinction?\n\nAnd what about endless torment? Certainly many stripes are laid on the\nman in endless torment. But what about the man who is to be beaten with\nfew stripes? Would it be possible to conceive of endless torment as\nbeing only a few stripes? To be sure, there might be degrees of torment;\nand the man in a mild degree of suffering would not suffer so much as\nthe man in an intense degree. But then, the suffering is to be for ever\nand ever. It is to be an eternity of suffering. In that case, the\nsuffering might be reduced to the mildest form of discomfort; but as it\nis to be eternal in duration, the sum total of it would be infinite.\nCould any stretch of imagination conceive of such suffering being only a\nfew stripes? It does seem to me that both the theory of extinction, and\nthat of torment, utterly break down under that test.\n\nBut how natural and reasonable is the statement on the theory of\nRestoration. In that case the words come literally true. We can well\nbelieve that atrocious sinners have terrible pains and penalties before\nthey repent, and are redeemed. On the other hand, we can imagine that\nsins of a milder type, especially sins of ignorance, will call for but\nfew stripes. We would go further, and believe that in the case of\nadvanced Christians, there will be only such suffering as is inseparable\nfrom the discovery of mistakes, and consequent development.\n\nIn the case of all suffering, of whatever degree, we believe that it\nwill be rather of a reformatory, than of a punitive character. Suffering\nmay or may not be proportionate to sin. The idea is this, that, when it\nhas accomplished the reformation of the sinner it will cease.\n\nThus the statement of our Lord will find its due fulfillment. It is one\nof many statements which can be explained only on the basis of its\napplication to the next life. But when we give such statements their\ntrue application, they require no forcing to make them seem natural and\nreasonable.\n\nFurther, I think it is fair to imagine, as we said before, that the\nsuffering induced by sin will be an object lesson to all eternity of the\nevil of sin. Possibly it may be an infallible safeguard against sin in\nevery form. This would be an expansion of the principle that God brings\ngood out of evil; and it would be the grandest expansion of that\nprinciple that we can conceive.\n\nWhen we put all these considerations together, and when we add to them\nthe further consideration that God's love is from everlasting to\neverlasting, we begin to see wonderful possibilities of redeeming grace.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAlong the same line, take as an illustration the salvation of particular\nindividuals. We see what has been enacted in the case of a lost world.\nNow take the case of one lost soul; and the matter may become a\nlittle clearer.\n\n\nNOT ASKED TO SURRENDER.\n\nTake the case of Saul of Tarsus. I have referred to him elsewhere as a\nman who went as far as man could go in crime. But he was arrested and\nsaved in a moment. And mark you, he was not coerced. No violence was\ndone to his perfect freedom. Every man is free; that is his birthright;\nin Saul's case he was not asked to surrender an iota of it. Yet by some\nmysterious divine power he changed in a moment of time. Henceforth he\nwas a new man, with a new heart, new ideals, new hopes, new ambitions,\na new life.\n\nNow what I contend is, that the power and grace that could so radically\nand so quickly change a man like that, is not to be limited to this\nlittle span of life, nor to the most incorrigible transgression. What\nare a few years of time to Him whose power, whose presence, whose love,\nfill all eternity? I imagine that He who knew how to convert Saul in a\nmoment, can convert the most abandoned of mankind.\n\nThen, as I said, there is another class of men to be considered. I mean\nthe heathen, and all those who never had the means of knowing the way of\nlife. What about the untold millions that passed away in the darkness?\nWill not the grace and power that redeemed such a man as Saul be\navailable in their case? Yes! we think that--judged by the highest\nstandards we know--there would be far more mercy for them, and the work\nof saving them would be a thousand fold easier. But we are dealing here\nwith power and love that are infinite. No doubt the sin that has to be\novercome is great; but we believe it will come true again that \"where\nsin abounded, grace did much more abound.\" After all, it is infinite\ngrace against human sin. In such a case, it is not hard to forecast\nwhich will win the day. God will evermore be triumphant.\n\nO yes! the ransomed of the Lord will come home at last. What a day it\nwill be when they will come to Zion with songs! The old prophecy will\nthen have its complete fulfillment: \"They shall obtain joy and gladness,\nand sorrow and sighing shall flee away.\"\n\nThough I lay so much stress on the omnipotence of divine love, I do not\nforget that divine wrath must be reckoned with as well. \"God is angry\nwith sinners every day.\" \"Tribulation, and anguish upon every soul of\nman that doeth evil.\" \"Our God is consuming fire.\" But the essential\nthing is love. \"God is love.\" It is a constituent of His character.\nThat could not be said of wrath. It is but the dark shadow of love. In a\nstate of innocence it could not exist. When sin is done away, wrath will\nbe seen no more.\n\nIf we only go back far enough in our thought we will certainly come to a\ntime when divine wrath could not exist. Go back to the time before the\nangels sinned. Go back to the time before there was sin of any kind in\nall God's universe. But mark, no matter how far that takes you\nback--there was an eternity of sinlessness before it. Yes; an eternity\nof sinlessness. There was no wrath then. It could not exist. Therefore\nwe could not say that it was a constituent of the divine character. No;\nbut it was a potentiality of the divine character. It could have no\nexistence until sin appeared. But love is from everlasting. It is by far\nthe mightier attribute. It is of the very essence of God. United with\ninfinite wisdom and power, we would expect it to have the final victory.\n\n\nSTERN FOR THE MOMENT.\n\nEven when there is divine wrath, there is infinite love blended and\nmingled with it. We shall see this as in a picture if we look at that\nscene in the life of Christ when He healed a certain man in the\nSynagogue. It was the Sabbath day. Knowing the hardness and hypocrisy\nof those present, He flung out this challenge--\"Is it right to do good\non the Sabbath day?\" They could make no answer without committing\nthemselves. Then we read that Christ \"looked round about them with\nindignation.\" Ah, but listen. It is added immediately that he \"was\ngrieved for the hardness of their hearts.\" His face that was stern for\nthe moment was strangely softened. O yes; love was ever behind His\nwrath. His indignation was never far removed from tears. And so God can\nbe angry with sinners, at the same time that He loves them with an\neverlasting love.\n\nWe see the same union of pity with indignation in that scene where\nChrist wept over the sinful city. He had to weep tears of pity over the\nnation's coming doom; yes, but He could pronounce that doom; and in His\nwonderful providence He could even arrange for effecting it. So I do not\noverlook the fact that we have manifestations of divine wrath, as well\nas divine love; yes, fiery indignation as well as tender compassion. But\nlet us not forget that love is the positive, essential, eternal\nattribute; and it would be strange indeed if it is not finally\nvictorious.\n\nYou may bring this idea of the union of love and indignation close home\nto yourself. We will suppose that you are a father, and that a son of\nyours has turned out to be a prodigal. He has gone away from home, bent\non a course of crime. Will you not have alternations of love and\nindignation? Yes, you will sigh and pine for his return; and you will\nhave righteous anger at times over his evil course. And if the son\nrepents, and one day comes home again, will you not receive him with\njoy? O yes, you will run to meet him, like the father in the\nGospel story.\n\nAnd do you think that your love is more enduring than God's? Are not we\nall His children, though we have strayed away from Him? Does He not look\nand long for our return? O yes; and He will accomplish it. The\ndifference is, that He has all power, and He has ways and means of\nattaining His ends. Let us be assured that \"His counsel will stand, and\nHe will do all His pleasure.\"\n\nIn this connection there is a very important consideration. It is\nthis--that no design of God can ultimately fail. We read that He\n\"willeth not the death of a sinner.\" We read that He \"desires all men to\nbe saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.\" Have we ever\nstopped to think how unlikely it is that the Infinite One has any desire\nwhich He cannot accomplish? If any of His creatures are consigned to\neternal torment, and if He wishes, as He says He does, to save them from\nthat fate, does He not desire what He cannot accomplish? Remember that\nhe has all moral as well as all physical power; remember that his love\nwill impel Him to use His power; remember that in His infinite wisdom He\nknows how; and it will be seen that He has no design which He cannot\neffect. Just ponder this idea for a while before you go farther.\n\nI was revolving this thought in my mind when I chanced to meet with, a\nvery terse expression of it. I have already quoted an eminent divine who\nsaid: \"God infallibly accomplishes everything at which He aims.\" The\ntheologian did not think that his dictum would be given such a wide\napplication. But it commends itself to our judgment nevertheless, be the\napplication what it may. The same thought was differently expressed\nrecently, from a scientific point of view. Sir Oliver Lodge said in a\nrecent lecture: \"The Creator of the Universe is not going to be\nfrustrated by the insignificant efforts of His own creatures.\"\n\n\nON A LARGE SCALE.\n\nIn the light of this fact sin appears but an episode in eternal\nprovidence; and we can conceive that it is permitted for a time, for the\nrealization of a greater good. It is but an expansion of the\nacknowledged principle that God brings good out of evil. Sin is not the\nnormal condition of the universe. It is abnormal, and in time will give\nway to normal conditions. We are accustomed to believe in this principle\non a small scale; but if we accustom ourselves to regard the same\nprinciple or a large scale it will not be difficult to believe that sin\nwill ultimately be done away. In the history of eternity, we can imagine\nit to be but a transient circumstance, like a fleck of cloud in a summer\nsky; and even that fleck will disappear.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nJust now, since writing these lines, I have had a very singular\nexperience. A gentleman had written me a year ago in warm appreciation\nof my books. But I did not meet with him until a few days ago. In our\nconversation he told me that on reading a certain passage--he quoted the\npassage--be was so overpowered that he fell backward in a kind of swoon\nor trance. Then he was struck by something like a spark of fire. His\nimpulse was to cry out, but he restrained himself, and had such a vision\nof the love of God that he wept, and wept, and wept, in an ecstasy of\njoy. Indeed he was overcome when he told me the story. And this man is\nno weakling, by any means. He is a strong man, physically,\nintellectually, and spiritually. When I realized that I could be used to\nproduce an effect like that, I was filled with wonder, and love,\nand praise.\n\nNow I hesitated about giving this experience, for to some it may look\nlike egotism. But it may be taken on a higher ground. I would like to\nask: Is it conceivable that such divine love, united with divine wisdom,\nand divine power, has no better way of disposing of the great majority\nof the human race than consigning them to everlasting torment? And more\nthan that; each one of these myriads is God's own child, as\ntruly--perhaps more intimately--than our children are our own. I say, is\nit conceivable that he has nothing better for them in store? Except our\nmind and heart have been utterly warped by traditional views, surely we\nwill refuse to believe it.\n\n\n\n\nXI.\n\n\nTHE ATONEMENT.\n\nExtent of the Atonement--The Dilemma of Universal Atonement and Partial\nSalvation--Human Systems of Truth--Methodist Theology--Tradition and\nReason--Dr. Dale's View--No Divine Failure--Imperfection of All\nTheological Systems--\"Sufficient but not Efficient\"--Undeveloped\nPossibilities--The Angel in the Apocalypse--Omnipotence Both in the\nPhysical and the Moral Realm--The Short Epoch of Time--Advance of the\nPresbyterian Church in the United States--Individual Congregations\n--Hardening Effects of the Narrower View--The Softening Influence of\nDreams--Divine Capacity of Suffering--Persistence of What is Good--Good\nMen Who Are Not Christians--Insanity--Blind Tom.\n\n\nIn this larger view all difficulty disappears in regard to the extent of\nthe Atonement. Sometime ago men had little conception of the operation\nof saving grace beyond this life. It was believed that every man fixed\nhis eternal destiny here and now. But then there would arise in\nthoughtful minds a difficulty about the extent of the Atonement. To a\ncandid mind it was manifestly universal. The statements of Scripture are\nfull and clear on that point, yet it would appear very strange that\nthere would be universal Atonement, but not universal salvation. Would\nnot that look very like a failure of the divine plan? If Christ gave\nHimself for the sins of the world, would not the sins of the world be\nput away? If He is called the Saviour of the world, is He so only in\nname, and not in fact?\n\nBut clearly, all the world was not saved. Here was the dilemma. The\ndifficulty was, to square universal Atonement with partial salvation. So\nthe difficulty was solved by one party in adopting the theory of a\nlimited Atonement, and so that doctrine became a cardinal plank in the\nCalvinistic theology. It could not be conceived of as a possibility that\nGod would make provision for the salvation of the whole world, and thus\nexpress His desire for the salvation of the whole world, yet that His\nprovision and His desire should fail of their effect.\n\nSurely this was right. But it was not right to ignore the plain teaching\nof Scripture for the sake of building up any human system. It would have\nbeen better to accept the clear statements of the word, contradictory\nthough they might appear, and trust that some day divine harmony would\nbe revealed.\n\nThat revelation has come now. The harmony consists in the fact that all\nthe world will be redeemed yet, in accordance with the provision that\nGod made for, and desires, such a consummation. The difference is, that\nthe operations of divine grace are not restricted to this short span of\ntime, as men supposed. But the time will come! Oh, yes; it will come! If\nChrist tasted death for every man, He will save every man! Praise His\nname forever! The very thought is enough to awaken our everlasting\nsongs!\n\nHerein consists, as it seems to me, the weakness of the Methodist\ntheology. In that Communion it is believed that the Atonement is\nuniversal, but that salvation is not universal. Thus the divine\nintention is supposed to fail of its effect. So I think it would appear\nto any mind untrammelled by tradition.\n\nBut putting tradition aside, what does reason say? And what do our\nhighest thoughts of divine love, and power, and purpose say? Are not our\nbest ideas of fitness in accord with the view that Atonement and\nSalvation are co-extensive? When we once receive the idea that divine\nlove and power have no petty restrictions of place or time, will we not\naccept the larger theory? And this one conception will transform and\ntransfigure all our thoughts of redemption. I wish some of our Methodist\nbrethren would look into this matter candidly, and say if I am\nnot right.\n\nThus the Calvinists made one mistake, and the Arminians made another. If\nboth would now adopt the larger view, that one idea would compose nearly\nall their differences, and unite them in a bond which our fathers never\ndreamed of. Would it be too much to hope for that? I suppose it would,\njust at present. But the spirit of unity is here, and I believe that\nsome day it will embody itself in form.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI quote elsewhere the saying of an orthodox divine that \"God infallibly\naccomplishes everything at which He aims.\" Then what does He \"aim\" at?\nDr. R. W. Dale tells us. He says: \"Every man bears the image of God, and\nwas created to abide in the Home of God.\" Is not that direct and clear?\n\"Every man was created to abide in the Home of God.\" That was God's aim.\nBut is it \"accomplished?\" The orthodox view is that it is not. According\nto that view there are untold millions of men who will never see \"the\nHome of God.\" Here is a manifest contradiction. Surely if \"every man was\ncreated to abide in God's home,\" and if every purpose of God will\ninfallibly be accomplished, there is salvation for the whole race.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThis question has a very direct bearing on the idea of Restoration. An\nimportant section of the church believes that whoever is atoned for will\ninfallibly be saved; and no others. But as all men are not saved, to be\nlogical the framers of that system inferred that the Atonement is\nlimited in its extent. They had no idea of the Atonement operating\nbeyond this life; so their theory necessarily consigned the majority of\nthe human race to everlasting torment.\n\nWhat a pity it was that they had not the larger view. Then there would\nhave been no logical need to limit the Scriptural idea of Atonement. In\nthat case, they would have to admit on their own ground that the\nAtonement issues in the salvation of the whole race. But their system of\ndoctrine was logically welded together by a number of propositions; and\nnot one of these propositions could be omitted without dissolving the\nwhole structure. So the limited Atonement idea was adopted as a\nnecessity; and I suppose men schooled themselves to believe it was\nScriptural.\n\nAs a matter of fact, however, and to a mind not biased by any previous\nopinion, the Universality of the Atonement is taught in Scripture with\nabsolute clearness. So much is this the case that the doctrine is\nregularly preached in most if not all Evangelical Churches to-day, even\nin those which deny it in their creed. And if the question were put to\nthe people generally, both lay and clerical of all churches, and a\ncandid spontaneous answer required, there is no doubt that an\noverwhelming majority--perhaps a thousand to one--would say that Christ\ndied for the whole race. We ought to take warning, then, not to make our\nsystems of theology too complete, realizing how little we know as yet of\nGod's works and ways.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBut now, if we take the framers of that system on their own ground, what\nis the result? They believed that the Atonement would issue in\nsalvation for every one for whom it was intended. That is not a\nfar-fetched idea, by any means. It is only saying that God will\naccomplish that which He intended. A universal Atonement will therefore\nmean universal salvation. Certainly that is not attained in the present\nlife; therefore it will be attained in the life to come. It is a strong\nargument for universal salvation.\n\nIf only this larger view had broken on men's vision there would have\nbeen no difficulty. But the \"due time\" for such a revelation had not\ncome. It was no fault of our fathers, therefore, that they could not see\nthat which was not as yet revealed. The only fault was, that they tried\nto make their theological system too perfect. The fact is, that it is\nnot for us to make any theological system perfect. New light may come,\nand cause us to re-arrange or enlarge our ideas. \"O the depth of the\nriches, both of the wisdom and knowledge, of God!\"\n\nAnother argument for the ultimate salvation of all, is this: that Christ\nidentifies Himself with the suffering and the unfortunate of the whole\nrace. It will be remembered that in the last judgment He is supposed to\nsay, \"I was hungry, and ye fed me; I was thirsty and ye gave me drink;\"\nand so on. Then he explains: \"Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of the\nleast of these my brethren, ye did it unto me.\" You observe that He\nmakes no distinction between those whom He atoned for, and those for\nwhom he did not. He includes all the unfortunate of the whole race, even\nthe criminals who were in prison. He identifies Himself with them every\none. And if He does, is it to be supposed that He died for only some of\nthem? How could He identify Himself with those for whom He had not\natoned, and for whom there could not be any salvation? It is said that\nHis Atonement is \"sufficient\" for all; yet on the theory of a limited\nAtonement it is claimed that it is not \"efficient\" for all. But whether\nit be \"sufficient\" or \"efficient,\" our Lord makes no difference. How\ncould He so utterly and so tenderly ally Himself with any for whom He\nhad not provided the possibility of salvation--a salvation admittedly\n\"sufficient\" for all? The inevitable presumption is, that He atoned for\nthem every one, and so could identify Himself with them every one.\n\nIt is therefore reasonable to conclude that salvation is provided for\neach one of them; and that if they do not attain to it in this life,\nthey will in the next. That may appear a vast problem to us whose views\nof time and space are so limited; but it may be easy to Him to whom the\nwhole span of time is but a passing epoch in the everlasting years.\n\nApart from this somewhat legal aspect of the case, there is another\naspect of it which must appeal with great force to every reflective\nmind. I mean the undeveloped possibilities stored up in every human\nsoul. We may sink so low as to appear but as dull clods; but the glory\nof man is the potentiality within him, capable, it would seem, of\neverlasting development.\n\nWitness that \"angel\" who conducted St. John through the world of bliss,\nand explained to him the meaning of the wonderful scenes that were\nwitnessed. So glorious was that \"angel\" in form, and so vast in\nknowledge, that John fell down at his feet to worship him. Then it\nturned out that the \"angel\" was just a man. He said he was one of the\nprophets. Perhaps he was Moses or Isaiah or Ezekiel, or some one of the\nwriters of the Old Testament. They lived in a very primitive age. But\nsee this prophet now. In a few centuries he has been developed to\namazing heights of knowledge and blessedness. And we may well believe\nthat such a process of development will go on to all eternity.\n\nNow are we to believe that God has created such possibility of\ndevelopment; yet that it will issue in a single case in utter failure?\nUtter failure! No; not merely utter failure, but a fate ten thousand\ntimes worse than that. For endless torment would mean the development of\nall possible evil to all eternity. Are we prepared to say that such will\nbe the issue in a single instance, of God's wise, and powerful, and\nrighteous administration? Surely, surely, there will be no\nsuch failure.\n\nWe cited elsewhere that it is the law of the universe that what is good\nwill endure. But here we have not merely a contravention of that law,\nbut an utter and everlasting breakdown of the divine administration. In\na universe where God rules in wisdom, in righteousness, and in love; and\nwhere moreover He is possessed of all power, not only physical but\nmoral, it seems almost blasphemy to think of such failure.\n\nThere is a passage in the Epistle to the Romans that seems to me to put\nthe question beyond doubt. I refer to the fifth chapter. We have there\nthe fulness of salvation set forth in wonderful terms. In particular, we\nhave the doctrine of the Atonement presented in all its divine efficacy.\nAnd you will notice that it is set forth both as to its quality, and\nits extent.\n\nAs to its quality, it is said to be more than sufficient; and as to its\nextent it is represented to be as wide as the human race. As to its\nquality, take these words: \"Where sin abounded grace did much more\nabound.\" As to its extent, take these: \"As by one man's disobedience\nmany were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made\nrighteous.\"\n\nIt seems to me a wonderful thing that these glorious truths were in\nobscurity so long. I suppose it must be due to the fact that the idea\nof a limited Atonement came to be really believed. There was evidently\na limited salvation; must there not then be a limited Atonement? So that\ndoctrine became a necessary part of a certain system of theology; and\nmen clung to it--honestly no doubt--thinking that if that doctrine would\ngo, their whole system of truth would have to go along with it. All\ncredit is thus due to the men who were so tenacious of what they\nbelieved to be the truth.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBut we get larger conceptions as time goes on; and it seems a marvel\nthat we had not such conceptions sooner. Take for instance the word\n\"many\" as it occurs twice in the one sentence that we have quoted. Has\nit not the same meaning in both cases? Both good language and good\nsense--apart from all preconceived opinion--would say that it has. But\nin the one case \"many were made sinners.\" There is no doubt about the\nmeaning of the word there. Certainly the whole race was made sinners.\nThere is no room for controversy on that ground. But then, in the same\nsentence it is declared that \"many shall be made righteous.\" If the word\n\"many\" in the first instance, means the whole race, has it not the same\nsignificance in the second instance? Surely words could not be plainer,\nor more emphatic.\n\nTo be sure, we may not see how such a promise is going to be fullfilled.\nIn earlier times it seemed impossible; nay, a contradiction of what was\npassing before men's eyes every day. Many that were made sinners were\ncertainly not made righteous. But men saw only the first part of God's\nadministration. They had no idea that another part had to come, in which\nthe promise would be fulfilled. So the promise was minimized, and shorn\nof its glorious meaning. Surely, the promise will be fulfilled. God is\nnot restricted to this short epoch of time.\n\nThen in regard to the quality or value of the Atonement, we have a\nwonderful testimony in these words: \"Where sin abounded, grace did much\nmore abound.\" That is, grace was much more than sufficient to put away\nthe sin, universal as it was. So I reverently think the Atonement could\nbe applied effectually to other worlds, if they need it. But passing by\nthat point, for it is a mystery, I would emphasize the fact that the\nAtonement was greater than the sin. And think you, will it fail of\nits effect?\n\nI wish that thoughtful theologians in the Methodist Church would duly\nconsider this. Their theory is, that the Atonement is universal; but\nthey deny universal salvation. Is not that the same as to say that in\nthe case of some, Christ died in vain? But is that possible? If God\nreally desires the salvation of all men, as we know He does; and if He\nhas made provision for the salvation of all men, as He certainly has;\nwill He not somehow and somewhere accomplish His desire? As to the\ndoctrine of falling finally from grace, which Arminians believe, and\nCalvinists deny, on this basis both are right. Suppose that there is a\nfinal falling away in this life, and Restoration in the next, is there\nnot harmony in the highest sense? O yes; in this larger view, there is\nboth falling from grace, and final perseverance.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn fact there is nothing that would unite the Evangelical Churches so\neffectually as a consensus of belief in universal salvation. This may\nseem a startling proposition to those who have not given the subject\nmuch attention; but after all, it is but an expansion of the idea that\nGod's \"counsel will stand, and He will do all His pleasure.\"\n\n\nI TOOK THE LARGER VIEW.\n\nWe are not surprised, therefore, that we have in Scripture such explicit\nstatements as to the universality of the Atonement. I was brought up in\nthat church which is identified with the theory of a limited Atonement.\nAt an early age, however, I took the larger view of the Atonement, and I\nhold that view with increasing conviction now. In fact I do not see how\nthe idea of a limited Atonement ever came to command the assent of\nintelligent men, except that it was found to be necessary as a part of\na preconceived system of theology.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSurely it was a great pity that men thought it necessary in bygone years\nto make their systems of theology so complete. Of course they are\ncomplete in the divine mind. But they cannot be so in ours. We see but a\nshort way into the whole scheme of things. And when men thought that\nGod's plan of grace is restricted to the present life, it is not so\nsurprising that they favored the idea of a limited Atonement. They\nbelieved that air of God's purposes of salvation are realized in this\nlife. But when we realize that God's saving plans extend into the next\nlife, it is not hard to believe in the Atonement being universal. Thus\nwe can take the plain statements of Scripture in their obvious sense,\nwithout twisting them into unison with some preconceived theory.\n\nIn my view we ought to accept the plain statements of the Word of God.\nIf they seem to involve impossibilities, let us wait for further light.\nTo me it seems that universal Atonement involves universal Restoration:\nand that idea solves the whole difficulty.\n\nA noted Professor of Theology once sought to entrap me on that very\npoint. I took a firm stand on the universal theory of the Atonement, He\nwanted to know what that would lead to; evidently hoping to commit me to\nUniversalism. I said that if it was revealed we ought to accept it, no\nmatter what it led to. At that time I had not accepted the idea of\nRestoration, but I strongly believed in the universality of the\nAtonement. Now the idea of Restoration rounds out and completes\nthat view.\n\n\nA SPONTANEOUS ANSWER.\n\nI fully believe that in this matter I do not stand alone. I believe that\nthis same liberal view of the Atonement is held, consciously or\nunconsciously, by the great majority of our ministers and members. If a\nspontaneous answer were asked as to whether Christ died for the whole of\nmankind or a part only, I feel sure that the general response would be\nthat he died for all. And I appeal to you, if that is not your most\ninner and sacred conviction? In your best moods, when all theological\nsubtleties are put aside, can you endure the idea of a limited\nAtonement? I appeal to all men of a candid, progressive mind, if we are\nnot really at one here? Then be faithful to that inner light. It is the\nlight of God.\n\nThis doctrine of universal Atonement was endorsed lately by the American\nPresbyterian Church. In Article VIII of the \"Brief Statement\" adopted by\nthat Church, these words occur: \"For us He fulfilled all righteousness,\nand satisfied eternal justice, offering Himself a perfect sacrifice upon\nthe cross to take away the sin of the world.\" Thus the American Church\nhas moved unto the broader basis of universal Atonement.\n\n\nTHE SPIRIT OF THE LARGER DOCTRINE.\n\nAnd not only has that Church formally taken that position, but the\nspirit of the larger doctrine has so prevailed in the Church for some\nyears past, that individual congregations could take the broader basis\nwithout having their soundness in the faith called in question. In a\nmanual published by the Third Presbyterian Church of Chicago, for\ninstance, the \"Articles of Faith\" of that Congregation are set forth\nunder seven heads. Article III reads thus:--\"We believe that Jesus\nChrist our Mediator is truly God and truly man, and that by His\nsufferings and death on the cross He made Atonement for the sins of the\nworld; so that the offers of salvation are sincerely made to all men,\nand all who repent and believe in Him will be justified and saved.\" That\nexposition of the doctrine entirely accords with my view. It was by mere\naccident I saw this manual; it may be presumed that many other\ncongregations have taken similar ground without challenge.\n\nNot only so, but we have the doctrine of a universal Atonement accepted\nand clearly expressed in the statement of doctrine proposed as a basis\nof union between the Presbyterian, the Methodist and the Congregational\nChurches in Canada, so the orthodox people have cut themselves quite\nloose from their ancient moorings. Here is a marvel indeed. Wedded to\nthe Confession of Faith as the Presbyterian Church has been, at least in\ntheory, that Confession is now ignored. Surely the truth is advancing.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI am glad to see such an explicit statement of this great doctrine. I\ncan only imagine that the compilers of the Canadian Hymn Book forgot for\nthe time their technical theology, and adopted the expression of their\nhearts. For, despite all theology, universal Atonement is the faith of\nthe people. Yes, and it is the faith of the preacher. Since I was a\nchild I never heard a limited Atonement preached; but I have heard a\nuniversal Atonement preached hundreds of times; and no one raises a cry\nat want of orthodoxy.\n\nI am glad, especially, that we have been delivered from the hardening\neffects of the narrower view. In earlier times there were theologians\nwho almost gloated over the damnation of millions of our race. And they\nwere damned--so these theologians thought--simply because they were not\nelected and Christ had not died for them. With the utmost equanimity\northodox divines contemplated their eternal torment. To such hardness\ncan men be brought by a false view, and in the name of religion. So the\nposition of Queen Mary was logical enough from that point of view. When\nshe was asked if she thought it right to burn heretics, she said: \"How\ncan it be wrong for me to burn them for a few minutes, when God Almighty\nis going to burn them for ever?\"\n\nSpeaking of the hardening influence of such views, it is a great joy to\nthink that we shall not always be so callous as we are now. Deep down in\nour souls there is a susceptibility to tenderness that we do not\ngenerally suspect. Sometimes, from no cause that we can see, there\nbreaks on our hearts a ripple of peace like a breath of perfume from\nsome far off land of flowers, or a snatch of melody from some distant\nland of song.\n\nI have the idea that one of the functions of sleep is to arouse this\nlatent tenderness. At all events, we have sometimes a strange tenderness\nin sleep, of which we hardly seem capable in our waking hours. I\nremember one very vivid occasion of this kind. A man whom I had seen but\ntwice--a very common man, with no special attraction--I dreamed of, and\nin my dream I loved him with the utmost intensity. When I suddenly\nawoke, and when I realized that in this life I should likely never see\nhim again, it was almost agony. Many a time I have had such experiences\nin sleep; and I doubt not that so have others. Such experiences do seem\nto be forecasts of the tenderness that we shall yet have for every\nbrother of the human race, when we come to our best. With such feelings,\nhow could we bear the thought that any so dear to us are in\neverlasting torment?\n\nIt may be well to quote here a few passages of Scripture in which the\ndoctrine of universal Atonement is stated with all clearness. It is\nstated again and again without any ambiguity that Christ died for all.\nIt is said that \"He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours\nonly, but also for the sins of the whole world.\" It is said that \"He\ngave Himself a ransom for all,\" It is said that He \"tasted death for\nevery man.\" We read that \"the Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all.\"\n\nThese are but a few of many passages in which the great idea is set\nforth. Language could not be plainer. Jesus died for the sins of the\nwhole race.\n\nNow the question arises: Will He not find some way of redeeming every\nsoul for which He died? Would He die for the world, and then permit any\nof the world to perish? Let us remember that He has ways and means of\novercoming opposition without doing any violence to human freedom. We\ninstanced the conversion of Saul of Tarsus to prove that point. What He\ndid in that case He can do in others.\n\n\nBUT A PASSING EPOCH.\n\nLet us remember that He knew well the magnitude of the task He had\nundertaken. Let us remember that He does nothing in vain. Let us\nremember that His love, and power, and purpose have undergone no change.\nAnd let us remember that this little span of time is but a passing epoch\nin His administration. He can complete in a future age what He commenced\nin this age. Nay, not commenced; for His purpose dates back from the\neternal past. He is \"the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world.\"\n\nWhen we take this larger view, it is not difficult to believe literally\nthat \"His mercy endureth forever,\" and that it will find scope for its\noperation so long as one soul remains in alienation from Him. If you\nhave been brought up to the narrower view, and if you have held that\nview for long years, it may be enlarged in a moment. One flash of divine\nillumination can reveal wonders of redeeming love.\n\nWe might go on at a great length in citing Scripture statements that\nhave really no meaning apart from God's gracious design to men in a\nfuture age. Certainly Scripture is the paramount authority, and some\nwill take it as superior to all reason on a question like this. But\nthere are those who do not accord to Scripture the supreme authority;\nthey rely more on reason and common sense; and I am hopeful they will\nread these remarks. For their sake I will submit some considerations\nfrom reason that may come closer home.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nOne consideration is, that God made a sacrifice of unfathomable depth in\ngiving His Son for the redemption of the race. No one will ever know\nwhat it cost the Father to make that sacrifice. Some theologians believe\nthat God cannot suffer. I wonder where they got that idea. I would ask\nyou: If you are a father and have an only son who has never given you\noffense In thought, word, or deed, but has lived in the most cordial and\nintimate terms with you for many years--could you give that son up to\nuntold agony and death without making a sacrifice?\n\nNow this is what the Father did when He gave up the Son to suffering and\ndeath; only the cordial feeling between the Father and the Son was far\nmore intimate than in our case, and had lasted through a past eternity,\nwhereas ours has endured but a few years.\n\n\nTHE DIVINE IMAGE.\n\nAs to the capacity of suffering in such a case on the part of God, we\ncan judge of that faintly by our own case. We were made in the divine\nimage, and suffer in a human degree as He suffers in a divine degree.\nConceive, then, if you can, the untold suffering of the Father in making\nthat sacrifice. The suffering which the Father endured I believe will\nnever be measured.\n\nThe matter is presented in that way when it is said that God so loved\nthe world that He gave His Son. The word _so_ in that connection would\nhave no meaning if it did not mean sacrifice. I believe it means a depth\nof suffering which no man nor angel has sounded.\n\nNow can it be thought that the Father would make such a sacrifice for\nless than the whole race? If the Atonement was suitable for every one of\nthe race was it not intended for every one? And cannot God make it\neffective for every one? Evidently it is not so now. But all eternity is\nat God's disposal. Can it be imagined that having made a suitable\nprovision for all, He will be content with saving only some?\n\nIn fact I have the idea that God suffered by sympathy with the Son as\nmuch as the Son suffered actually. We can never know in this life if\nthat was really so; but I have the idea that there was such divine\nsympathy between the Father and the Son that they suffered equally. This\nis holy ground; we shall trespass on it no further.\n\nBut do you think the Father will ever be satisfied until every soul for\nwhom Christ died will be saved? He saw the end from the beginning. He is\nnot taken by surprise that so few are saved. Now all eternity is at His\ndisposal. Who can say that in the infinite sweep of His administration,\nwhich relates to other worlds as well as ours, there may not be good\nreasons for saving some of our race in the next life? At all events, His\ncounsel will stand. He will do all His pleasure. The day will come when\nevery prodigal will come home. Then Hallelujah! \"The Lord God omnipotent\nreigneth!\"\n\nAnd so with Christ as well. His sacrifice is the expression of His love,\nand the only adequate expression of it. He loved us, and gave Himself\nfor us. Paul says, \"He loved me, and gave Himself for me.\" So every\nbelieving sinner may say. And in securing the effects of that sacrifice\nHe is not limited to the short era of time. If He had chosen He might\nhave secured the effects of His sacrifice in this age. But for some good\nreason unknown to us, His redeeming activity is exercised in a future\nage. We are not surprised. His administration is from everlasting to\neverlasting.\n\nSuch a consideration does not mitigate, in my view, the Father's\nsolicitude for the salvation of His children now. We almost hear His\nsigh as He says, \"How can I give thee up?\" And again he says, \"O that\nIsrael had hearkened to my commandments!\" And this divine solicitude was\nexpressed in human tears when the Son sobbed over the apostate city: \"O,\nif thou hadst only known in this thy day the things that belong to\nthy peace!\"\n\n\nDESTINED FOR A BETTER WORLD.\n\nI will refer here to one practical difficulty, which is solved by the\ntheory of Restoration. We all know Christian men of whose real goodness\nwe have no doubt whatever. But such a man has often great imperfections.\nThere can be no doubt that he is destined for a better world; but in the\nmeantime he is not fit for it. Such a man, we will say, meets with an\naccident that cuts him off in a moment. The question is, Where does he\ngo? On the old theory he must go either to heaven or to hell. But he is\nreally fit for neither. The work of grace is far from being completed in\nhim, and therefore he is not prepared for the better world. But he has\nthe germ of grace in him, and it is partly developed; therefore he would\nbe out of place in the better world. Then where does he go? The\ndifficulty is settled at once if we suppose that there is a preparatory\nstage of preparation for eternal joy. He will arrive at the goal in due\ntime; but meantime he must have his faults and imperfections pruned\noff. Death will certainly not effect the necessary improvement. All are\nagreed that the fact of dying makes no change in a man's character. Nor\nis there any change usually effected just before death. In many cases\nthere is no opportunity. \"The souls of believers are at their death made\nperfect in holiness.\" So says the Catechism. But there is no evidence of\nit in the case of one who is stricken down suddenly. But suppose there\nis a preparatory stage beyond; then all difficulty disappears.\n\n\nTHRUST INTO NEW CONDITIONS.\n\nNor would it be in harmony with divine operations, so far as we know\nthem, to thrust a frail, human, imperfect spirit into eternal joys so\nsuddenly. He is not prepared for them. He requires a preliminary stage\nof preparation. It is only in harmony with what we know of God's methods\nto believe that such is provided. When a child is born into this world,\nit is not thrust into new conditions suddenly. For a time it is not even\naware that it has entered on new conditions; but it adapts itself\nnaturally and easily to its new surroundings. So it is not easy to\nbelieve that a soul accustomed to the darkness of earth is thrust at\nonce into the blinding glory of heaven. A preliminary stage of\npreparation seems to be necessary; and if it is necessary, it\nis provided.\n\nI raised this difficulty once to an aged minister. At that time I saw\nno solution of it, and I simply wanted information. He studied a moment\nand then said, \"When the flesh is put off, I think many of our sins and\nimperfections will go along with it.\" That was a wise answer, and there\nis a great deal of comfort in it. But it does not fully meet the case.\nThe flesh is a lodging place for many of our sins, and it is a happy\nthing to think that we shall drop these sins when we drop the flesh. But\nthere are sins of the mind too; and these we shall not drop with the\nflesh. They will go with us into the next life. The question is. How\nshall we get rid of them? The idea of Restoration solves all difficulty.\n\nBesides, we believe that nothing that is really good will ever perish\nfrom the universe. In the case we have supposed, the man possessed real\ngoodness; but it was largely goodness in the germ; it needed to be\ndeveloped. It is only congenial with what we know of divine operations\nto believe that what is good will be developed, rather than that it will\ndecay into nothingness. From that point of view a preliminary stage of\nprogress seems to be necessary.\n\nI have just met with a lecture by Sir Oliver Lodge, in which he espouses\nthe same idea in a scientific relation. He quotes from Professor\nHoffding, who agrees with Browning and other poets, that no real value\nor good is ever lost. Sir Oliver Lodge says that \"the law of evolution\nis that good should on the whole increase in the universe, with the\nprocess of the suns.\" He says again, \"Nothing really perishes in the\nuniverse that is worth keeping.\"\n\n\nARTISTIC ACHIEVEMENT.\n\nAnd in this matter he does not confine himself to material things. The\nsame law applies, as he says, to \"personality, beauty, artistic\nachievement, knowledge, unselfish affection\" and so on. So he really\nrises into the domain of the moral and spiritual. Regarded in this\nlight, no incipient goodness acquired in this life will ever die. It\nwill be developed, and in order to its development, there must be some\nmeans of development beyond the bourne of time.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWe might suppose another case that will bring this principle clearly\ninto view. A house has taken fire. The fire has made great headway, and\nthe house is likely to be destroyed. The whole town has gathered\naround--some out of curiosity, others from sympathy. The inmates are\nsupposed to be all rescued. But at length a child appears at one of the\nupper windows. A cry of consternation and of sympathy goes up from the\nwhole throng. How can the child be delivered? The room is lighted by the\nflames. Clearly the time for action is short. The longest available\nladder is placed against the house, but it is a little too short. The\nwhole crowd is in dismay. Must the child perish in the flames? Above the\ncrackling of the fire is heard its piteous cries. Will no one make the\nattempt to save it? The multitude is painfully irresolute; the case\nseems hopeless.\n\n\nFIRM AND QUICK TREAD.\n\nAt length a man starts from the middle of the crowd. He is a common,\nill-clad, laboring man. The grime of his day's work is upon him.\nResolutely he goes forward, pushing the bystanders to the right and\nleft. With firm and quick tread he ascends the ladder. At the top he\nstands for a moment irresolute. Is it possible to reach the window? It\nseems impossible. But he makes a spring for it, and by an almost\nsuperhuman effort he gains it. He rescues the child.; with great risk he\nregains the ladder, and begins the descent. He is nerved by the cheers\nof the crowd; but when about half way down his strength gives way, and\nhe falls. The child escapes all danger, but the rescuer has received\nfatal injuries; his neck is broken.\n\nNow the question is, where does he go? He was not a Christian. The old\ntheology would say that therefore he goes to hell. We cannot believe it.\nWe have enough of the divine image in us yet to revolt at such a\nthought. Then let us beware of extinguishing that divine light in our\nsouls. As Carlyle says, \"Come out of it, all honest men!\"\n\nWe have seen that it is a divine law that what is good will survive.\nThen will the noble qualities in this moral hero have no chance of\nsurvival and development? It is true that he is not a Christian. No; but\nhe is a far better man than many Christians. We would expect therefore\nthat he will be subjected to some process of education by which he will\nrise to the place where he really belongs.\n\n\nEVERY POSSIBLE ARGUMENT.\n\nIf Dr. Adam Clarke had only been imbued with such an idea, he would not\nhave required to labor so hard as he has done in trying to make out a\nhopeful prospect for Judas. With a truly charitable intent he summons\nevery possible argument in support of the idea that Judas was truly\npenitent, and that he was saved in his last hour. He may have been; I do\nnot say. But the idea of Restoration opens a far wider door of hope. In\nthat case, there is no need for far-fetched argument. He will be\nrestored, as the worst criminal of mankind will be. The theory of\nRestoration settles all difficulty.\n\nClosely allied with this case of Judas is the case of all suicides. If\nwe were now holding an inquest on Judas, I suppose our verdict would be\nthat he committed suicide in a fit of temporary insanity. And perhaps he\ndid. At all events it is the most charitable verdict at which we can\narrive. Many suicides in all fairness deserve this mantle of charity.\nAnd there is more than charity in reserve for all such. We believe there\nis an opportunity of development which many of them could not have in\nthis life.\n\nAnd so we may well believe it will be with lunatics. The reasonable view\nis, that they will begin just where they left off. As they are, they are\nnot fit for the better world; and it would be unjust to send them to a\nworld of woe. Some were idiots from their birth, and so have acquired no\nevil propensities of which to be divested. In other cases the idiocy was\nsimply due to a clot on the brain. They have left their bodies behind\nthem now, and the clot too. They simply begin at the point where their\nreason deserted them; and it will come back in due time.\n\nIt is a very nice point to determine where insanity begins. I was\ndiscussing this question lately with the Superintendent of a large\nlunatic asylum. We agreed that, while putting no premium on crime, we\nhave to recognize that in many cases there is no real responsibility\nwhere in general it would be expected. The whole study of lunacy\nstrongly indicates that there is a necessity for a process of\nelimination and development under more favorable conditions than the\npresent life ordinarily supplies. And we may be sure that if there is\nsuch a necessity, it is provided.\n\nIn this connection I think of Blind Tom. He was a very prodigy in music.\nBut apart from that he was a complete idiot, and had been so from his\nbirth. After his death a gentleman who knew him well wrote a sketch of\nhis life. In the noble, concluding words of that article I think we\nwould all heartily join, be our creed what it may. The writer says of\nTom: \"Blind, deformed, and black, as black as Erebus--idiocy, the\nidiocy of a mysterious, perpetual frenzy, the sole companion of his\nwaking visions and his dreams--whence came he, and was he, and\nwherefore? That there was a soul there, be sure, imprisoned, chained, in\nthat little black bosom, released at last; gone to the angels, not to\nimitate the seraph-songs of heaven, but to join the Choir Invisible for\never and for ever.\"\n\nSurely this abnormal gift of the poor idiot is a strong suggestion of\nhis immortality. We refuse to think of that divine spark being quenched\nin everlasting night. And it is almost more impossible to imagine a\nwholly irresponsible being like him, yet endowed with such a divine\ngift, being consigned to endless torment. What remains, then, for him\nbut a part in the better world? Yet he was by no means fit for that\nbetter world. Is there not then almost forced upon us the idea of a\npreliminary stage of education? And if that is so in his case, is it\nnot more or less required in the case of every one of us? Think the\nmatter over seriously, and see where it will land you.\n\n\n\n\nXII.\n\n\nA FEEBLE NOTE OF WARNING.\n\nThe Creed of Eternal Torment--Do Ministers Really Believe It--If They\nDo, Why Not Say So?--No Decisive Note of Warning--Definite Missionary\nIncentive Is Wanting--The Phrase \"Eternal Death\" often Used--Does It\nMean Eternal Annihilation, or Eternal Torment, or What?--Vague\nReference as to Punishment Fosters Unbelief--An Age of Compromise\n--Professor Faulkner's Testimony--The Idea of Restoration Would Wholly\nMeet the Difficulty--Honesty and Candor--Carlyle's Scathing Warning\n--Ultimate Fulfillment of Prophecy--Eternal Songs.\n\n\nIf the doctrine of everlasting punishment is true, there has been of\nlate years a singular reserve on the part of preachers in proclaiming\nit. Why? Surely \"all doctrine is profitable.\" This doctrine would seem\nto me to be specially so, if it is true. It is contained in the creed of\nboth the Methodist and Presbyterian Churches. But do the ministers\nbelieve it? If they do, would they not preach it; yes, preach it\nmorning, noon, and night? But as a matter of fact they do not preach it.\nI never heard a sermon on it, or any attempt to prove it, since I was a\nchild. A short time ago in a large congregation the minister asked for\na show of hands on the part of any who had heard a sermon on hell during\nthe last ten years. Two hands were held up.\n\nSome time ago a noted Methodist minister told me that the Methodist\nministers of Canada do not believe in Everlasting Punishment. A\nprominent official of that church told me lately that he does not\nbelieve it, but that if it were known he would lose his position.\n\nThe Presbyterian ministers seem largely to hold the same view. Is the\nsubject mooted at all in any Presbyterian Church? I know that ministers\nprofess to believe it; but they seem as apathetic about multitudes\ndropping continually into eternal fire as if they did not believe it.\nPrivately, I have spoken on this subject with many ministers; and not\none of them professed to believe it.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNow, my plea is for honesty and candor. Let us be assured that Truth\nwill not suffer by being avowed and defended. The matter is of the\ngreatest importance just now. It has a most vital relation to Missions.\nI rejoice in the Laymen's Missionary Movement; but I fear it will wane\nif this most important question is not approached, and if possible\nrightly settled. For we want to know what the heathen are to be saved\nfrom, if there is going to be an adequate and sustained incentive to\nliberality and enterprise.\n\nIn all the reports of the meetings of the Laymen's Missionary Movement,\nI have seen no hint of the alternative before the heathen if they are\nnot evangelised. I heard a minister lately speaking of them as\n'miserable failures going out into the darkness.' What did he mean? It\nseemed to me an unworthy evasion of the question.\n\nAnd now it is proposed to put in the creed of the proposed union of the\nchurches that the doom of the finally impenitent will be 'eternal\ndeath,' What does that mean? It may mean either External Extinction or\nEternal Torment. Is the union to be built on such ambiguity? Would not\nsuch ambiguity pave the way for future dissension? Herein we see the\nfolly of putting too much in a creed, forgetting that 'more light is yet\nto break out of God's holy Word,' and that any human creed may yet have\nto be revised. And we are slow to make revisions, for revisions seem to\nreflect on views that we may have strenuously defended.\n\nJulia Ward Howe, the gifted authoress of the \"Battle Hymn of the\nRepublic,\" had recently a \"vision\" of a regenerated world. She exulted\nin the prospect of a day of grace. But not once does she seem to cast a\nbackward glance on the myriads of our race who are supposed to be in\nendless torment. Surely, that would have dimmed the glorious forecast.\nIt may be that she does not believe in torment, or that she believes in\nfinal Restoration. In either case she would be consistent, and nothing\nwould seriously mar the joy of her anticipation.\n\nBut such a mantle of charity is not available for certain orthodox\nministers. They, too, forecast a final day of grace, and paint it in the\nmost glorious colors. There appears to be nothing to mitigate their joy.\nBut all the while they profess to believe in eternal torment. Their\ncreed says that uncounted myriads of our fellow creatures are writhing\nin eternal fire, and that their torment will go on forever and ever,\nwithout any hope of mitigation. Surely, the very thought of such\nsuffering would cast a pall of unspeakable gloom over the most glorious\nanticipation? No, not at all. Not for a moment does the black shadow\nintervene. How are we to account for that? I can think of only two ways;\neither that there is no imagination to realize the horror, or else that\nit is not really believed.\n\nThis painting of a roseate future, conjoined with a professed belief in\nendless torment, savors to me somewhat of unreality. The two things do\nnot hang together. Surely, if such torment is but realized, it would\ncast a pall of gloom even over heaven's joy. But let such torment be\nabolished in fact and in conception, and the last vestige of gloom goes\nalong with it.\n\nAnd what necessity is there for retaining the idea? Is there any barrier\nin eternal justice? Surely, there cannot be, since Christ has paid a\npenalty of infinite value for every soul of man. And is there any limit\nto divine love? That love is infinite, and embraces the very worst of\nour race. But perhaps there is no method by which eternal love can take\ndue effect? Will not infinite wisdom find a way? If there is any\ndifficulty left, calling for the exercise of infinite power, surely, it\nis not beyond Him whose goings forth have been of old, from everlasting?\nIs it not thus reasonable to believe that all possible difficulties will\nyet be solved? The infinite One who rules all worlds is from everlasting\nto everlasting. His government may require time to evolve His gracious\ndesigns; but He will do all His pleasure. Therefore, we believe the day\nwill come when sin and suffering shall be entirely done away. This is the\n\n     \"Far off divine event\n      To which the whole creation moves.\"\n\nIt will be remembered that I cited the case of the conversion of Saul as\nan instance of divine power subduing in a moment the most extreme and\nviolent wickedness. The chief of sinners became the chief of saints.\nYes; but the man never lost his freedom. In recounting that experience\nhe could say, \"I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision.\" This union\nof divine constraint and human freedom is an everlasting mystery; but\nnot the less is it a glorious fact.\n\nNow, why should not the same principles hold in the next life? The\nwickedness of a sinner may possibly be even more intense then than now;\nbut the overcoming love, and power, and wisdom will be infinite. What,\nthen, should hinder their ultimate triumph? Certainly, not the most\nterrible wickedness of puny man. It is but finite at the worst, and is\nno match for the infinite love and power of God. And then consider that\nthe redeeming blood of Christ will be of infinite value then as now, and\nso will be available for the worst. What a prospect of universal\nRestoration is opened up here to our faith!\n\nBut there may still lurk in some minds the idea that divine love is\nlimited to this life, and that justice alone will rule in the next. They\nhave an idea of different dispensations; they say that this is the\ndispensation of probation; that the next life is the dispensation of\nrewards and punishments; and so on. Well, there may be a truth in that,\nand a wholesome truth, too. But let it ever be remembered that the\ncharacter of God is unchangeable. What we call dispensations are but\nepochs in the divine government. But the qualities of God's character\nwill never change. His love is from everlasting to everlasting; so is\nHis power; so is His wisdom. Will these qualities of His character be\ninoperative in a future life, when there will be such sin and suffering\nto appeal to them? However great the sin may be, surely divine love,\nwisdom, and power will be infinitely greater.\n\nAnd I cannot forbear adding this consideration: What would Christ think\nof the atoning sacrifice that He made for the sin of the whole race, if\nthe whole race is not ultimately redeemed But it was said of Him, \"He\nshall be satisfied.\" Yes; He shall be satisfied. Divine Love will win.\n\nLately, a little book was published on the subject of missions. The\nauthor is earnest, even to intensity. He says the Church is \"sleeping.\"\nHe deplores its \"deadly apathy,\" He says that \"a thousand millions\" have\nnot heard of the Saviour. He says that \"a Christless multitude\" dies at\nthe rate of thirty millions a year. He says that \"many millions have\ngone to Christless graves.\" He says that for these uncounted millions\n\"death and the future are the very blackness of despair.\" He says that\nfor twenty centuries these millions have been \"perishing.\" Phrases such\nas these are multiplied to a vast extent, to awaken our horror of the\nsituation.\n\nBut singular to say, the author does not seem to have any definite,\npositive ideas as to the actual doom of these uncounted millions; or, if\nhe has any definite convictions, he does not definitely express them. Is\nit eternal extinction or everlasting torment? From the phrases he uses I\ncannot gather what he actually means. He speaks of a \"Christless\nmultitude\" and \"Christless graves,\" and \"going into darkness,\" and the\n\"blackness of despair.\" It may be that he deems it wise not to\ncompromise himself by speaking out his definite conviction, if he has\nany. But in my view, he will not produce much of a worthy effect if he\ndoes not say definitely what he means. Or it may be that he has no\ndefinite idea. In that case, would it not be manly and candid to say\nthat he does not know?\n\nI believe that is the position of very many. They are hovering between\nthe idea of extinction and that of torment. They try to believe in\ntorment; they have been inoculated with that idea; they think, or are\nafraid, that it is Scriptural; but they recoil from any hearty reception\nof it. They have not got the length as yet of the idea of final\nsalvation. But some day that truth may flash upon their souls like a\ngleam of heaven's own sunlight.\n\nTo come back to our author. He tries to give us a due incentive to awake\nfrom our apathy, and enter on a Missionary Crusade with a spirit of\nself-denial and zeal never yet known. He quotes two passages, which he\npresents as a very strong incentive. But neither of these passages has\nany force, on the theory either of extinction or of torment. Otherwise,\nthey are pregnant with eternal hope. Listen: \"He shall see of the\ntravail of his soul, and shall be satisfied.\" Again: \"He, after He had\noffered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of\nGod; from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.\"\nNeither of those passages can come true on the basis either of\nextinction or of endless torment. But they will come gloriously true on\nthe basis of final salvation.\n\nSo the \"millions\" and \"billions\" that our author says have been \"going\nout into the darkness,\" and into the \"blackness of despair,\" are\nredeemed as well as we. The author himself says: \"Jesus wants every one\nof these poor creatures told at once of Him and His love.\" Now, if that\nis His wish, is He going to be thwarted by any coldness or indifference\nof ours? We may fail in our duty; but is He going to fail? A thousand\ntimes, No! He has all power and all love, as well as all eternity, in\nwhich to work out His glorious designs. We cannot conceive of Him as\nbeing \"satisfied\" with either extinction or endless torment. No; the day\nof grace for the millions and billions will come. \"He will be\nsatisfied.\" His \"expecting\" will be realized. What wonders of redeeming\nlove eternity will reveal!\n\nIn the meantime, our author furnishes no effective incentive to\nmissionary effort.\n\nWhen the idea of final salvation is generally accepted, I believe there\nwill be awakened an enthusiasm for missions such as the world has\nnever seen.\n\nSince writing the above, I have unexpectedly been in a large missionary\nmeeting where two noted men of the Methodist Church were the chief\nspeakers. Both addresses were most fervid and eloquent. But I noticed\nthat neither of the speakers had any note of definiteness in regard to\nthe fate of the heathen after death. It did seem to me that one of them\ncame once very near to the idea of eternal extinction, but did not\ncandidly commit himself to it. The other seemed to approach the theory\nof torment, but drew back. The whole performance, eloquent though it\nwas, seemed to me largely shorn of its effectiveness of appeal, because\nof its indefiniteness. Surely, we want to know what doom the heathen are\nto be saved from, if we are to be moved to any adequate enterprise or\nliberality. The few small coins on the collection plates on the occasion\nreferred to, bore unmistakable testimony to the fact that the fervid\nappeals had produced a very meagre result.\n\nIf men really believe in everlasting torment, why do they not plainly\nsay so? If it is true, surely it is the strongest motive that could be\nurged on behalf of missions. Perhaps ministers think that the time is\nnot yet come for an avowal of the larger view, and that in the meantime\nit is wise not to commit themselves. But is not that very much the same\nas to say that they are waiting for the current of popular favor before\nthey dare to be faithful? And does it not argue a want of faith in the\ntruth as a sanctifying and saving power? And is further truth likely to\nbe revealed to us if we deliberately shut our minds to such light as is\noffered? I say, let the truth prevail, though the heavens should fall.\n\nBy the way, one of the gentlemen referred to uses the phrase \"eternal\ndeath,\" as many do. I wonder what they mean? It is an ambiguous phrase.\nIt might mean endless torment after death; or it might mean annihilation\nat death; or it might mean annihilation at some future time. It is\nsurely misleading to use a phrase that may have so many meanings. If\nsome definite idea cannot be advanced, I think the effect will be that\nthe whole matter will be regarded as uncertain, and that there is\nnothing to fear. And such I believe is largely the position of the\nChristian world to-day. Could not a consensus of doctrine be arrived at\nby the various Christian churches--a consensus founded on the best\ninterpretation of the Word; and also on reason?\n\nOnly last Sunday I heard a sermon on success in life. And it was a\nbetter and more spiritual sermon than many that we hear on that subject.\nThe preacher strongly commended the Bible as the best text book on\nsuccess; and he was earnest and positive in his distinction between\nright and wrong. But he gave no hint that evil doers would have any\npunishment in the next life. In fact, he made no allusion to a next life\nat all, except in one instance where he spoke of multitudes of men going\nout into the next life as \"miserable failures.\" Why did he not speak of\nendless torment? That is one article in his creed; but he seemed not to\nbelieve it. A few earnest sentences along that line would have been more\neffectual, in my view, than his entire sermon.\n\nOr, if he does not believe in endless torment, does he not believe in\nRestoration? Might he not have uttered some warnings along that line?\nSurely, it is a tremendous conviction to give a sinful man, that if he\ndoes not repent in this life he must do so in the next, though it takes\nthousands of years, and untold penalties, to bring him to that state of\nmind. But not a word of this terror did the preacher utter. That would\nbe a repudiation of the endless torment theory, which would be\nunorthodox, and possibly subject the preacher himself to pains and\npenalties. So he simply said nothing by way of warning, except failure\nin this life. And that does not seem to amount to very much after all.\nIs it worth while to preach a sermon about it? Would not the old\nphilosophy be almost as good, \"Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow\nwe die?\"\n\nWould it not be better to take the suffering incident to the\nRestoration theory, and be positive about it as a warning rather than\nthe vague and half-hearted reference to eternal punishment, or the\nomission of any reference to it whatever? The manner in which it is\nreferred to, when spoken of at all, gives one the strong impression that\nit is not believed. For, if believed, it would certainly not be preached\nin any vague or heartless way. Even the lurid representations of hell\nthat formerly prevailed, were possibly better; for at least they\nwere sincere.\n\nBut it may be said that we have no details of the suffering incident to\nRestoration, and that therefore such a warning cannot be used with\neffect. I would say that neither have we any details of endless torment.\nSo the same argument applies. I would say further that we have very\nmeagre details of heavenly joy. But that does not prevent our belief in\nit. Let it be clearly understood that a knowledge of details is not\nnecessary to belief. It is purely a matter of revelation. There may be\ngood reasons why details are not given. The fact is enough for the\npresent; details will be known in due time.\n\nSo the sermon I have referred to related wholly to worldly success, with\na mere glance at the possibility of a future life, which in reality\nfavored unbelief. The whole sermon struck me as a kind of religious\nexploitation of materialism.\n\nJust now I have met with a magazine article in which the phrase\n\"eternal death\" is used. The author is an eminent Presbyterian minister,\nwhom I know well. I really could not understand his meaning. I wrote to\nhim asking whether he meant eternal extinction or eternal torment; or\nwhether he threw out the phrase loosely, leaving his readers to take\nwhichever view they chose. Here is his reply:\n\n\"I thank you for your kind reference to my articles on the Sunday School\nLesson, and note your question about the phrase, 'Eternal Death,' The\nmeaning of the phrase in my mind is largely determined by the meaning of\nthe corresponding phrase, 'Eternal Life.' In His use of the latter\nphrase, our Lord evidently lays emphasis, not upon the thought of\nduration, but upon that of quality. Eternal Life is a certain kind of\nlife which He gives to His people now. Similarly, Eternal Death is a\nstate in which people may exist even while they are in this world. It is\neternal in regard to duration in this sense, that it has no awakening;\nits tendency is to persist forever. But that is not to say that God\ncannot bring one from a state of eternal death into that of eternal\nlife. I do not know whether I have made myself clear, but it is somewhat\nin this way that the matter presents itself to my mind.\"\n\nSo I am not really much the wiser, except that the reply tends to\nconfirm my opinion as to the ambiguous way in which the phrase is\noften used.\n\nIn my view, such ambiguity is unfortunate in any case, but more\nespecially so when it is used with regard to our eternal future; and\neven more so when it is used in an article, as in this case, avowedly\nfor children. Does it not lead directly to scepticism? And even if it\ndid not, is it not rather a cruel thing to put upon children the onus of\ndeciding a question of such tremendous importance? Would it not be\nbetter to say candidly that we do not know?\n\nTo be sure, it may be said that the church is in a state of transition\non this question, and that it is better to wait for the church's final\ndecision. But in the meantime, and we do not know for how long, we are\nsowing the seeds of scepticism. Besides; this avowed waiting for the\nchurch's final decision may be only a pious pretense, because of want of\ncourage to declare honest conviction. I say so because I have spoken\nwith many ministers whose convictions are most decidedly contrary to the\northodox doctrines; but there is a marked hesitation in publicly avowing\nthem. Is this expediency or cowardice? What we want is more charity to\ntreat this as an open question, so that men might explore the whole\nrealm of truth, and express their honest convictions without fear.\n\nI see that the Chairman of the London Congregational Union deplores this\ngeneral lack of warning. He quotes the late Dr. Dale as saying, \"No one\nfears God now.\"\n\nI have just heard an impassioned address, pleading for men and money to\nevangelize the multitudes that are pouring into the great North West of\nCanada. It was natural for the speaker to lay great stress on human\neffort; but I thought he might have made a casual reference to the\nSpirit of God as supreme; yet not a word did he utter on that topic. For\nthe most part he presented no higher incentive than the development of\ncharacter, and the building up of the empire on a foundation of\nrighteousness. But not a word did he utter in regard to the penalty of\nsin after death on the part of the immigrants, if we fail to give them\nthe Gospel. In fact, there was no hint at all of immortality.\n\nYet the speaker is a Presbyterian minister who professes to believe in\neternal torment. But not a word did he say on that topic. Surely, he\nmight have found the supreme incentive there. It strikes me that a few\nearnest words along that line would have had more effect than his entire\naddress. That is, if the doctrine of eternal torment is true, and if the\npreacher believes it. But in all fairness, does not the conviction force\nitself upon us that he does not believe it? Why, then, does he not say\nso? Especially, why does he not say so when he is pleading for\nmissions? He is afraid, perhaps, of pains and penalties. Or he may try\nto convince himself that it is wiser not to be too outspoken; that there\nis a time for everything; that he might do more harm than good; and\nso on.\n\nBut the truth is divine. No good can come of its suppression, especially\non a matter of such eternal moment. And how can we look for further\nlight, if we are unfaithful to the light we have? And what about the\ncharacter of duplicity we are fostering in our own souls in the name of\nrighteousness?\n\nListen to these scathing words of warning spoken by Caryle. He says:\n\"What is incredible to thee, thou shalt not at thy soul's peril attempt\nto believe.\"\n\nHow will it fare with any church that acts so? Will not the light that\nis in her be darkness? How can we expect to receive growing divine\nilluminations if we affect to believe what we are convinced is untrue?\nWould it not be wiser and safer to put all the orthodox Confessions on\nthe shelf--yes, on the top shelf--and take instead such a simple creed\nas this: \"We believe the Scripture to be the Word of God.\" Then, though\nwe might differ, we would not be afraid to avow, our convictions, and we\nwould not be accounted heretics. Let the dead past bury its dead.\n\nThere is another serious consideration. When one of the heathen is\nconverted, especially an intelligent one, how would it do to put into\nhis hands our orthodox Confessions of Faith? Would he not stumble at the\ndoctrine of endless torment? He would think reasonably, of course; not\nlike ourselves who are so dominated by tradition. Then, I say, would he\nnot stumble? If we tried to substantiate the doctrine, would it not be a\nserious impediment to his faith? On the other hand, if we tried to\nexplain it away, would he not think us a lot of hypocrites?\n\nProfessor Faulkner, of Toronto University, said lately, and I think\ntruly, that one reason why theology is now under a cloud, is that men\nare afraid of heresy. Surely, nothing could be more unfortunate than to\ncarry this spirit into missions.\n\nWe do hope that the missionary campaign lately launched will have great\nsuccess. Only we would like it if it had been launched on a higher\nplane. It is worthy of the highest.\n\nWe are often told that there are a thousand millions of heathen; and our\ncreed teaches us that they are dropping into hell every? day. What could\nbe so compelling a motive in any missionary enterprise as to save some\nof 'them from such a fate? But it is never mentioned. Is it believed?\nCertainly, we profess to believe it. But do we? If we do, would it not\nbe the paramount, compelling motive? But instead of that, the main idea\nis to convert the heathen from savagery to civilization. Make them good\ncitizens--that is the idea. Especially in regard to the influx of\nimmigrants, there seldom seems to be no higher motive than to make them\nworthy of this great country. I have read just now an article in one of\nour religious papers, which affects to be very earnest, but to me it\nseems a mere outburst of quasi-patriotism.\n\nNow is it not time to be honest? The trouble is, that men are afraid to\nbe. We have put the doctrine of endless torment in the Confession, both\nof the Methodist and of the Presbyterian Churches, and we are afraid to\ngo back on it for fear of the pains and penalties of the church.\nMoreover, we do not like to confess that for ages we were wrong; and it\nseems disloyal to go back on the fathers who framed these confessions.\nSo we hang on to them in theory, but repudiate them in fact. Is it\nnot so?\n\nNow, what is the compelling power in all missionary enterprise? To those\nwho believe in endless torment, surely the controlling motive is to save\nthe millions of heathen from such a fate. Both the Presbyterian and\nMethodist Churches profess to believe in that doctrine. But the singular\nthing is, that in neither church is it preached. The suspicion is, that\nit is not believed. And this is more than a suspicion. I myself have\nheard no sermon on hell, nor any definite reference to it, since I was a\nchild. A Methodist minister in Canada, largely in touch with his\nbrethren, told me lately most positively, that Methodist ministers do\nnot believe in endless torment. Many Presbyterian ministers with whom I\nhave spoken take the same ground.\n\nNow, it is a hard thing to say that a doctrine of such eternal moment is\nopenly professed, yet inwardly repudiated. But if it were really\nbelieved, would it not be preached--yes, preached morning, noon, and\nnight? For there are reckoned to be a thousand millions of heathen in\ndistant lands, besides all the other millions that we have here at home.\nSo all these heathen are supposed to be dropping by the thousand into\nhell every day. And consider; there are a thousand millions of them, and\ntheir number is continually increasing.\n\nWould it not then be the main incentive to give these uncounted millions\nthe Gospel, in order to save them from such a doom? There may be other\nconsiderations; but in all consistency, is not this the pressing one?\nYet not once have I heard this matter referred to in any late missionary\naddress. There was a little spiritual truth in them all. But the chief\nmotive presented was, to convert the heathen from savagery to\ncivilization. So the whole performance usually seemed to me not much\nmore than an exploitation of materialism.\n\nThen, if ministers do not believe in endless torment, why do they not\nsay so? I can imagine two reasons. First, as I have said, there is the\nfear of pains and penalties. A man may lose his position; and that is a\nserious consideration. Then there is an unwillingness to go back on the\nfathers who framed these creeds.\n\nBut do either or both of these reasons justify conscientious men in\nsuppressing a truth of such momentous importance? A thousand times, No!\nCandor and honesty first; veneration for the fathers after. Would it not\nconduce to real success if this matter were maturely and honestly\nconsidered? It might arouse some amount of disunion and debate. But\nwould it not lift the whole tone of the missionary movement to a far\nhigher plane? And might we not believe that it would lead to more\nsustained effort, and far greater success?\n\nAt all events, there is one matter well worth considering. How can the\nSpirit of Truth lead us into larger visions of Truth if we willingly,\ntamper with our most sacred convictions? Let us remember that there are\ngrowing revelations. May we be of an open mind, and so in an attitude to\nreceive them!\n\nIt does seem to me that much of the activity of the evangelical churches\nis in a large measure discounted by this want of candor. If earnest men\nonly knew how amenable the world would become to the Gospel, and what a\nglad day they would usher in when they would candidly renounce the\ndoctrine of endless torment, I believe the majority would do it.\nSurely, this would be one of the brightest days that has ever dawned on\nthe world.\n\nJust now I have had a strange experience. On a certain Sabbath morning I\nopened the Bible at random at the eleventh chapter of the Romans. That,\nyou know, is the great chapter about the Restoration of the Jews. I had\nread some verses of that chapter, when there flashed on my mind the idea\nthat here we have a most profound argument for spiritual Restoration. I\nhad not been thinking at all of Restoration at the time; but here the\nsubject was forced upon me in quite a new light. As I read on, that\nconviction grew. From the point of view of Restoration, the argument of\nthe apostle seemed coherent, profound, glorious. From any other\nstandpoint it seemed to me, and had always seemed, a mystery. All\nmystery was cleared up now. The Restoration of God's favored people is\nclearly foretold; but orthodoxy had never thought of locating the event\nin the next life. But it has ever been a great tax on men's ingenuity to\nshow how the event can occur in this life. For we cannot ignore facts,\nand facts are all against such a conception.\n\nEven if in future generations the Jews who are then living are all\nturned to God, as we believe they will, what about the millions and\nmillions who have died? The enigma receives a glorious solution when we\nrealize that the future life is to be the time of the Restoration. Oh,\nyes; the prophecy will be fulfilled; God's ancient people will be\nrestored. Divine power and grace are not limited to this short epoch of\ntime; they are from everlasting to everlasting. Surely, here is a theme\nfor heaven's eternal songs!\n\n\n\n\nXIII.\n\n\nPROPHECIES YET TO BE FULFILLED.\n\nEnlarging Vision--Promise to Abraham--A Host of Similar Promises\n--Many of them Not Merely National--Their Fulfillment--Not Limited by\nthe Short Epoch of Time--The Present Only One Part of the Divine\nAdministration--Why the Revelation Was Not Given Sooner--Groping in\nthe Twilight--Growing Illumination--A Time for Everything--Dazzle or\nEnlighten--Discoveries in Science and Revelation--Our Slowness in\nReceiving Spiritual Truth--Limitations of Great Men.\n\n\nIf reason, even when based on revelation, still appears to you a very\nfallible guide, will you please take note of some direct promises\ncontained in revelation itself? And I would ask you to consider how\nthese promises could ever come true apart from Restoration. There are\nglorious promises that are partly or wholly of a local or national\ncharacter. These that I shall cite now are not to be so restricted. They\nhave a far grander sweep and application. No doubt the writers of them\nmay not have been conscious of their full import. But that is the nature\nof revelation. It grows in meaning from age to age. And the noontide\nglory of those promises is beginning to break on our larger vision.\n\nTake the words spoken to Abraham: \"In thee shall all the families of\nthe earth be blessed.\" To realize that this promise was of no mere\nnational importance, listen to the way in which Paul applies it in his\nEpistle to the Galatians. He says: \"The Scripture, foreseeing that God\nwould justify the heathen through faith preached before the Gospel unto\nAbraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.\"\n\nNow has that promise been fulfilled? Since Abraham's time have not\nmillions and millions of the families of the earth passed out into\ndarkness unblessed? Other millions of families are passing away now,\nwithout having once heard the Saviour's name. And other millions\ndeliberately reject Him. Certainly, all these millions are unblessed, In\ntheir case the promise has not been fulfilled. But it will be fulfilled.\nBeyond the bourne of time it will come true. This glorious enlargement\nof the scope of the promise takes away all difficulty, and fills us with\njoy and praise.\n\nThe other passages that I shall quote bear the same way, but we shall\nnot stay to make any comment on them. I would ask you to think them over\nseriously; disarm your mind as far as possible from prejudice; let the\nglorious truth prevail. Ponder such passages as these:\n\n\"All the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God.\"\n\n\"As the new heavens and the new earth which I will make, shall remain\nbefore me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain.\"\n\n\"Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and\nthe uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.\"\n\n\"All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the Lord.\"\n\n\"All nations whom thou hast made shall come and worship before thee, O\nLord; and shall glorify thy name.\"\n\n\"All the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God.\"\n\n\"In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall\nglory.\"\n\n\"I will give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my\nsalvation unto the ends of the earth.\"\n\n\"His name shall endure forever; it shall be continued as long as the\nsun; men shall be blessed in him, all nations shall call him blessed.\"\n\n\"And the angel said unto them, Fear not; for behold, I bring you good\ntidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born\nthis day in the City of David, a Saviour which is Christ the Lord.\"\n\n\"It is written in the book of the prophet Esaias, All flesh shall see\nthe salvation of God.\"\n\n\"Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which\nis above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of\nthings in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and\nthat every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory\nof God the Father.\"\n\n\"Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify Thy name? For thou only\nart holy; for all nations shall come and worship before thee.\"\n\n\"All Israel shall be saved.\"\n\n\"And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth and under the\nearth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I\nsaying, Blessing and honor and glory and power, be unto Him that sitteth\non the throne, and unto the Lamb forever and ever.\"\n\nSuch are some of the Scripture forecasts of the final day of grace. Men\nhave tried to confine the realization of such promises to the present\nlife. But they will not be so confined. The vast scheme of grace extends\nfar beyond the narrow span of time. Only conceive of the fulfillment of\nsuch glorious hopes as being extended into the next age. Such a prospect\nbegins to appear to be truly worthy of God. And surely, the news of such\nan enlarged scheme of salvation is the most joyful that ever fell on\nmortal ears. Men of the most devout and reverent spirit are beginning to\ntake these larger views. The day is breaking; soon the shadows will\nflee away.\n\nIf such promises as we have quoted seem too general, or merely\nnational, just confine your attention to a few which are evidently of a\nfar wider scope.\n\nChrist says he will draw all men to Himself. Then He must do so in the\nnext life; for certainly He is not doing so now. But His word will\nstand. He will do all His pleasure. It is a marvel that the Christian\nworld has taken so long to see this promise in its glorious fulness.\n\nIn harmony with the statement just referred to, we read in Isaiah that\n\"he shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied.\" Are\nnot these wonderful words? How are they to be explained? The travail of\nHis soul! Who can fathom that abyss of woe? The very words are\nsuggestive of untold agony. I believe that at the last He touched a\ndepth of woe which no man or angel has sounded.\n\nBut He shall have a recompense that will satisfy Him. Does not that\npoint to the salvation of the whole race? Would anything less satisfy\nHim? Does He not say that He came to save the world? And will anything\nless satisfy Him? Certainly He is not satisfied now. The moiety of\nmankind that is saved now, or to be saved to the end of time, will not\nsatisfy Him. No! His divine love embraces the whole race.\n\nWhat then about the uncounted millions who never heard of Him? What\nabout the millions that are dying now, and that never heard the music of\nHis name? Is not every one of them in the divine scheme of salvation?\nTheir time will come. The Saviour's operations are not limited to one\nage. His love is from everlasting to everlasting; and so are the means\nat His disposal. In this age we see but the beginning of the outgoings\nof His grace. We cannot conceive of Him being satisfied till the last\nsoul of the human race is redeemed.\n\nI shall not go farther along this line than simply to remind you that it\nis written that God will be \"all in all.\" That is a wonderful expression\nwhen we look into it. What does it really mean? Does it not mean that\nGod will be all in all? That is--He will be everything in everybody. I\ntake it that this is the real meaning of the words, Everything in\neverybody! O mystery of love and power divine!\n\nI apprehend that the significance of the words \"all in all\" is not fully\nappreciated or understood. See, for instance, the way in which the words\nare used in that hymn, \"That Christ is all in all to me.\"\n\nThe words, \"all in all to me\" seem to be used as an attempt to emphasize\nthe force of the sentiment, \"all to me.\" That is, He satisfies my every\nwant. But I apprehend that the words have a much larger meaning than\nthat. It is not myself alone, but everybody that is concerned here. It\nis that Christ is everything to every human soul. Everything that He is,\nis made over to everybody. What a glorious expansion of the words! \"All\nin all;\" that is, everything in everybody. Was there ever such an\ninfinite wealth of meaning packed into a few short words?\n\n\nUNCOUNTED MILLIONS.\n\nOr, take the message which the angels brought down to earth on the\noccasion of the Saviour's birth. They told the shepherds that they\nbrought good tidings of great joy to all people. What, then, about the\nuncounted millions of our race who had departed this life without ever\nhaving heard of a Saviour? If they were either in hopeless torment, or\nin extinction, how could the Saviour's coming be good tidings to them?\nAnd what about the millions that were then living in heathenism, and\nwould die in heathenism? How could the Saviour's coming be good tidings\nto them? And what about the millions that are living now, and the other\nmillions that will be born who will die without hearing of a Saviour?\nHow could His advent be good tidings to those? And what about the other\nmillions in Christian lands, who will live and die without any saving\npower being brought into their life? How could the Saviour's birth be\ngood tidings to any of these myriads of our race?\n\nOnly on the theory that the benefits of His coming extend into the next\nlife, could the words be true. If these uncounted millions are in\nendless torment, or if they are annihilated, the words could not be\ntrue. But they are gloriously true if there is a future state of\nprobation. In that case the benefits of the Saviour's life and death\nextend beyond human life to those myriads who never heard of Him here.\n\n\nTHE GLADDEST MESSAGE.\n\nThe angels knew something of the glad purport of their words. Likely\nthey saw this day of grace beyond the bourne of time. I cannot conceive\nof any other basis on which the words would be true. It was the gladdest\nmessage that ever fell on mortal ears, if we take it in this wide\napplication. Likely these angels were able to exult in the prospect of\nevery human soul being redeemed.\n\nIn harmony with the passage referred to, we have the intimation that\nChrist will draw all men to Himself. That promise cannot be restricted\nto the present life. Christ has not drawn all men to Himself. He has not\ndrawn more than a moiety of the human race. But He says He will draw all\nmankind. That was the prospect that sustained Him. He had a full view\nof all future ages as well as the present; and He knew what means He\nwould use through all coming time for the accomplishment of His purpose.\n\nThe present is only one small part of His administration. He gives no\nhint of the means that He will use in future aeons for the fulfillment\nof His designs. That is not for us to know in this life. Indeed such a\nrevelation would only confuse and bewilder us. For consider how such a\nrevelation might involve the revelation of a great many other things far\nbeyond us to understand.\n\nWe are confused enough as it is, with the revelation that we have.\nWitness the unfolding meaning of revelation from age to age. We realize\nthat enough has been revealed to tax the growing powers of the race. How\ncompletely all our thoughts would be drowned if we were given the\nprogramme of the ages beyond.\n\n\nNO SMALLER MEANING.\n\nNo; our Lord does a much wiser and kinder thing. By one simple sentence\nhe opens the door of everlasting hope. He says He will draw all men to\nHimself; but He does not tell us how or when. Those are matters for\nfaith, not for revelation. We can take no smaller meaning from this\nglorious promise, distort it as men will, to make it fit into some\npreconceived theory.\n\nAgain, we would enquire, apart from all theories to be sustained, what\nis the meaning of those wonderful words:\n\n\"All Israel shall be saved.\" I know there is a roundabout way of\nexplaining that statement, apart from the idea of Restoration. But it\nseems far-fetched and strained. When once we grasp the theory of\nRestoration, the words seem natural and harmonious with the\nwhole argument.\n\nWe see that such promises cannot refer to the present life. If they do,\nwhat about the Jews of the olden time who lapsed so often into the\ngrossest sin? What about the tears of Christ over the apostate city?\nWhat about the present condition of that race? Are they saved? No! they\nstill repudiate the name of Christ. Do they become extinct when they\ndie? Or do they go into everlasting torment? In either event they could\nnot be saved as promised. Or will they be restored in due time? On no\nother supposition can we conceive of the words coming true.\n\nTo this theory I can conceive of an objection, which at the first glance\nmay seem a formidable one. It is this: If the theory is true, why did\nit not dawn on the world sooner? Especially when we consider what a boon\nit would have been to the race, and what a dark mantle of gloom it would\nhave lifted from the heart of the world, why did God withhold the light\nso long? Surely there were saints and seers of the olden time who were\nworthy to be media of such a communication. And surely the generations\nof the past needed such a spiritual uplift as much as we do to-day. Yet\nfor ages and ages the revelation was not given. Men had to grope in the\ntwilight for centuries, until at length the illumination dawned on a few\nsouls. But the reputed wise men of the world did not hail with joy the\nnew illumination, but generally treated it as a new presumption. And\nhowever agreeable with reason and with Scripture it may be shown to be,\nit will likely not be universally accepted for ages to come. If the\ntheory is really true, and if it comes from God, the Source of all\nlight, why was this poor world not blessed with it sooner?\n\nI say, that objection may appear a formidable one at the first glance.\nLet us examine it with all fairness and candor.\n\nIn the first place, I would say that it is not God's way to give us His\nrevelations all at once. No, not even when He inspires men to write\nthem. Those revelations have a primitive meaning, suited for men of a\nprimitive age. But as the ages go on, and men become more developed,\nthere breaks on them more light from the Word. And that light is\nbrighter very often than even the original writers apprehended. They\nbuilt better than they knew, for they were writing, not for their own\nage alone, but for all time. This unique character of the revelation\nshows that it is divine. And thus there still \"breaks more light from\nGod's holy Word\" as the ages move on. Whether or not, then, we see the\nreason of it, we note the fact that it is not God's method to pour the\nfull flood of His light on the minds and hearts of men all at once. If\nwe could see no farther than that, we might be content, and reverently\nsay, \"Even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.\"\n\nAs an instance of this growing illumination, take the fact that in the\nprimitive ages there was no clear revelation of immortality. I have no\ndoubt that men of high spiritual calibre believed it; but the revelation\ncame to them more directly from the movement of the Spirit, than from\nany intimation in the Word. Yea, when men had no Word at all, I believe\nthere were devout souls who had glimpses, more or less clear, of a\nfuture world. But the mass of mankind, even the religious people of\nmankind, had in most instances no such revelation.\n\nNow if that is true, it becomes less surprising that the most devout\nsouls have had for so long no conception of Restoration. The analogy of\nrevelation shows beyond all doubt that Restoration may be true, though\nfor ages and ages men had no conception of it. Nay, they may have been\nstudents of the Word through all those ages, and yet have been blind to\nits higher revelations. That is no disparagement. There is a time for\neverything; and there is a time for brighter divine light to break on\nthe minds and hearts of men.\n\nThen it may be supposed that if further divine light were to be given,\nGod would have chosen more worthy mediums for communicating it. But as a\nrule, it is not through the great and the learned that revelations\ngenerally have come; but rather through the humble and comparatively\nobscure. This is God's way. He may choose what media He will as well as\nwhat time He will. We read that \"God hath chosen the foolish things of\nthe world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of\nthe world to confound the things that are mighty.\" And He did the same\nthing long ago in giving a written revelation to the world. Some of the\nwriters were noble and learned, while others were illiterate and\nobscure. So it is no disparagement to this larger view if it does not\ncome to us through what the world calls respectable channels.\n\nThen it may be noted that truth was given to men as they could receive\nit. To reveal the whole truth in an obscure age would dazzle more than\nit would enlighten. God knows men's capacity for receiving truth; and He\nadapts His communications accordingly. Jesus could say to His disciples,\n\"I have yet many things to say unto you; but you cannot bear them now.\"\nAnd, by His Spirit He has been saying those \"many things\" ever since, as\nmen could receive them. It was a great thing for His disciples to have,\nfor instance, such a clear vision of immortality as they certainly had\nwhen Christ ascended on high. That was enough along that line for the\ntime; but now there is breaking on our hearts the larger view of\nRestoration.\n\nYes, and we might have had that glorious truth much sooner, if we had\nnot grossly lapsed into sin, and so obscured heaven's light. The fact\nis, that in the early centuries of the Christian era the larger view was\naccepted freely. But by and by the church of Rome invented the dogma of\neternal torment for its own gain; and that is how we came by our evil\nheritage. So that in this matter we have lapsed from our early faith;\nand a sad, sad lapse it was, entailing untold mourning, lamentation,\nand woe.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBut it is a glorious truth that men with the utmost limitation can be\nused of God for the highest ends. Elsewhere I cite the case of the\nApostle Peter in this regard. He could be used for the conversion of\nthree thousand men by means of one sermon; and later the conversion of\nfive thousand men; and yet he did not believe that the Gospel was\nintended for the Gentiles as well as the Jews. It is a marvel of divine\nwisdom and grace that such a poor instrument could be used for such a\nglorious work. And we have seen the same principle at work in our own\ntime. If Restoration is true, yet men who believed in endless torment,\nand counted it a prime article of the orthodox faith, were,\nnotwithstanding, the very salt of the earth, and were used of God in\nconserving and disseminating the limited truth which they knew. I say,\nthat is a marvel of divine grace and condescension.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWe see the same principle also in the domain of Science. Let us not\nforget that all truth--whether spiritual or scientific--is a revelation\nof God. When we make a discovery in either realm--or perhaps I should\nsay when a revelation is made to us in either realm--like Kepler we are\nreally \"thinking God's thoughts after Him.\" These very thoughts were in\nGod's mind, else they could not be in ours. What we do know is often\nassociated with a vast field of the unknown.\n\nAnd how slow we are to learn. Just think of a few of the discoveries--or\nrevelations--of late years. And for ages and ages past, men were in\ntotal ignorance of these things, though they were close to their hand.\nIs it not very suggestive of how little we know yet of the truth in the\nspiritual domain, to be unfolded to us in due time?\n\nI say, just think of a few of the scientific discoveries we have made of\nlate years. I need not stay to note the wonderful developments in\nsurgery and medicine. They may be regarded as commonplace now; but every\none of them was a discovery. Think of the discovery of how to use steam,\nand all that the discovery has led to. Allied with that, think of the\nimmense quantities of coal we burn, and only extract a small percentage\nof its heat as yet. One of these days there will likely dawn on some\nmind the correct way of using it, and then what a revelation. Think of\nthe tar evolved in the process of making gas, that lately went to loss,\nand that is now used in dyeing. Think of the telephone wire, and more\nlately the telephone without wire. Think of the heat, light and power\nevolved from electricity. Think of the inventions and discoveries that\nwe read of almost every day. The by-products that are now a source of so\nmuch wealth and comfort, were not dreamed of a few years ago. Do we not\nsee here how little we know, even in the domain of Science?\n\nAnd is it to be supposed that in the spiritual realm there is not much\nmore to learn? Our special affinity is for things material; yet in this\ndomain we are only in our infancy. How much more is it so in things\nspiritual. Surely it does not become us to balk at a new revelation.\n\nIn justice, however, to our backwardness in receiving any new spiritual\ntruth, there are some explanations. I have referred to our special\naffinity for truth that relates to things physical. We have a\ncorresponding slowness to apprehend spiritual truth. But in addition to\nthis, we have to note that the truth in reference to material things is\nusually subject to demonstration. We can see the thing actually done. It\nis an absolute certainty; there is no room for doubt. In regard to\nspiritual truth it is different. \"The kingdom of heaven cometh not with\nobservation.\" There is no demonstration. The truth is apprehended by\nfaith, sometimes aided by revelation, or reason, or intuition, or spirit\nrevelation. This is where sin has obscured our spiritual vision; and\noften we are still made more blind by our material employments\nand pursuits.\n\nIt is not surprising then that we are slow to take up a new spiritual\nidea. And we ought to be slow, lest we imbibe error in the guise of\ntruth. But at the same time we ought to keep an open and receptive mind,\nbelieving that there are vast and high domains of truth yet unrevealed.\n\nIn this regard how sad it is that some of the brightest lights that\never illuminated the world were clouded all their days by inherited\nerrors. Take Luther as an example. For years and years he was haunted by\nthe dread of eternal reprobation. And so it has been with thousands and\nthousands more of the devoutest and sincerest souls. Oh, if they had\nonly known that there is no such thing as eternal reprobation!\n\n\n\n\nXIV.\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE.\n\nThe Unrevealed--Scripture and Reason--Bishop Butler's Dictum\n--Reverence of Kepler--Moral Courage of Sir Oliver Lodge--Increase of\nLaxity--The Spirit's Almighty Power--Supreme Authority of Scripture\n--The Proper Sphere of Reason--Fate of the Heathen--Singular Reserve\nof Preachers--Sin is Abnormal--Union of Divine Power, Wisdom and Love\n--Reasonableness and Harmony--A Multitude of Scripture Promises\n--Discipline Instead of Eternal Torment--Dr. Funk's View--The Great\nPanacea for Unbelief--Ingersoll--No Divine Failure.\n\n\nSome have a belief that on topics that are unrevealed we ought to be\nreverently silent. On certain subjects that may be the correct attitude.\n\"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.\" But though there are many\ncases in which we cannot attain to certainty, we may perhaps attain to\nprobability, and a high degree of probability. In many cases that is\nsufficient; often it amounts to moral certainty. As Bishop Butler says,\n\"Probability is the very guide of life.\"\n\nWith the best use that can be made of Scripture and reason, there are\nmany topics on which we shall not attain to absolute certainty. But if\nwe attain to probability, we have made a great advance. Moreover, the\nprobability of this age may be the certainty of the next.\n\nBesides; it would argue a very unworthy belief in the goodness of God,\nto refrain from investigating the domain of truth so far as we can, lest\nunhappily we should have to discount the forces that make for\nrighteousness.\n\nReligion and science should be united in this search for truth. And we\nare glad to see that some of the foremost exponents of scientific truth\nhave this idea. As Sir Oliver Lodge says, \"It is the duty of Science to\nexamine even into the domain of religion.\" In fact, Science is religion\nwhen its discoveries, as in the case of Kepler, are recognized as the\nthoughts of God. Another scientist has truly said that \"the highest\nscience is the highest religion.\"\n\nI think it is worth while to quote the noble words of Sir Oliver Lodge\nin this connection. He says: \"If we refrain from examination and enquiry\nfor no better reason than the fanciful notion that perhaps we may be\ntrespassing on forbidden ground, such hesitation argues a pitiful lack\nof faith in the good-will and friendliness and power of the forces that\nmake for righteousness. Let us study all the facts that are open to us\nwith a trusting and open mind, with care and candor, seeking the\nverification of all our speculative hypotheses, and with slow and\ncautious progress making good our steps as we proceed. Thus we may hope\nto reach out further, and ever further, into the unknown, sure that as\nwe grope in the darkness we shall encounter no clammy horror, but shall\nreceive the assistance and sympathy which it is legitimate to symbolize\nas a clasp from the hand of Christ Himself.\"\n\nBut it may be claimed that it is inopportune to discuss this question of\nRestoration at the present time. It may be thought that the very\nstatement of it may lead to greater laxity of faith and morals. If there\nare any legitimate grounds even for doubting the doctrine of eternal\ntorment, will not the lingering doubt of many be confirmed? There are\nthose who doubt or even deny eternal suffering, simply because it is\nmore comfortable to do so, and without once appealing to the authority\nof Scripture or reason in the matter. If the question is allowed to be\none of reasonable debate, will not that attitude be confirmed?\nEspecially when the doctrine of endless suffering has so long been\nrecognized as the orthodox doctrine, will not any apparent going back on\nthat doctrine seem a justification of disbelief in what is really\nevangelical? And thus might not the very opening of the question be a\nserious injury to some?\n\nWhile it is freely admitted that there is a degree of justice in this\nplea, there are certain considerations that must not be lost sight of.\n\nThere is first, the sacredness and the safety of truth. Whatever is the\ntruth in the case must be discovered if possible, and defended at all\nhazards. Our Lord's prayer was, \"Sanctify them through thy truth,\" So\ntruth has a sanctifying power. It may be pleasant or unpleasant in the\ndiscovery, but is beneficent in the long run. We are not to shrink then\nfrom the discovery of it. We are to search for it, as for hidden\ntreasures, whatever prejudices and errors it may overturn. It is of God,\nand is certain to triumph in the end. And it can issue in no ultimate\nevil, but in everlasting good, despite all our fears.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThen in this case, we are contending for a truth which brings\nunspeakable glory to God. As the matter appears to me, His wisdom, power\nand love, are exalted above all conception. If there were nothing else,\nthis would be a strong argument for the theory we are trying to defend.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nFurther; we see here a most worthy effect of the Saviour's Atonement. He\nis the \"Saviour of the World,\" not in name only, but in fact. According\nto the old theory, He was actually the Saviour of but a few of the human\nrace; the rest were committed--and ordained--to everlasting torment. Now\nHe is recognized as the \"Saviour of all men,\" even the worst. Can you\nconceive of any less result in which He would \"see of the travail of\nhis soul, and be satisfied?\"\n\nThen further; the Spirit's almighty power would be vindicated. The old\nfaith taught that He moves on the hearts of men, but not in every case\nwith the intention or desire to compass their salvation. We believe, on\nthe contrary, that He has the desire and the power to break down all\nopposition, and to carry captive the most stubborn will, without doing\nany violence to our freedom. We do not know how this is effected, but we\nsee cases in which it is effected. And we can forecast the day when He\nwill triumph over all opposition. The very prospect of it fills us with\nwonder, and love, and praise.\n\nAnd in the meantime, what a funeral pall is lifted from the heart of the\nworld! It is a sad world, and I believe chiefly because the belief in\nreprobation has so long and so widely prevailed. But when there dawns\nupon our faith the prospect of the whole human race being yet redeemed,\nwhat a world of gladness this world becomes!\n\nWhen such considerations as these have their due effect upon us,\nobjections to the discussion of this great question will have less\nweight. We shall rejoice instead, if the larger view carries our inmost\nand most sacred convictions. Our appeal is to the Scriptures, and to\nthe precious gifts of reason, and of human feeling, no less\ndivinely given.\n\nWe accord the supreme authority to Scripture; but there is also an\nappeal to reason. Even here some find differences of opinion. Some will\nreason from the nature of sin, and what is its desert. Others will\nreason from the character of God, and the end of divine government.\nOthers, again, will claim that self interest so warps our judgment in\nthe case, that our finding is almost sure to be partial. Still others\nwill claim that the whole matter is too high for us, and refrain from\nentering upon it, or else take what they judge to be the plain meaning\nof Scripture, or fall back on the view that has prevailed.\n\nI reverently think, that reason has a legitimate field here. Of course\nreason ought to be exercised with great caution on such a subject; and\nwe ought ever to hold ourselves ready to revise our opinions, to be in\nharmony with the advancing light of Scripture.\n\n\nTHIS DIVINE LIGHT.\n\nIn the Scriptures we have a revelation of God's character, so far as we\ncan receive such a revelation. We can also form some ideas of His law,\nand the potentiality of His wisdom and love. We have besides a\nrevelation of the nature of sin, and can have some idea of what it\ndeserves. Moreover, Christ is \"the true Light that lighteth every man\nthat cometh into the world.\" When we are illuminated with this divine\nLight, submit all our opinions to the Word of God, and are raised to an\nimpartial plane of judgment, I reverently think we may and ought to make\nsome intelligent forecast as to the suffering of the next life. In fact\nwe have not the option of remaining entirely without ideas on a subject\nthat so vitally concerns ourselves. We must project our thought at times\ninto the future, and form some ideas, more or less concrete, as to what\nis in store for the race.\n\nIt seems well, therefore, to use reason and revelation conjointly, so\nfar as they will carry us. And while not dogmatic, we ought to remember\nBishop Butler's dictum, that if two views are opposed, and one is even a\nlittle more probable than the other, we ought to embrace it as though it\nwere clearly demonstrated. Along the same line Mr. Gladstone says:\n\n\"The free development of conviction is, upon the whole, the system most\nin favor both of truth and of charity.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI am very far, therefore, from jumping at new conclusions, especially on\na subject of such tremendous solemnity. But I feel that we should keep\nour minds and our hearts open, realizing how little we know yet of God,\nand of His illimitable dispensations. Especially should we hail with\nthankfulness any gleam of light on the awful darkness that has so long\nbrooded over the destiny of by far the largest portion of mankind.\n\nThe eminent Dr. Funk, who is well known to be a profound thinker on such\nmatters, writes me as follows:\n\n\"What is called 'Eternal Fire,' or 'Eternal Punishment,' it seems to me,\nmay mean simply, that long continued suffering, both negative and\npositive, which wilful imperfection brings. It does not seem to me that\nthe time can ever come when the Everlasting Father will abandon His\nchild that He has created. No; it is infinitely less likely that He\nwould do this than an earthly parent. Christ has said that the good\nshepherd will leave the ninety and nine, and continue to search until he\nfinds the missing lamb.\"\n\nIn marked contrast to such an idea just ponder for a moment some of the\ndoctrines of the Calvinistic theology. To get a realistic idea of the\nmatter, think of God bringing into the world one soul whom He destined\nfor everlasting torment. That is no overstatement. For if there was no\nAtonement of Christ for that soul, there could be no possible escape for\nit. That soul was doomed from all eternity to everlasting fire. Yet the\nadvocates of that thought will tell you that the Atonement was\nsufficient for all, and adapted to all. Moreover, they will tell you at\nthe same time that God is Eternal Wisdom and Love! Could you conceive of\na greater contradiction?\n\nIt is no wonder that on this topic there has been a singular reserve of\nlate years. It would appear that preachers are undecided as to what\nstand they ought to take; and so they usually say nothing definite on\nthis momentous question. To a candid mind it must appear a strange thing\nthat the question is so dormant. A more vital question could hardly be\nconceived. Yet hundreds of books are written, and thousands of sermons\nare preached, and the question is hardly touched. Will the impenitent\nhave any suffering in the next life; and if so, of what kind, for what\npurpose, and of what duration?\n\nAlmost nothing is advanced on such all-absorbing topics. We hear\nsometimes of the wrath of God in a very general way, which really has\nlittle meaning, so long as no hint is given as to what that wrath\nconsists in. And we hear a great deal about opportunities in life being\nmissed, without any specific intimation of the consequences.\n\nDo men really believe In future punishment at all? If they do, why do\nthey not say so? Surely the subject is no trifling one that can be\npassed over smoothly. Is it not a matter of the most paramount, eternal\ninterest for a man to know whether he is passing in a few brief years\nto extinction, or torment, or to a process of reformation? This would\nseem to be the question of all questions. And yet it is passed over\nSabbath after Sabbath almost in silence.\n\nAnd when we think how any clear cut conviction might affect a man's\ncharacter and life, we are surprised that conscientious men can treat\nthe matter so coolly. Is it because they are in a state of transition as\nto which is the correct theory to be proclaimed? In that case, we could\nunderstand their hesitation. But surely such uncertainty ought to be\nacknowledged. But it is not confessed. It is a question if even a\ndiscussion of the different theories would not be better. Such a\ndiscussion would be likely at all events to keep men awake, and perhaps\narouse their concern.\n\nEspecially on the relation of this subject to missions, there ought to\nbe some definite statement. At the present time there is a great revival\nof interest in missions. But there is a marked lack of direct incentive.\nWhat are the heathen to be saved from? Is it from endless torment?\nCertainly that is not believed. If it were, we would move heaven and\nearth to save even one of them from that fate. Is it then from\nextinction? Such a claim is never definitely put forward. Then is it\nfrom the suffering incident to reformation? No one speaks of that.\nThere is no definite incentive urged to impel men to sustained and\neager missionary enterprise.\n\nHence we fear that missionary enterprise will wane. There is a general\nidea of saving the heathen; but from what? There is no definite idea; at\nleast none is put forward. I think there ought to be a brotherly\nconference, composed of men holding diverse views on this subject, that\nif possible some unanimity might be arrived at--some definite issue that\nwould be fearlessly outspoken, that would be a real and compelling\nincentive.\n\nIt may be said that certainty cannot be arrived at, and that therefore\nsilence is better. That may well be doubted. Certainty in general is not\nlikely to be attained all at once. There will first be a period of\ninquiry. What saith the Scripture? What saith reason? And what saith our\nown instinct? Then there will be a period of probability. After that\nthere may come a time of certainty. The fact that unanimity of view may\nnot be attainable at present is no good reason for treating such a\nmomentous topic with silence. I reckon that he does a service to mankind\nif he contributes anything to the solution of this great question, even\nif by so doing he stirs up opposition. Surely at this late day we ought\nto be able to say something definite about men's eternal destiny.\n\nThe soul has naturally a strong affinity for truth. Hence there is\nnothing more demoralizing than any sustained attempt to believe that\nwhich does not commend itself to our most sacred convictions. Far better\nit is to be honest and sincere, even though that may involve temporary\nerror. I believe that to the devout and enquiring soul the truth will be\nrevealed in due time. It is to the upright that there ariseth light in\nthe darkness.\n\nColonel Ingersoll was not so deficient in honesty and candor as is\nusually supposed; but, combined with an unfortunate early training, the\nissue in his case was disastrous. A noted clergyman was on confidential\nterms with him, and on one occasion Mr. Ingersoll told him the secret of\nhis infidel opinions. He said he was early taught that God elected a few\nof the human race to eternal glory, and that the vast remainder He\ndecreed to everlasting fire; \"and,\" said Mr. Ingersoll, \"I determined to\nhate Him.\" \"If I believed that,\" said the clergyman, \"I would hate Him\ntoo.\" So, on the day of final account, there may be extenuations that\nwill surprise us.\n\nLet it not be supposed that I have any sympathy with Ingersoll's infidel\nviews. On the contrary, I abhor them. Some years ago I gave a series of\nSabbath evening talks on Ingersoll and his opinions; and there was a\nlarge attendance of the class of men that I wished to reach. I cannot\nbut think that the travesty of divine truth that has so long prevailed\nin the guise of orthodoxy, is responsible to a large extent for the\npractical infidelity that exists in the Christian world to-day.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt is all very well for men to speak of the final reign of grace; and\nsome are very eloquent along that line, never turning their eyes\nbackward on the uncounted millions of the past who lived and died in\nheathenism. What has become of them? That is the question; and it calls\nfor an answer that as Milton says, will \"justify the ways of God\nto men.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThere are a number of propositions which I would try here to state with\nall clearness. We have casually glanced at some of them; but I think it\nwill conduce to clearness if we present them statedly and group\nthem together.\n\nFirst: \"God infallibly accomplishes everything at which he aims.\"\n\nThese are the words of an orthodox divine. I think they will commend\nthemselves to our judgment at once. But the divine in question never\nthought his dictum would be given such a wide application. The\napplication is this: Surely God \"aimed\" at making every man immortal;\nbut in that case there could be no extinction. And surely God \"aimed\" at\nmaking every man happy; but in that case there could be no endless\ntorment. On this basis, therefore, both extinction and endless torment\nare impossible. What remains then but Restoration?\n\nThe second proposition is: That sin and suffering are abnormal\nconditions in God's universe; and that therefore they cannot be\neverlasting. If this theory is correct it would rule out\nendless torment.\n\nThen again: It is conceivable that temporary sin and suffering may be\nnecessary factors in God's righteous government.\n\nThis theory would explain why sin and suffering are permitted for a\ntime.\n\nAgain: Infinite holiness will do away with sin, and infinite love will\ndo away with suffering, as soon as perfect righteousness will permit.\nThus we believe that when sin and suffering have served their purpose,\nthey will be eliminated.\n\nFurther: There is no sin that infinite holiness, infinite power,\ninfinite love, and infinite wisdom cannot subdue, without impairing the\nfreedom of the offender.\n\nThis idea makes it credible that the worst of mankind will be reclaimed.\n\nFinally: The fact that God is love will induce Him to place all His\ncreatures in conditions of happiness as soon as that can be done in\nconformity with wisdom and righteousness.\n\nI would ask you to revolve these propositions through your mind very\nseriously. See if you can find a flaw in any of them; and conceive if\nyou can, of any reasonable theory whereby any of them may be\ncontroverted.\n\nI would conclude this part of our subject by citing some passages of\nScripture. The references in some cases may have a more limited and\nrestricted meaning; but they all tend in the same direction. There are\ncertain stars which, seen by the naked eye, are single, but when\nobserved through a telescope are seen to be double stars. Being of the\nsame appearance, and lying in the same direction, they are fused into\none, though there may a vast space between.\n\nIt is so in many passages in the Word of God. They have a double\nmeaning; one nearer, and one more remote. Events are foretold which are\nrealized in part in this life, and fully in the life to come. The fact\nis, that in many cases we have to take in the future life in order to\nunderstand the reference at all. It has been too much our habit not to\nlook for definiteness and accuracy, because we imagined the events must\nfind their fulfillment in the present life. But When our outlook goes\nbeyond this life, we see a reasonableness and harmony that we did not\nsee before.\n\nThis will be apparent in some of these passages. And it will help our\ninterpretation very much if we only remember that the whole span Of time\nis but a passing epoch in the divine administration.\n\nHere then are some passages; and there are many more of similar tenor,\nwhich we would do well to ponder.\n\n\"In thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.\"\n\nI would just enquire: How can such a promise as that be fulfilled within\nthe span of time? _Not_ for about two thousand years was the divine seed\nof Abraham born, when the promise was given. Meantime thousands and\nthousands of the families of the earth went out of this life in sin and\ndarkness, without having so much as heard the Saviour's name. It is now\nnearly two thousand years more, and the human race has much increased;\nmillions and millions more of the families of the earth have come and\ngone; and in their case the promise has not been fulfilled. And be the\nardor of missions what it may, uncounted millions more of the families\nof the earth will never in this life so much as hear of the blessing\nthrough Abraham's seed. Is it not inevitable that we must take into our\nview the possibilities of life to come? The promise will be fulfilled\nthen. \"All Israel shall be saved.\"\n\nI will not stay to make any further comments on the passages I would\nsubmit. Let them speak for themselves.\n\n\"He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord God will wipe away\nall tears from off all faces.\"\n\n\"And the ransomed of the Lord shall return, and come to Zion with songs\nand everlasting joy upon their heads; they shall obtain joy and\ngladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away.\"\n\n\"Israel shall be saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation.\"\n\n\"I have sworn by myself, the word is gone forth out of my mouth in\nrighteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow,\nevery tongue shall swear.\"\n\n\"The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all.\"\n\n\"He shall see of the travail of His soul, and shall be satisfied.\"\n\n\"His name shall endure forever; his name shall be continued as long as\nthe sun; and men shall be blest in him; all nations shall call\nhim blessed.\"\n\n\"Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? Saith the Lord\nGod; and not that he should return from his ways and live?\"\n\n\"For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of\nGod, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath\nabounded unto many.\"\n\n\"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the\nobedience of one many shall be made righteous.\"\n\n\"Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.\"\n\n\"He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how\nshall he not with him also freely give us all things?\"\n\n\"And so all Israel shall be saved.\"\n\n\"That was the true Light, that lighteth every man that cometh into the\nworld.\"\n\n\"For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that\nthe world through Him might be saved.\"\n\n\"And I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto me.\"\n\n\"Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of\ntruth.\"\n\n\"Who gave himself a ransom for all to be testified in due time.\"\n\n\"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the\nsuffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace\nof God should taste death for every man.\"\n\n\"And he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but\nalso for the sins of the whole world.\"\n\nAnd God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be\nno more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any\nmore pain; for the former things are passed away.\n\nThus we have quoted some of the words of revelation that are manifestly\nopposed to the idea of eternal torment.\n\nTo be sure, there are Scripture statements that are difficult to explain\non this basis; but their import is generally more or less obscure. On\nthe other hand, there are statements so favorable to the idea of\nRestoration that their meaning can hardly be mistaken. And always\nremember this,--that this question is not one for absolute\ndemonstration. It is a question, rather, as to which view is more\nconsonant with reason and Scripture. We are not to suspend our judgment\nuntil the matter is proved beyond the shadow of a doubt. We do not act\nso in other matters. If we did, we should have few earnest convictions\non any subject. It is sufficient if a certain view is more probable than\nanother. In that case, according to Bishop Butler's dictum, we should\nbelieve it as though it were demonstrated. In this particular case,\nthough the question is beset with a great deal of mystery, as we might\nexpect, the theory of discipline is far more agreeable with Scripture\nand reason than that of everlasting torment.\n\nThe great panacea for unbelief is a larger view. We have to take in the\nfuture, in order to see the rounding out of God's great plan. 'An\nedifice may be hideous if seen from the rear, and incomplete. But wait\ntill it is finished, and then view it from some vantage ground in the\nfront, and its noble proportions and beauty are appreciated. So it is\nwith the divine plan. We see but a part of it now, and the lower part.\nBut bye and bye it will be complete. Then--\n\n     \"Ye good distrest! Ye noble few\n      Who here unbending stand, beneath\n      Life's pressure--bear up yet a while,\n      And what your bounded view deemed evil\n      Is no more, the storms of wintry time\n      Will quickly pass, and one unbounded spring\n      Encircle all.\"\n\nIn the various passages that I have quoted we cannot but discern three\ngreat universals that involve each other. To these three universals all\nEvangelical Churches are tending. They seem to me to include what is\nreally vital to faith and hope. The great universals are these:\n\n     Universal Love;\n     Universal Atonement;\n     Universal Salvation.\n\nThe first is accepted nominally by all; but how the first can be\nintelligently received, with a supposed limitation of the second, is\nhard to see. It is admitted that on the part of God there is universal\nlove for all his creatures; it is admitted that this love expressed\nitself in Atonement. It is further admitted that this Atonement is as\nsuitable for all as it is for a part of the race. Yet for ages it has\nbeen claimed that the Atonement is not divinely intended for all. How\nuniversal love, united with infinite power and infinite wisdom could act\nin this way is to me an everlasting mystery. So absurd does this\nposition now appear, that a majority of the churches idea--perhaps\nunconsciously--with a decision and force not warranted by the original.\nTherefore I think I am justified in laying no great stress on passages\nof such doubtful meaning. It seems to me more honest and candid to wait\nfor greater unanimity.\n\nOn the other hand, the passages that I have cited in favor of\nRestoration are in most cases so plain that they can hardly even be\ntortured into giving an uncertain sound. Take for instance, the passage\nin relation to the extent of the Atonement. \"He is the propitiation for\nour sins, and not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole\nworld.\" \"We see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for\nthe suffering of death, that he by the grace of God should taste death\nfor every man.\" \"The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.\"\nThere is no uncertain sound there.\n\nTo me it is a marvel how men could accept and defend the doctrine of a\nlimited Atonement, in the face of such clear statements. If such a\ncourse was taken in order to uphold a certain system of theology, it\nought to be an everlasting warning to theologians not to make their\nsystems of theology too complete. When we come to realize how little we\nknow of God's plans and purposes, we shall see that completeness is\nentirely beyond us.\n\nThen with such clear statements of a universal Atonement as I have\nquoted, take that dictum to which I formerly referred, and which I think\nnone will dispute, that \"God infallibly accomplishes everything at which\nhe aims.\" Put the two things together, and what do they amount to? Do\nthey not give us a certainty of Restoration? For if God gave His Son in\norder to make provision for all mankind, He surely desires the salvation\nof all mankind; and if God thus \"aims\" at the salvation of all, will He\nnot accomplish it? If we had no hints whatever as to how that is done,\neither in this life or the next, we might rest on the assurance; it will\ninfallibly be accomplished.\n\nAnd then we have such a revelation of the character of God that we could\nexpect no less. He is infinite Wisdom; He is infinite Power; and He is\ninfinite Love. Put those three things together, and what will they not\naccomplish? Think the matter over for awhile. Can you imagine any\nconsummation less than the final salvation of all?\n\nThat divine wisdom, divine power, and divine love can compass nothing\nbetter than endless torment, is almost unthinkable. And if such an\nultimatum could be thought of as a possibility, then I would humbly ask:\nIs such a consummation worthy of God? And I would ask also: What would\nbe the practical benefit of it? Would it not be a reflection on love\nand power that are infinite?\n\nTo think that man was made in the divine image, and had within him the\npotentiality of attaining to absolute perfection and blessedness, but\nthat his career has culminated instead in the character of a demon, and\nthe suffering of endless torment! Is it possible to believe that the\ndivine administration could be such a failure?\n\nThis is no exaggeration Men believed, or tried to believe, that for\ncertain persons of the human race there was no possibility of a\ndifferent fate. They might say it was possible because they did not know\nwho was elected and who was not; and that they did not know for whom\nChrist died, and for whom He did not die. Therefore, they might argue\nthat all men had a chance. No; they had no chance if the secret divine\nintention was against them.\n\nAway with all untruth and misrepresentation. How much better, and how\nmuch more in keeping with the divine character, and the divine\nrevelation to say, without any halting or doubt, that God loves every\nman whom He has made; that He has provided for every man's salvation;\nthat if men do not accept the provision they will suffer; but that God\nwill triumph in the end, and that divine love will win. Surely, that\nwould be a Gospel indeed for our poor sin-stricken world!\n\n\n\n\nXV.\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF REASON.\n\nDivine Gift of Reason--Its Proper Sphere--No Dogmatism--Is Sin an\nInfinite Evil?--Infinite Penalty Impossible to Be Rendered--Justice\nCan Delay--Good Cannot Perish--Testimony of Dickens--Endless\nPunishment Increases Moral Evil--The Divine Character Never Changes\n--Time But a Short Epoch--Our Capacity of Development--Salvation of\nInfants--The Insane--Imperfect Christians--Their Destiny--Good\nUnchristian Men--Where Will They Go?--\"All Souls Are Mine\"--Worth\nPreserving--Fate of the Heathen--Reclaimed in the Next Life--Human\nFreedom Never Destroyed--Provision for All--A Dreadful Hymn--Divine\nSacrifice not in Vain--Bringing Good Out of Evil--Final Triumph of\nGoodness--Sin Is Abnormal--Will Therefore Cease--Law of Gradual\nChange--Sins of the Mind--The Race Might Easily Have Been Intercepted\n--Endless Torment Cannot be Believed--The Mind's Affinity for Truth\n--True Punishment Is Reformatory--Alleged Divine Cruelty--Agony of\nEternal Separation--All Are God's Own Children--The Universal Call\n--No Design of God Can Fail--Ingersoll and His Shafts of Ridicule\n--Incentive to Good Works--Unfathomable Divine Love--\"Joy Cometh in\nthe Morning.\"\n\n\nIt may be said that we are dealing here with matters that are entirely\ntoo high for our reason. Let it be remembered that we absolutely bow to\nrevelation. Yet we are not to stultify our reason. It is not out of its\nsphere in dealing with such high themes. Our reason is a sacred gift\nfrom God; it is to be used for His glory. Formerly, it was deemed almost\nsacrilegious to allow reason to intrude into such a sacred domain. That\nwas surely an unworthy mistake. We may and ought to be humble; but we\nhave minds to think as well as hearts to adore.\n\nIt may be well, therefore, to present, in as condensed a form as\npossible, some considerations founded on reason, in support of the idea\nof Restoration. And, forasmuch as many of these ideas may or may not be\nfamiliar to you, I would ask you to ponder each of them separately. They\ndo not all profess to be conclusive, but I think some of them are nearly\nso; others are strongly suggestive. As I have said, the question is, not\nwhich theory is absolutely demonstrated, but which is most in accord\nwith reason and revelation.\n\nI would like to say that I abhor any appearance of being dogmatic; but\nthe mere statement of an argument almost necessarily induces dogmatism\nin some degree. At any rate, it is well to have a reasonable and\ncandid mind.\n\nI think, then, that what has been advanced will make you seriously\nreflect. Give the matter time, and thought, and prayer; and I think you\nwill have a larger vision of the truth, and a higher hope for our poor\nlost race. To be sure, we are but groping in the twilight as yet. Yes;\nbut it is the twilight of the eternal morning!\n\nThe Principal of a theological college once said to me, when I asked him\nif a certain topic was a proper one for discussion: \"If you have a\nreverent mind, you can discuss anything.\"\n\nA few abstract propositions might first be stated. The orthodox doctrine\nis, that sin is an infinite evil, and that therefore sin calls for\ninfinite punishment; but that as man is a finite being, he cannot render\ninfinite punishment in degree; therefore he must render it in duration;\nhence there must be eternal suffering.\n\nTo this it may be replied, in addition to what I said before, that if\nsin is an infinite evil, there could be no aggravation of it; for\nnothing that is infinite can be increased, but we know that aggravations\nof it are possible; hence the necessity of eternal punishment does\nnot follow.\n\nThen, if suffering is infinite in duration, would not the mildest form\nof inconvenience suffice? For infinity has no end. Therefore the sum\ntotal of suffering of any degree would be infinite in amount. Hence,\nthere would be no need of torment.\n\nFurther, if unforgiven sin entails a penalty of infinite duration, the\npenalty could never be rendered. For infinite duration has no end.\nHence, if the suffering were prolonged through countless aeons, there\nwould still be countless aeons to come; and when these would have run\ntheir course, we would only be at the portals of eternity. Therefore, as\nthe supposed penalty involves eternal duration, it is plain that it\nnever could be rendered. Hence, in all justice, no punishment whatever\nneed be exacted, for we are as near to the complete rendering of it now,\nas we ever can be, if it be of infinite duration. On that showing,\ndivine justice would never be satisfied.\n\nAgain: If justice calls for eternal punishment, how is it that justice\ncan delay the punishment? But it does delay. Does not such delay reduce\nby so much the term of punishment? But somehow justice can wait. Now if\njustice can wait for an hour, why not for a day, and why not for a year,\nand why not for a thousand years, and why not for ever? On this\nprinciple we fail to see why there need be eternal suffering.\n\nThen there is the idea that nothing that is really good ever perishes.\nScientists and moralists generally agree in this. It is a wholesome\ninstinct, which commends itself at once to every wholesome mind. As\nDickens says:--\"There is nothing innocent or good that dies and is\nforgotten; let us hold to that faith or none.\" But how does such an idea\ncomport with that of eternal torment? It is admitted that many men who\nare not Christians, have yet a great deal of good in them. Is that good\nto be preserved or destroyed? No surer way could be taken to extinguish\nit than to consign such persons to everlasting suffering. Not only would\nthe good in them be speedily extinguished but the evil would be\nintensified beyond all calculation. And I think such effects are\nreckoned upon, and expected, by the advocates of eternal torment. What a\nburlesque that seems to be on the beneficent purpose of God. Far easier\nis it to believe that a state of education and discipline is ordained,\nwhereby the good that God Himself has created will be conserved and\nexpanded forever.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn this connection it is well to remember that God is ever the same. His\ndispensations may change; but He changes never. If He is love, and\npower, and pity, and wisdom now, He has the same qualities from\neverlasting to everlasting. Some appear to think that for the present He\nis exercising forbearance and patience; but that when eternity dawns He\nwill proceed to stern justice and relentless vengeance. No; God is love,\npower, wisdom, justice, for evermore; and His infinite resources He will\never use for the holiness and happiness of His creatures. If we would\nkeep this fact steadily in view, we would be slow to believe that He has\nnothing better in reserve than eternal torment for the most\nincorrigible of mankind.\n\nAlong with this let us remember that God's operations are not confined\nto the brief span of time. These few fleeting years are a very short\nepoch in eternity. Here we see but the beginning of His plans; in the\nnext life we may see the fruition of them. But we may believe they will\nunfold along the same lines. What is grace now will be glory then. What\nis limited now we may well believe will then be universal.\n\nConsider also the wonderful capacity of development with which we have\nbeen endowed. We are really made in God's own image, both mentally and\nmorally. In this world of sin and toil and sorrow we almost forget our\ndivine birthright. But when sin and toil and sorrow are done away, what\namazing strides we shall make, and to what intellectual and spiritual\nheights we shall soar. And is it to be supposed that having made us with\nsuch capacities, God has no better use for us than to be cast out of His\npresence eternally, and that we shall become demons? Surely infinite\nlove and power have something better in store.\n\nDid I say power? Yes, power, with infinite love and wisdom behind it.\nWhat will this triumvirate of infinities not accomplish? The power of\nGod in the material world gives us a strong suggestion of His power in\nthe moral world. Can we then think of such an utter failure as eternal\ntorment as being the ultimate doom of the creatures that God has made in\nHis own likeness?\n\nAnother consideration is this, that there is some way of salvation\nprovided for infants. That is acknowledged now on all hands. Time was,\nand not so long ago, that it was accounted very orthodox to say that\nthere were infants in hell \"not a span long.\" But it is not so now. It\nis admitted that by some unknown process all infants are saved. Now if\nthere be a method of saving infants, is it so hard to conceive that\nthere may be a method of saving adults? To be sure, the adults may be\ngreat sinners, and so the process may radically differ. But the minds of\nvery young infants are a perfect blank at first, and so every idea that\nthey require to fit them for the better world has to be communicated. So\nthere must be some process of education. It is easy then to conceive of\na process of education for adults, combined of course with such\ndiscipline as each case may require. It is reasonable to conceive that\nsome will pass through that intermediate stage without any suffering,\nexcept such as may come with larger visions of truth. It is equally\nconceivable that others will endure pains and penalties unspeakable\nbefore they yield. But they will yield at length; divine love\nwill conquer.\n\nLet us also think of this, that this idea of Restoration solves the\ndifficulty as to the insane. Where do the insane go after death? So far\nas we can see, they are not fitted for either world. But when they\nregain their right mind, and are put through a process of education, and\nperhaps of discipline, they will be prepared for the world of bliss. In\nno other way can we imagine a solution of the difficulty.\n\nThe same argument applies to most, if not all, Christians. Despite the\ndogma that they are made perfect at death, it is plain that in the case\nof many, perhaps of all, perfection is not attained. Imagine a\nChristian, but one beset with many imperfections. In a moment some\naccident cuts him off. Are we to imagine that the mere passing through\nthe gates of death works some magic change in his character? Surely not.\nWhat then becomes of him? He does not go to hell, for he is a Christian.\nYet he is not fit for heaven. What remains, but some preliminary stage\nof preparation to make him fit?\n\nAnd so we think it must be with a good man, but one who is not a\nChristian. There are many such. Yes, there are men who are not\nChristians, who are really of a far higher type of character than many\nChristians. Suppose such a man is cut off suddenly. Where does he go? On\nthe principle that what is good never dies, such a man would go to the\nbetter world. But he is not fit for it. But some preparatory stage of\npreparation might make him fit. We can conceive of no other way of\neternal wisdom and love dealing with his case. And there are myriads of\nsuch cases.\n\nAnd we must not forget that every man--be his character what it may--is\nthe object of the Father's love. There is too much of a disposition to\nbelieve that Christians only are loved of God, and that all others are\nindifferent to Him, if not objects of hate. We have to remember that He\nloves every man, and has made the best provision that is possible for\nevery man. If men believed this thoroughly, they would have less\ndifficulty in believing in a stage of preparation beyond this life, in\nthe case of so many who never had it here.\n\nThen again, God says, \"All souls are mine.\" If He claims them for His\nown, they must be precious. And is it to be supposed that He has made no\neternal provision for them? If He chose to make them immortal, and\nordered their lot in this world, as He certainly did, will not eternal\nwisdom and love make them worth preserving? Yes, He gave His son for\nthem as well as for us, and thus made a highway for them as well as for\nus, to glory, and honor and immortality.\n\nYet, although God claims all souls for His own, millions of heathen\nhave passed away in the past, and millions are passing away now, who\nnever heard the Saviour's name. His is the only name whereby men can be\nsaved; but His name is \"Wonderful,\" and those who could not be saved\nthrough that name on this side of death may be saved through it on the\nother side. Death is but the passage of the soul from one world to\nanother. God reigns in both; and His tender mercy is over all His works.\n\nThe same principle applies to incorrigible backsliders. There have been\nmen who were most eminent in Christian grace, who lapsed into\nbacksliding of the lowest type, and even denied the Lord that bought\nthem. They showed no sign of being reclaimed in this life. Will they not\nbe reclaimed in the next? There is nothing to hinder, but it may require\na long and terribly severe discipline. But we believe divine love will\nultimately triumph.\n\nIt helps us to understand how the most abandoned may be reclaimed if we\nremember the case of Saul of Tarsus. It does seem that Christ can\novercome the most inveterate opposition without interfering in the least\nwith a man's freedom. We believe this is the prerogative of Deity alone.\nOur free will is a glorious heritage; but we have to beware of unduly\nexalting it. God is greater than even man's free will. If Christ in a\nmoment could break down Saul's opposition, and yet leave him a free\nman, we cannot conceive of any offender too malignant for Him to subdue.\nBut how it is done is a mystery. It seems to be one of those things that\nare past finding out.\n\nAt all events, we can believe that the most incorrigible will be\nreclaimed when we have the revelation that Jesus died for all mankind.\nIt is said that He gave Himself a \"ransom for all.\" It is declared that\nHe tasted death \"for every man.\" Now if He tasted death for every man,\ncan we believe that He will not somehow and somewhere reclaim every man?\nIf He does not do so in this life, will He not do so in the next.\n\nAgain; it is said that \"He shall be satisfied.\" Will anything less\nsatisfy Him than the salvation of all for whom He died? His influence is\nnot limited to this world. All worlds are under His control. There may\nbe good reasons why some are saved in this life, and others in the next.\nI will glance at this point immediately. Meantime let us remember that\nHis love and power are unchangeable, and that He is Lord in the world\nbeyond, as well as here. What will not such conditions accomplish?\n\nWith regard to the suffering entailed by sin, both in this life and in\nthe next, I have the idea of a possible solution. May not all suffering\nbe ordained as a necessary safeguard of innocence to all eternity? I\nmean this: We have to recognize the possibility of falling; for the\nangels fell. We must remember that we are not machines, but moral\nbeings. Now may not sin have been permitted, and the suffering in\nconsequence of it, in order to furnish us with a warning against sin to\nall eternity? And as we are of such diverse mental and moral calibre,\nmay not our suffering be individually of that kind and degree that it\nwill be exactly what we need as a warning against sin, and so safeguard\nour innocence for ever?\n\nIt may be objected that our memory of suffering would lose its vividness\nwith the lapse of eternal years, and so fail of its effect. But I can\nbelieve that we would have a vivid remembrance of it for ever, when I\nthink of how vividly I recall events of my early years. Scenes of my\nschool days I can recall more vividly than the scenes of yesterday.\n\nSo far as I know, this is a new idea of the mystery of pain. It may be\nof no value; but I put it forward that those who are thoughtful along\nsuch lines may examine it.\n\nThere are other considerations which might be adverted to here; but I\nthink what I have advanced is sufficient. The final argument, and the\nall-comprehensive one, is, the final triumph of good over evil. Sin will\nbe abolished; love will triumph; God will be all in all.\n\nIn what has been advanced it will be noticed that there are some\nrepetitions. But generally these are in new connections. If these ideas\nwere mere platitudes they would not bear to be repeated; but many of\nthem are somewhat off the beaten track, and need to be repeated in order\nto present them in their true reasonableness and force. For I am trying\nhere to set some things in a clearer light for those who have not given\nmuch attention to such studies.\n\n\nPREPARATION FOR HEAVENLY BLESSEDNESS.\n\nThat there is a way of salvation beyond the bound of time is strongly\nsuggested by the salvation of infants. We are all agreed about the\nsalvation of infants. Our heart refuses any other belief. In the case,\nhowever, of very young infants, they go into the next life destitute of\nall moral character. Either heaven must be a very large place, including\na place for infants--or else they must undergo some preparatory process\nbefore entering. In either case their entire preparation for heavenly\nblessedness is achieved beyond this life. Now the fact of them being so\nprepared opens to our faith the possibility of adults being prepared\nalso. The process may differ; we know nothing of details; but it is\neffective, and in certain cases may be entirely destitute of pain.\n\nWith the heathen the same argument holds. He would be a bold man who\nwould say that no heathen is saved. We know that some of them rose to a\nhigh moral plane; indeed such as would largely, if not entirely, fit\nthem for the inheritance of the saints. But they had not knowledge of\nthe Saviour. That was all they needed. You will say, perhaps, that that\nwas everything. It was; but it could be supplied very quickly once they\ncrossed the boundary of time. They would meet angel friends there who\nwould soon give them the required information. We can conceive, from\nwhat we know of them when here, that they would believe at once, and\nvery soon be fit for at least the beginning of eternal joy.\n\nThere have been those who by the light of nature, or by the illumination\nof the divine Spirit, attained to marvellous perfection; yet, never\nheard the Saviour's name. Just now I notice that an orthodox divine\nnames Socrates as a case in point. In cases not so marked we can believe\nthat disclosures of truth that they could not learn here, may transform\nthem into saints.\n\nSurely this is a sane, as well as a brighter prospect than was\nentertained not so very long ago. I recall those lines of the Hymn by\nDr. Watts, which I learned when quite young:\n\n     \"There is a dreadful hell\n       Of everlasting pains;\n     Where sinners must with devils dwell,\n       In darkness, fire, and chains.\"\n\nHappily the sentiment of the Hymn did not make much impression on me. It\nis a great boon to children that sometimes they are not very thoughtful.\n\nI wonder if Robert Browning ever learned such Hymns when a child. If he\ndid, he must later have had a revival of more hopeful ideas. He could\nwrite that couplet that has been so often repeated:\n\n     \"God's in His heaven;\n      All's right with the world.\"\n\nBut all is not right with the world if millions and millions of our\nfellow creatures are in endless torment, and other millions on their\nway. I fear Browning's words are often repeated with a glib optimism.\nAll is right with the world, or all will be right, when the whole race\nis redeemed from suffering and sin; not otherwise. But the love and\npower of God are equal to the task.\n\n\nTHE SWEEP OF THE INFINITE MIND.\n\nI have sometimes on a sweet and hallowed night watched the moon riding\nso peacefully through the white clouds; and it did seem to me that if\nthere is suffering anywhere, God has a time and a plan for relieving it.\nI could not think of Him as being happy otherwise. But if in the sweep\nof the infinite Mind he descries, even in some far off age, the entire\npassing away of sin and suffering, I can imagine Him as being perfectly\nhappy. All events being equally present to Him, anticipation may be very\nmuch the same as reality.\n\nIt has just struck me that the multiplicity of the considerations here\nadvanced may lead to some degree of confusion. I will therefore repeat\nsome of them, and glance at others, condensing them into as few words as\npossible. I think the effect will be that the total argument will be\npresented with more clearness and force.\n\nWe read that Christ \"gave Himself a ransom for all.\" To my mind that\nsettles the extent of the Atonement. Words could not be plainer. But if\nChrist gave Himself a ransom for all, will He be satisfied with saving\nonly some? Surely He will see that the ransom which He paid will have\nits due effect. That means that somehow, sometime, all will be saved.\nElse in regard to those who are not saved, He died in vain; which is\nunthinkable.\n\nBut He will be satisfied. Yes. He will be satisfied. It is so predicted.\nCan He be satisfied with less than the salvation of every human soul?\nWe have seen that He died for all. Can He be satisfied with less than\nthe redemption of all? If that is not effected now, will it not be\neffected later? His administration is from everlasting to everlasting.\n\nIt is said again that \"He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for\nours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.\" The scope of His\nAtonement is universal. Evidently it fails of its full effect now. There\nare millions who have not even heard the Saviour's name; but they are\nincluded in the great plan of propitiation, and it cannot fail.\n\nThen it is written that He \"tasted death for every man.\" This puts the\nmatter beyond all peradventure. His Atonement was not only for the whole\nworld, but for every man. He had every individual singly in His view in\nmaking His Atonement; and will it fail of its effect? Surely \"His\npurpose will stand, and He will do all his pleasure.\"\n\nWe read again that \"all Israel shall be saved.\" The words must not be\nminimized or explained away. Certainly Israel is not saved now. Think of\nthe sins into which they fell in the past; think of all the crises in\ntheir history when God was ready to cast them off; think of their\ncondition to-day,--a byword and a hissing among the nations. If the\nscene is thus to be closed, it seems a mistake ever to have chosen them\nas a people at all. But it was no mistake. Their time will come; if not\nin this life, then in the life beyond. They will be saved; the promise\nwill stand.\n\nAgain: Christ has promised that if he is lifted up on the cross He will\ndraw all men to Himself. If that promise is limited to this life it is\nnot true. Christ has not drawn more than a moiety of mankind to Himself.\nBut it is gloriously true if we take in the future. He is not limited to\none epoch of time. A thousand years are with Him but as one day.\n\nThen think of the sacrifice which the Father made. He gave His Son. Who\nwill fathom the meaning of that sacrifice? Some there are who say that\nGod cannot suffer. On the contrary. I believe that His suffering in\ngiving His Son no man nor angel can fathom. And is it to be thought that\nGod made that sacrifice for less than every human soul? The fact that He\nloved every soul that He has made, should settle the question.\n\nThen we are often told that the Atonement is suited for all, though it\nis not intended for all. When we admit that God loves every soul, and\nthat the Atonement is suited for all, are we not shut up to the\nconclusion that it is, or will be, applied to all? Nothing could hinder,\nexcept man's own obstinacy, and we have seen that his obstinacy can be\novercome without interfering with his freedom.\n\nWe believe that sin will finally be put down. To that effect there are\nmany scriptural declarations. But it is conceivable that it is tolerated\nfor a time as an object lesson, and as a safeguard against evil. Some\nsuch beneficent design God certainly has in view; else all His\nbenevolent purposes would take effect in this life. We have to remember\nthat His administration is from everlasting to everlasting. We have also\nto remember that God has all moral as well as all physical power, even\nto taking captive the most wicked of men.\n\nWhen we think of the divine union of love, wisdom and power in God, it\nis not hard to believe that they will finally triumph. If God in His\ndivine wisdom knows how to act, and divine power enables Him to act, and\ndivine love impels Him to act, it is reasonable to forecast the ultimate\nholiness and happiness of all intelligences.\n\nWe are accustomed to say, and we often see it, that God brings good out\nof evil. The ultimate abolition of all sin, and the universal triumph of\ngoodness, are but an expansion of the same principle.\n\nWe have also to remember that sin in any form is an abnormal condition\nof the universe. It is not reasonable to think that abnormal conditions\nwill prevail for ever.\n\nThere are some who believe that God is so unchangeable that He must\nnecessarily be happy under all conditions. Such are not the\nrepresentations of Scripture; and though they are but representations,\nwe believe they are agreeable with the fact. Besides; that is not true\nof our selves; and we know that we are created in the divine image. Now\nif sin is a disturbing factor of divine happiness, it is reasonable to\nthink that it will finally be done away.\n\nThere is no constituent of character that brings so much happiness as\nlove. As God really is love, He is the infinitely happy one. It is\ntherefore reasonable to suppose that divine love will ultimately have\nits happiest expression; and that will involve the abolition of all sin.\n\nWrath is no constituent of the divine character; but a potentiality\nonly. If God is to be supremely happy there will finally be no sin to\ncall forth his wrath, for wrath is a disturber of happiness.\n\nSo long as God is just, He must punish sin. But punishment is His\nstrange work; it does not directly minister to happiness; therefore it\nis reasonable to think that sin that calls for punishment will be done\naway. Besides; Christ bore the penalty of all sin; infinite justice\ndemands no more, any further infliction of suffering is intended only\nfor discipline.\n\nWhen the angels came to earth on the occasion of the Saviour's birth,\nthey said that they brought good tidings of great joy to all people. But\nmillions and millions of people passed away from earth without hearing\nthe good tidings. Then they must hear the good tidings in the life\nbeyond. But if they are consigned to eternal torment, there are no good\ntidings for them. And if they are extinct they can hear no tidings,\neither good or bad. What remains but that the good tidings that did not\nreach them here will be conveyed to them there? It is likely that the\nangels knew the scope of their message, and that the conveyance of that\nmessage to those on the other side of time, was no more difficult or\nabnormal than to us on this side.\n\nThen, what about those whom we have known whose spiritual condition was\ndoubtful when they passed away? Is it not extremely likely that God has\nsome way of developing what is good in them, and casting out what is\nevil? We feel that just at present they would be out of place in either\nworld. Is it not reasonable to think of some intermediate stage of\npreparation?\n\nBesides; from what we know of the divine method of procedure, it does\nnot seem likely that He would thrust a frail human spirit into the\nblinding glory of heaven all at once. We are used to gradual changes;\nthey suit us better. An infant newly born is not conscious at first that\nany radical change in its life has occurred; but it accommodates itself\neasily and naturally to its new life. And so it would seem uncongenial\nto us to be thrust at once into the excellent glory. A stage of\npreparation--be it long or short--would seem to be desirable and\nnecessary. And if it is desirable and necessary, it is provided.\n\nThen there are sins of the mind which are not cast off with the flesh.\nThe sins may be forgiven, but the evil inclinations cling to us. We need\na certain time and a certain process to have them eliminated.\n\nWe can easily conceive too--in fact we meet with cases of the kind quite\noften--where a man that is not a Christian has a soul of goodness that\nmakes him really the superior of many so-called Christians. But he is\nnot a Christian. He dies suddenly; and where does he go? The idea of\nRestoration settles all difficulty. The good that is in him is\ndeveloped; ultimately he is fit for the inheritance of the saints. In no\nother way can we think of a wise and gracious disposal of him.\n\nIn connection with this idea we cannot but note that even dying saints\nare by no means perfect in general. There are many cases in which the\nlast sickness seems to bring no marked change. Yet we have the assured\nhope that all is well. But if we look at the matter critically, we see\nno evidence of a state of perfection being reached. There seems to be a\nneed of a refining process on the other side of death; and if it is\nneeded it is provided.\n\nThere is a recognized principle, too, that whatsoever is really good\nwill not perish. This is true, both in the domain of physics and of\nmorals. If therefore there is even the beginning of goodness in any\nsoul, it is but reasonable to assume that such goodness will persist,\nand be completed either on this side of death or on the other side. Such\nan idea seems to be highly compatible with a beneficent, divine\ngovernment.\n\nIf it be asked why such a process is not carried out always on this side\nof time, I say we must be cautious about irreverently intruding into\ndivine methods. We might as well ask why Saul, for instance, was not\nconverted earlier. We can but say, \"Even so Father, for so it seemed\ngood in Thy sight.\"\n\nWe have to remember that the present is only one domain of God's\nadministration. The whole span of time which is to us so vast, is but a\npassing epoch to Him. If we would keep this in mind, it would solve\nmany supposed difficulties.\n\nI think it will be freely granted that no design of God can ultimately\nfail. But if we follow up that principle, there is no eternal torment;\nfor if will hardly be contended that God designed it. And so with final\nextinction. It would be a reflection on the divine intention to suppose\nthat he called into being such myriads of the human race, and so\nwonderfully endowed them, merely to extinguish them at last. This\nprinciple, if duly studied, will be seen, I think, to eliminate all\npossibility both of extinction and of endless torment.\n\nWhen we consider how both extinction and torment might have been\navoided, we are forced to believe that neither alternative was in God's\nplan. When sin was introduced by our first parents, He might at once\nhave cut them off, or rendered them childless. In either case the\nmyriads of the human race would not have appeared, and thus any\nalternative of torment or extinction would have been avoided. This\nconsideration, it seems to me, goes a long way to settle the\nwhole question.\n\nAnother thing is, that endless torment cannot really be believed. Men\nmay say they believe it; they may think they believe it; it may seem\northodox to believe it; but they really do not believe it. To think that\na soul is tormented for ever and ever and ever, is really beyond belief.\nIt is well it is so. Otherwise man would be insane.\n\nWhen we consider that the soul has a strong affinity for truth, and when\nwe consider that endless torment cannot be believed, there is a strong\npresumption that it is not true. Any sustained attempt to believe that\nwhich the mind instinctively repudiates as false, is in the highest\ndegree demoralizing. There is a strong presumption therefore that the\ntheory of endless torment is not true.\n\nLet it also be noted how hardening was the process of believing the old\ndoctrine. So far did they go who professed it, that some of them gloated\nover the prospect of souls in torment. Such hardening of the heart\nraises a strong presumption that the doctrine is false.\n\nOur highest idea of punishment is, that it is reformatory. But in\nendless torment there is no possibility, and no design, of reformation.\nA God of infinite love would surely use the highest method, with the\nhighest intention. If suffering was of a limited duration and conduced\nto our final perfection, we could understand it, and adore the Author of\nit. But who can see any beneficent design in everlasting torment?\n\nIf strict justice demands punishment of eternal duration, we would ask\nwhy the punishment is not as a matter of necessity inflicted at once.\nBut we see that justice does not demand its prompt infliction. God can\nwait long years before inflicting it. But if He can wait ten years, why\nnot a hundred? And if a hundred, why not forever?\n\nAlong the same line, we would say that an infinite penalty can never be\nrendered. For infinitude has no end; and so, no matter how long the\npenalty might be drawn out, there would still be an eternity to come. So\nwe would never come to the end of eternity; and the penalty could never\nbe rendered. This seems to me a strong argument against everlasting\npunishment.\n\nIn the same connection I would venture the idea that sin is not an\ninfinite evil, and does not call for an infinite punishment. I do not\nthink that a finite creature like man can commit an infinite crime. The\nfact that an infinite punishment cannot be rendered, seems to show that\nthe crime is not infinite. If not, then in justice there is no\neverlasting punishment.\n\nComing back to matters more strictly within our grasp, I would ask what\nhas been so often asked: What will become of the heathen? Many of them\nnever had a chance to be much better than they are. Restoration, so far\nas I can see, is the only settlement of the difficulty. But that settles\nit completely. In the next world they will learn the way of eternal life\nwhich they could not learn here, and ultimately they will rise to\neternal blessedness. If there were nothing else, the settlement of that\ntranscendent problem would be a strong endorsement of Restoration.\n\nThen there were heathens who in this life rose very high in knowledge\nand character. On the principle that whatever is good is immortal, what\nthey gained here will be supplemented, until they are fit for the\ninheritance of the saints. \"The zeal of the Lord of hosts will\nperform this.\"\n\nThe idea of Restoration also explains the apparent cruelty of the God of\nthe Old Testament. Sinners were often cut off; and that was a salutary\nlesson for others; but those who were cut off, were transferred to\nscenes where they would have better surroundings, and where they would\nin time rise to a higher moral plane.\n\nThe same theory accounts for the salvation of infants. We all believe in\nthe salvation of infants. The heart refuses any other belief. But it is\nlargely a matter of sentiment, apart from the idea of Restoration. They\nhave no character whatever to begin with. But Restoration supplies--we\nknow not how and do not need to know--all they require. The mere fact\nthat infants require some place and process of development beyond this\nlife, is a strong argument for such aid being rendered to others\nas well.\n\nAlso, take the case of suicides. There are many who in a frenzy of\ndespair commit the crime of self-destruction. It is easy to believe that\nthere is sympathy and helpfulness for them on the other shore.\n\nAnd so with lunatics. Apart from Restoration it is difficult to think\nwhat will become of them. They are not responsible, and it would be\nunfair to treat them as criminals. On the other hand, they have no ideas\nnor character such as would fit them for a better world. But they will\nregain their intellect at the point they lost it; and it is not hard to\nconceive of their swift upward trend.\n\nThere is one very serious difficulty which we can conceive of no way of\nsolving, except on the supposition of Restoration. I refer to the agony\nwhich a person must suffer even in heaven on finding that loved friends\nor relatives are not there. To know that they are in extinction, that\nthey are fit for nothing better, and that hence they are shut out from\neternal joy, would surely be an everlasting pang. And the case is\ninfinitely worse if it is realized that they are in endless torment. We\nthink the very thought of that would be unendurable even in a\nbetter world.\n\nBut how gladsome is the prospect of neither of these fates being in\nstore for them. If it is known that they are in a state of discipline\nfor a time, to emerge by and by into scenes of bliss, we can fancy that\nsuch knowledge would be a source of joy unspeakable. And who can imagine\nthe rapture of meeting with such friends later on? This view of\nRestoration solves the difficulty so often felt in regard to dear ones\nwho died in a state of alienation from God. The everlasting hope that is\nthus opened up for them is a source of perennial joy.\n\nHere I would make a statement which at the first glance may seem to some\nrather startling. It is this: There is not punishment for sin, either in\nthis life, or in the next. Christ has settled all that by offering\nHimself as the sin-bearer for all mankind. \"The Lord laid on Him the\niniquity of us all.\" \"He hath made Him to be sin for us.\" \"It pleased\nthe Lord to bruise Him.\" \"God gave His Son that whosoever believeth in\nHim should not perish, but have everlasting life.\" If the condition of\nbelieving on Him seems to limit the everlasting love of that statement,\ntake the next; \"God sent not His Son into the world, to condemn the\nworld, but that the world through Him might be saved.\" Yes, the world.\nThere is no limitation there. That means the modern heathen world, and\nthe ancient heathen world, and all grades of humanity of all time.\nChrist has suffered for them every one. There may be suffering, but\nthere can be no just punishment for sin, either in this life or\nthe next.\n\nBut then, there is the necessity for purification. And suffering is made\nby divine grace to serve that end. We can well conceive then that there\nare all grades of suffering, and all grades of the duration of\nsuffering, in the next life. It is no contradiction of this idea, but\nrather a confirmation of it, that very much of this suffering is the\nresult of former sin. Indeed, when we see, even in this life, how often\nthat suffering is a result of sin, yet is a means of purification, we\ncan well believe that it will so operate in the next life, and on a\nlarger scale.\n\nSinners of every grade require just two things; Forgiveness and\nHoliness. That is, a title to heaven, and a fitness for it. Let us see\nhow these two things are acquired, and if either of them demands eternal\npunishment.\n\nJustification is acquired by the death of Christ, and by that alone. \"He\ndied for our sins,\" \"He was wounded for our transgressions.\" \"The Lord\nlaid on Him the iniquity of us all.\" \"We are justified freely by his\nblood.\" That is the one reason and ground for forgiveness. So then,\nwhether men know it or not, they are forgiven. It is the merit of Christ\nthat counts, and that alone. Christ has paid the penalty, and it takes\ndue effect in the forgiveness of every sinner. He \"tasted death for\nevery man.\" Therefore, there can be no just punishment even in the case\nof the most incorrigible; far less can there be eternal punishment.\n\nBut then, as I have said, the sinner needs holiness. Suffering seems to\nbe absolutely necessary here. But in this case suffering is not\npunishment; for punishment implies wrong doing. But all wrong doing has\nbeen atoned for, as we have seen. Hence the suffering that is inflicted\nis not punishment; it is discipline; the Fatherly infliction of love.\n\"Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth.\"\n\nAnd what is the divine intention of this chastisement or discipline? Is\nit not the production of a worthy character? In this case it is no less\nthan the re-creation of a character. In producing such a character God\nuses various means, and one of these, as we have seen, is discipline.\nBut if suffering were continued through all eternity, it would surely\nnot be discipline. We think it would have the very opposite effect, and\nwould produce the maximum of evil. Therefore, on the ground of needed\ndiscipline, as well as on that of forgiveness, we can see no necessity\nfor eternal torment. And if there is no necessity for it, certainly it\nis not inflicted.\n\nIt may be well to make this matter a little clearer, even at the risk\nof some repetition. If there is any doubt about sin being actually\nforgiven before the exercise of faith or penitence, I would ask: What is\nthe actual ground of forgiveness? Is it not the Atonement of Christ?\nNecessary as faith and penitence are, could either or both procure\nforgiveness? If they could, Christ need not have died. But of all\nthings, that was the prime necessity. Without shedding of blood there\ncould be no remission. The corollary of that is, that with shedding\nblood there can be instant and universal remission.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nInstant, we say? Yes; for \"we are reconciled to God by the death of His\nSon,\" He was \"the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world,\" so God\nis reconciled now; and not only that, but from all eternity.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAnd universal? Yes; for he \"tasted death for every man.\" So every sinner\nis forgiven by virtue of Christ's Atonement. The benefit of that\nAtonement extends to the worst man of our race.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBut are not faith and penitence necessary? Yes, they are necessary to\nfinal salvation; but if they are necessary to forgiveness, then there\nwas no necessity for Atonement. It is Atonement alone which procures\npardon; and as Atonement was for the whole race, so forgiveness is for\nthe whole race also.\n\nTo be sure it is written that \"we are justified by faith,\" But surely,\nwe are not to understand those words literally or rigidly. For could\nfaith of itself really justify us? Could it really pay the debt we owe?\nIt is \"the gift of God.\" Is it not therefore wholly without merit? Is\nnot its function, rather, to bring us into the consciousness of\njustification? I do not see how it could do more than that.\n\nBut if we want to know the ground of justification, must we not look for\nit in the death of Christ? It is written that we are \"freely justified\nby his blood.\" Is not that really the ground? And inasmuch as Christ is\n\"the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world,\" the merit of his\ndeath goes back to the first, as well as extends to the last, sinner of\nour race. When the matter is viewed in this light, does it not seem a\nmoral necessity that all sin is already forgiven?\n\nBut it may be pleaded that God is \"angry with sinners every day;\" that\n\"tribulation and wrath\" are ordained for \"every soul of man that doeth\nevil;\" and so on. How, then, can divine anger, tribulation, and wrath\nrest upon a person that is forgiven?\n\nSimply because God's very nature is opposed to sin in every form; and he\nmust visit sin with wrath and tribulation, though it be forgiven. In\nfact, it is because sin is forgiven, and that thus the basis of\nsalvation is laid, that God is so painstaking to make the most and the\nbest of us.\n\nIt is, therefore, easy to believe that wrath and tribulation will be\ncontinued in the next life until the sinner repents, and turns to God.\nThe fact that Christ has died for him will be no mitigation of necessary\ndiscipline, any more than it is now. The very fact that in this life we\nsee the same principle of suffering on the part of God's own children,\nis proof enough of the righteousness and wisdom of a similar course\nbeing followed in the next life. The merit of Christ's Atonement does\nnot avail for shielding sinners from necessary suffering in either life.\n\nBut did not Christ at times pronounce forgiveness in such a way as to\nmean that it occurred just then, and not before? Take that case of the\nparalytic to whom he said, \"Thy sins are forgiven.\" Does it not look as\nif the man were forgiven then and there? And yet, how could It be? The\nman as yet had not been healed, and so there was nothing to indicate his\nsaving faith in Christ. Yet the Saviour pronounced his forgiveness. It\nseems to me that Christ was rather bearing testimony to the fact that\nthe man had been forgiven--he did not say when. It may have been that\nthe poor paralytic was laboring under the fallacy that his suffering was\nowing to special sin, and so Christ wished to give him the joy of\nconscious pardon.\n\nOr, take the case of the poor penitent in the house of Simon. Jesus\nsaid to her, \"Thy sins are forgiven,\" and to \"go in peace.\" Now were her\nsins forgiven the moment Jesus spoke to her? Were they not forgiven\nprior to that? Was there anything in the woman's mental or moral\nattitude to Christ to indicate that not till the moment that he spoke\nthe word were her sins forgiven? The fact is, that he spoke the word\nwhen circumstances led up to it, and not before. There is nothing to\nforbid the idea, it seems to me that her sins were always forgiven; but\nJesus spoke the word of comfort just when it was needed. She had now the\njoy of conscious forgiveness; I think that was what Jesus intended\nto bestow.\n\nSo it seems to me that all sin is forgiven already. The death of Christ\nsecures that boon. And is there anything which would break a sinner's\nheart so effectually as to know that, let him sink in wickedness to the\nlowest possible depths, yet that all his sin is already forgiven? If\nanything would win him, can you conceive of anything so effectual as\nthat? What a display that would be of the conquering power of\nlove divine!\n\nHere I would note a singular coincidence. The very day after I had\nwritten that there is no punishment for sin either in this life or the\nnext--that it is all discipline--I received a book from some unknown\nfriend in which the same idea occurs. Speaking of a prodigal daughter,\nthe author says: \"There was but one thing wanting to restore her to her\nhome--a mere act of the will that should have prompted her to say, 'I\nwill arise, and go to my father!' It is precisely so with every child of\nGod. There is no moment in which they are not forgiven, and the Father\nanxiously longing for their return.\" In another place he says, \"All sin\nis forgiven sin.\"\n\nBut, mark you; this author writes from the standpoint of orthodoxy. Then\nif \"all sin is forgiven sin,\" how can it merit eternal punishment? How\ncan future suffering be considered punishment at all if all sin\nis forgiven?\n\nAnd this author is very sure that the suffering is absolutely endless.\nThis is what he says: \"If in the infinite love of God there might be\nfound a shortening of the sinner's doom, it would certainly be a matter\nof relief to all; but the only Book that comes with answer to the great\nquestions of the soul, it seems to me, lends no encouragement to such\na hope.\"\n\nEvidently, this man's heart is better than his head. He says that God\nhas ordained everlasting suffering; but our author is not satisfied with\nthat; he would be glad if some \"shortening\" of the sinner's doom could\nbe found, but he cannot find it. He does not seem to realize that in\nthese words he claims to be more merciful than God Himself.\n\nNow, if \"all sin is forgiven sin,\" as the author says, and as I believe\nit is, then how can there in justice be everlasting suffering? The\nsuffering cannot in justice be punishment, since the sin is forgiven;\nnor can it be discipline if the suffering has no end, for no moral\nimprovement would be attained thereby, but the very maximum of evil.\nSurely, a merciful and just and wise God cannot be the Author of any\nsuch scheme? Would it not be a thousand times more reasonable to\nconceive of suffering as being temporary; to be inflicted as a necessary\ndiscipline; and then when the discipline is attained, to cease?\n\nThe reverent and reasonable way of looking at the entire matter seems to\nbe something like this: First; all sin is forgiven in virtue of the\nAtonement that has been made. The benefit of that Atonement extends to\nthe first man of our race, as well as to the last one. The benefit of it\nextends to the whole family of man, whether heathen or not; and whether\nsmall sinners or great.\n\nFurther; every man is a sinner in some degree, and he needs a degree of\ndiscipline which the present life does not provide, but which is\nprovided in the next. This will be as varied as men's character and\nattainments. In those who have risen high, it may well be described as\na passage into glory, for it will, indeed, be realized as such. But it\nwill be a lower glory, preparatory for a higher, to be attained later\non. Others, with different degrees of evil still clinging to them, will\nhave to undergo pains and penalties suitable to their condition, and so\nby gradual ascent attain to perfection and blessedness. Thus, it is\nreasonable to think that there will be as great a variety of character\nand capacity then as now; and this will largely determine the great\nvariety of place, service, and so on.\n\nBut supposing that future punishment did issue in moral improvement, and\nthat such improvement should go on increasing, is it thinkable that\nunder an infinitely gracious and wise government there would come no\ntime of such perfection as would warrant release? But in that case the\nsuffering would not be endless. Whichever way you take it, that seems to\nbe the inevitable, final issue.\n\nSo it seems to me that the only wise, and beneficent, and just idea of\nfuture suffering, whether it be intense or mild, or whether it be of\nshorter or longer duration, is, that it will be the means of working out\na divinely intended degree of moral perfection; and that it will then\ncome to an end. This course of procedure we observe here and now. It may\noperate on a larger scale, and with more final results, in the life to\ncome; but we apprehend that the principle will be much the same. And\nthe principle is enough for us now. The details, we are sure, will be\nworthy of Infinite Wisdom and Love.\n\nIt will thus be observed that our author's dictum that \"all sin is\nforgiven sin\" absolutely forbids the idea of endless torment. It is a\nmarvel that he did not see this before. But somehow, likely from early\ntraining, there is a strong disposition to retain the idea of endless\ntorment as though it were the Gospel. We think, on the contrary, that\nany good reasons, whether founded on Scripture or on common sense,\nshould be hailed as a deliverance from intellectual and spiritual\nbondage. Above all things, let us beware of turning the divine light\ninto darkness.\n\nThis is a mere sketch of the order that may be supposed to obtain in the\nnext life. We need to put Scripture and reason together to get a view of\nsuch things as will commend themselves to our best judgment. And when we\nhave done our best, what can we really know of details? Not much,\ncertainly; but enough to appeal strongly to faith and hope. In fact,\nanything like a complete revelation could not be given to us now and\nhere; for we have not the capacity nor the experience to understand it.\nAnd even if it could be given, it might largely distract us from the\nordinary duties of life. It is a gracious Providence that shuts out the\nunseen from these mortal eyes. But we have the great consolation that\n\"what we know not now, we shall know hereafter.\"\n\nIn regard to the unfolding of divine truth, I have just met with the\nfollowing terse expression of it: \"The inscrutable laws of the all-wise\nGod do not reveal themselves in one generation, but ripen with the\ndesire for knowledge on the part of mankind.\"\n\nThus, there is a progress in revelation. There are epochs when men get\nlarger views of truth. I think the present is one of these epochs. Many\nstatements of Scripture that were supposed formerly to relate wholly to\nthe present life, are now seen to relate to the life beyond. This brings\na wonderful naturalness and harmony into the whole scheme of grace, so\nfar as it is revealed.\n\nThe idea of no endless torment is but an enlargement of the principle\nthat God brings good out of evil.\n\nConsider also that an ideal condition of the universe seems to require\nthat sin and suffering will be forever eliminated; and that under God's\nadministration an ideal condition will be realized.\n\nFurther; God has a personal love for every human soul. The most\ndegraded of our race can say as truly as did Paul, \"He loved me.\" It is\nreasonable to expect, then, that infinite Love will secure for the worst\nof mankind something better than endless torment.\n\nI have referred to the fact that the mind has a strong affinity for\ntruth. But certainly, it has a strong repugnance to a belief in endless\ntorment. Men try to believe it because they think it is taught in the\nBible, and that it would be a dangerous thing to doubt it. But apart\nfrom that, there is no natural or hearty concurrence of the mind in that\nview. And I think I may say that such an attitude is more pronounced in\nthose of an elevated and reverent turn of mind.\n\nThen we know that God \"does not afflict willingly, nor grieve the\nchildren of men.\" Therefore we believe all the suffering of this life\nand of the next is but as a means to an end.\n\nThe fact, also, that sin and suffering are abnormal features of the\ndivine administration, indicates almost beyond doubt that they will\nfinally be done away.\n\nRemember, too, that it is very clearly revealed that an Atonement has\nbeen made for \"every man.\" Thus, a divine provision has been made for\nevery man Now the provision involves desire; and can the desire fail?\nUnder a perfect administration, therefore, how can there be endless\nsuffering?\n\nThen if God gave His own Son, and if the Son gave Himself, for the\nredemption of the world, will that Atonement fail of its effect in a\nsingle case? Such a possibility is almost unthinkable.\n\nConsider, also, that the possibility of eternal sin and suffering seems\nto imply a failure of the divine administration; which is impossible.\n\nThen, God is forever the same. If He is love, wisdom, power, justice,\nmercy, now, He is the same through all eternity. At no future epoch,\ntherefore, can we conceive of the necessity of endless torment.\n\nWe have to remember too, that God rules in all worlds, and throughout\nall time. Forever, and everywhere, \"His counsel will stand, and He will\ndo all His pleasure.\"\n\nIt is an orthodox doctrine that God cannot suffer. But that does not\nseem in harmony with the breathing of His sigh, \"O that they were wise!\"\nor \"How can I give thee up?\" or the tears of Christ over the apostate\ncity. Now, if God is eternal Love, do not sin and suffering interfere\nforever with His happiness? But normally we conceive of Him as the\ninfinitely happy One; therefore that normal condition requires that sin\nand suffering be ultimately done away.\n\nThen we have the fact that we are God's children; yes, even the most\ndebased of mankind. Paul could say to the idolaters of Athens, \"We are\nHis offspring.\" Now, if we are really His children, and therefore\ninfinitely dearer to Him than our children are to us, will not the\npresent suffering of even one of us be a source of pain to the eternal\nFather? On that ground we cannot think of suffering as being endless.\nThis is holy ground; let us tread it reverently.\n\nFurther; we read that Christ \"lighteth every man that cometh into the\nworld.\" Now, if He loves every man, and atones for every man, and\nenlightens every man, is it conceivable that He will not somewhere and\nat some time save every man?\n\nLikewise, we read that \"the Spirit is given to every man.\" Is not that\nthe initial stage of redemption? Then will not redemption be completed?\nHere we see but a very small part of the outgoings of Him who is from\neverlasting to everlasting.\n\nThen this larger view explains God's universal call. He says, \"Look unto\nme and be ye saved, all ye ends of the earth.\" There we see God's\nintention; and if it is not carried out in this life, will it not be in\nthe life to come? We are accustomed in our short-sightedness to think\nthat the dividing line of death is final. But with God it is not final.\nIt only marks the stage from one epoch to another.\n\nIn the same way, this larger view explains God's repeated promise to\nAbraham. The promise was made to him that in him all the families on the\nearth would be blest. But uncounted millions of them have not been\nblest, so far as this life is concerned. Will the promise not be\nfulfilled? And how can it be fulfilled but by being fulfilled in the\nnext life?\n\nThen, of Christ it was foretold that he should \"see of the travail of\nHis soul, and should be satisfied.\" But surely, He is not satisfied with\nthe comparatively small number of the human race that have been saved.\nIf He loves each one of them individually, will He be satisfied with\nless than the salvation of each one?\n\nEvidently, He looked forward to this all-conquering epoch when He said\nthat He would draw all men unto Himself. Certainly, He did not draw all\nmen to Himself when He was here. What remains for us but to enlarge our\nview, and believe that He will do it there?\n\nAlong the same line we have the promise that \"all Israel shall be\nsaved.\" That promise has not been fulfilled, and never can be\nfulfilled, in this life. Is it too much to say that it will be fulfilled\nin the life to come?\n\nIn like manner it is promised that \"He shall have the heathen for his\ninheritance.\" But uncounted millions of the heathen have died in utter\ndarkness; and millions more are dying now. How can the promise be\nfulfilled within the bourne of time? But we thank God that the whole\nspan of time is but one short epoch with Him whose ways are from\neverlasting.\n\nJudging from the revelations that we have of God, we believe that He can\nand will achieve the maximum of holiness and happiness for all His\ncreatures, according to their several capacities. In harmony with this\nview, scientists and moralists say that it is a law of the universe that\nanything that is really good will endure. It is likely that in the\nfuture life we shall see the working of that principle as we cannot\nsee it now.\n\nIt is strongly in favor of this idea that man is endowed with such\namazing potentiality. There seems to be no end to his capacity of\ndevelopment. Now, is it to be supposed that an all-wise God would endow\nman with such possibilities, and create no scope for their development?\nCertainly, there would be no worthy development of them in the case of\nendless torment. This idea strongly suggests universal salvation.\n\nIn the case of eternal suffering, without hope of release, would not\nthat condition develop every possibility of evil to all eternity? And\nwould not such an outcome be entirely contrary to the purpose of\nthe Holy One?\n\nThen it is an everlasting argument for universal salvation that such a\nconsummation would be far more glorifying to God, than any other\nalternative that we can conceive.\n\nThus, the larger view goes a long way to explain God's delay in saving\nthe heathen. We may fail in giving them the Gospel; but will He fail? Is\nHis success made dependent on any passing whim or indifference of ours?\nSurely not. He may have good reasons for saving some in this life, and\nothers in the next. We see but a short way into the whole scheme\nof things.\n\nThis larger view also solves the difficulty of dealing after death with\nthe imperfect Christian. He is not fit for the world of bliss, nor yet\nfor the world of woe. But the discipline we are supposing fits him for\nhis higher destiny.\n\nAnd so, we may well suppose, it will be with the non-Christian good man.\nOn the principle that what is good will endure, all that is good in him\nwill be retained, and the evil will be eliminated.\n\nAlso, on this basis we can reasonably forecast the destiny of the\ninsane. Since they lost their reason they are not responsible. But they\nwill resume their reason at the point where it deserted them, and they\nwill be prepared for the inheritance of the saints.\n\nThe same theory justifies the destruction of wicked nations. They had\ngone down to such depths of sin, that it was better for them to be cut\noff, and to have a new opportunity under more favorable conditions.\n\nThis larger view also explains why God chose to continue the human race\nafter they sinned, and entailed on all their posterity such mourning,\nlamentation and woe. God did an infinitely better thing for the race\nthan extinction. He provided a way of salvation for all. So the day may\ncome in the endless years when all the pains and penalties of earth will\nbe reckoned trifles as light as air, contrasted with the supernal glory\nthat has been attained.\n\nI would also say that according to this larger view there is no more\ndifficulty as to supposed eternal separations. It has always been a\nmystery how the good can be happy when conscious that those whom they\nloved are in everlasting torment. Some have even tried to believe that\nthey would rise to God's own point of view, and survey with complacency\nthe utmost torments of the dammed!\n\nWhen I was a child I often heard the dictum from the pulpit that \"the\nnature that sinned must suffer.\" Therefore, it was said that our Lord\ntook our humanity in order that He might suffer in our nature. I have\nbelieved since that if He had suffered in any other nature, His\nsuffering would be no less efficacious. I believe that the merit of His\nsuffering could be transferred to any other world that needs it, be the\ninhabitants human or otherwise, and be their sin what it may. I think it\nis not for us to limit that merit to our own race. But we need not\nfollow that point farther now.\n\nI often heard another dictum, and one of more importance, that I feel\ninclined to question. It was said that sin committed against God is an\ninfinite evil, because God is infinitely holy. Therefore, it was argued,\nthat sin deserves infinite punishment; but that as finite beings we\ncannot render an infinite penalty in point of quality, we must render it\nin point of duration; hence the justice of everlasting punishment.\n\nI confess that to me all this show of logic items act much more than a\nplay upon words. For one thing, it may be doubted if a finite being is\ncapable of committing an infinite sin. If he is not, the whole argument\ncollapses.\n\nThen if he is capable of it, and if the sin in justice demands an\ninfinite punishment, how can a just God forbear inflicting the\npunishment at once? But He waits to be gracious. Is not that a\ntransgression of the strict law of justice? But if in justice He can\nwait an hour, why not a year? And if a year, why not a hundred years?\nAnd if a hundred years, why not forever? Thus the penalty would be\navoided altogether.\n\nFurther; if sin demands an infinite penalty, the penalty could never be\nrendered. For infinity has no end; and so, prolong the penalty as we\nmight through uncounted aeons, there would still be an eternity to come.\nTherefore, the penalty would never be exacted. It requires the whole of\neternity; and eternity will never end. Therefore, on this showing, with\nall reverence, God might as well stop at once, and claim no penalty, for\nthe penalty goes on forever; and forever has no end. Not even a moiety\nof the penalty could be inflicted; for a moiety can be measured, but\ninfinity has no measurement.\n\nBesides; if the penalty is to be infinite in duration, might not a very\nmild punishment suffice as well as a more intense punishment? For the\nsum total would be equal. One infinity of duration and of suffering is\nequal to another; so there would be no need to inflict any severe\nsuffering; infinity of duration would make the suffering infinite in\namount, however slight it might be in quality. So if an eternity of\nsuffering could be endured, which it cannot, the smallest degree of\ndiscomfort would be sufficient to meet the demand.\n\nAnd it is not to be forgotten that all these assumptions are based upon\nthe theory that God is only strict justice, whereas we know that He is\nlove as well; yes, and wisdom; so we believe He would find a better\nmethod than the one we have sketched, even if it could be realized.\n\nThus, the whole argument breaks down. It is but a human invention, and\nnot a good invention; designed, it would seem, to support a foregone\nconclusion. Ten thousand times better than all such absurd elaboration\nis the simple statement that \"His mercy endureth forever.\"\n\n\nHESITATING AND HALTING.\n\nSome time ago I presented this argument to a Presbyterian minister, not\nsuspecting in the least that he was wanting in orthodoxy. He said the\nargument was conclusive, and that there is no such thing as eternal\npunishment. I have since spoken with many ministers on the same topic;\nand in no case was there any opposition. Many are hesitating and halting\nbetween this view and the one that has so widely prevailed. Especially\nis there a natural hesitation to speak about the matter publicly. The\nmain question is, Is it true? If it is, it is good news indeed for our\npoor, suffering world.\n\nI may state here that there is another possibility which, if it had been\nadopted, would have avoided all necessity for punishment. I refer to the\nfact that when Adam and Eve sinned, God might have cut them off, and so\navoided the hideous tale of suffering that has resulted since. Or He\nmight have rendered them childless, and have thus anticipated and\navoided all difficulty. Either of these measures would certainly have\nbeen fraught with far less suffering than the consignment of so many\nuncounted millions, or even one individual, to eternal torment. The fact\nthat any better measure was available, is a strong argument for the\nultimate restoration of the race.\n\nWe believe that God has made a provision for all mankind, ten thousand\ntimes better than the cutting off or rendering childless of the first\npair. When we realize that the whole race is yet to be restored, we\nbegin to see something of the unbounded love and wisdom that rule\nthrough all time and all eternity. Even the suffering of the present may\nbe made conducive to our ultimate happiness and glory. A little farther\non we may see that sin and suffering have been permitted for a time as\nan object lesson for all eternity. In view of such a possibility we feel\nlike exclaiming, \"O, the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom, and\nknowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past\nfinding out!\"\n\nVery recently there came to me a new idea; and it came with such\nsuddenness that I can believe it was a suggestion from another Mind. I\nwas listening to a very able and thoughtful sermon. The theme was the\nretention of the Canaanites in the land, instead of driving them out. We\nread that \"When Israel was strong, they put the Canaanites to tribute,\nand did not utterly drive them out.\" The very natural and telling\napplication that was made by the preacher was, the many compromises with\nevil that are made in our own time for the sake of gain.\n\n\nBARBAROUS IDEAS.\n\nBut the preacher took the ground that it was a very cruel and barbarous\nthing to exterminate those nations, or to put them to the sword. He\ndwelt on the barbarous ideas that then prevailed, contrasting them with\nthe toleration that prevails now. He said that we convert men now,\ninstead of killing them. He took the ground that the extermination of\nthose people was due to an entire misconception of the divine command.\n\nIt struck me at the moment that such an idea was entirely contrary to\nthe fact. Here is the command, and the substance of it was often\nrepeated: \"Ye shall utterly destroy all the places wherein the nations\nwhich ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and\nupon the hills, and under every green tree; and ye shall overthrow their\naltars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye\nshall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of\nthem out of that place.\"\n\nThe divine command, then, was not misconceived. We may see plainly now\nits wisdom and real kindness. But Israel made an unwise and unholy\ncompromise. By this compromise that was made, the surrounding heathen\ntribes in some cases were spared. The consequence was that there was a\nconstant incitement to idolatry. Again and again, Israel fell into this\nsin, and paid severely for their crime. I think it is not too much to\nsay that had Israel inflexibly carried out the divine command, the\nJewish nation might have been the strongest in the world to-day.\n\nBut what has all this to do with the theory of Restoration? A great\ndeal. In the light of that larger truth, extermination was not the harsh\nmeasure that at the first glance it seems. It was simply the removal of\nthose incorrigible races to other scenes where they would have better\nchances of reform; and it was the removal of a constant snare to Israel.\n\nUnder the old idea, those heathen tribes were consigned to eternal\ntorment. Even for the women and children there was no escape. They were\nnot fit for Heaven; so they must all go to hell; that was the naked,\nbald idea. Even if the children were saved, how were they prepared for\nthe scenes of bliss? But when we once entertain the idea of a future\nprocess of reformation, a door of hope is opened for the worst of them.\n\n\nA SHAFT OF RIDICULE.\n\nThat seems to be the grand solution of what has always seemed a\nbarbarous proceeding. The want of such a solution has furnished\nIngersoll and men like him with many a shaft of ridicule at the\nso-called merciful God of the Old Testament. This larger view shows Him\nto be all He claims; that His mercy is not confined to this short span\nof time; that it is from everlasting to everlasting.\n\nOne great advantage in believing in Restoration is, that any good\ninfluence effected on any person will have its legitimate effect in the\nnext life. I need to explain. There are many persons who are not\nbelievers who yet rise to a high plane of character. But no matter how\nhigh they may rise, if they are not Christians the old theory would\nconsign them to everlasting torment. No doubt, degrees of suffering are\nrecognized, varying with the goodness or badness of the sinner. Still,\nif a person is not a Christian when he dies, the idea is that he must go\nto eternal torment, be his moral character what it may. Thus, any good\ninfluence that may be exerted upon him here is largely or entirely lost.\nEven the incentive to do him good in a great degree is neutralized. An\ninevitable, though it may be an unconscious, arrest, is thus put upon\nevery good impulse to benefit men except they are true Christians.\n\nBut consider how different is the incentive on the Restoration theory.\nIn that case, you can have the certainty that any good accomplished in\nthis life will have its due effect in the next. A man may not be a\nChristian, but he may have risen to such a high character in this life\nthat he will not have to pass through very severe pains and penalties in\nthe next. There is, therefore, every incentive to do the most and the\nbest we can for all men, be their character what it may, and whether\nthey are Christians or not. We may be sure that any good effect attained\nwill not be lost.\n\nIs not this a strong plea for good works? And is it not a strong\nargument that Restoration is true? Is it to be supposed that the divine\ngovernment is based on any possibility of good efforts being abortive?\nSurely, in God's perfect government of the world it is so arranged that\nevery good influence will have its due effect. To my mind, this\nconsideration makes strongly for the truth of the theory of Restoration.\n\nIt may possibly be charged on me that all through this discussion I have\nignored divine justice. I would say that nothing could be farther from\nmy intention. To be sure, I have tried to magnify divine love. \"God so\nloved the world that He gave His only begotten Son\" for the world. There\nwe see a depth of love that will never be fathomed. But then, He gave\nHis Son. There was infinite justice, too. \"He spared not His own Son.\"\n\"It pleased the Lord to bruise Him.\" O, mystery of mysteries! The union\nof infinite love with infinite justice! I believe that will be the\nmarvel of eternity. Let that stand, whatever I may seem to say to the\ncontrary. In dealing with problems that are so high, and yet so deep, it\nwould not be surprising if there are some apparent contradictions. Our\nlimited range of thought, and our poor vehicle of speech, make seeming\ncontradiction almost inevitable. But there will be harmony by and by.\n\nI would say here that in what is advanced there are some repetitions.\nBut often these are in new connections, and are therefore in order.\nBesides, I have not been careful to avoid repetition; for I have in\nview many readers to whom such topics as are treated here are\ncomparatively new, and by all such, repetition is needed.\n\nThe foregoing are some, but only some, of the arguments that occur to me\nin support of the theory of Restoration. It may be that in some cases I\nmay be considered too dogmatic on a theme which is involved in much\nobscurity. But apart from the manner, judge of the matter. Is it not\nreasonable? And is not the very conception of it like the rising of a\nnew sun in a new world?\n\nI have claimed that such views are reasonable. They may appear\nstrange--even impious--at the first glance; but the longer the mind\ndwells upon them the more reasonable they will appear.\n\nThe old view is not reasonable; and that is one of its most damaging\nfeatures. For all true religion is reasonable. In fact, religion is one\nof the most reasonable things in the world. It is so in God's mind, who\nsees all parts of it in all their relations. But our view for the\npresent is limited. We see only a part of the divine scheme. But it is a\ngreat consolation that \"what we know not now we shall know hereafter.\"\n\nLet us always remember that our highest thoughts of God's wisdom and\nlove are as nothing to the reality. In this regard I believe the future\nhas revelations that will surprise us. Oh, yes; the words will come true\nby and by, in a larger sense than our poor faith can anticipate:\n\"Weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning.\"\n\n\n\n\nXVI.\n\n\nTHE CASE OF SAUL.\n\nDivine Methods of Reclaiming Men--\"The Chief of Sinners\"--Changed in a\nMoment--No Violence Done to His Freedom--Yet Sovereign Power--The\nMystery of Grace--View of McCosh--Supremacy of Conscience--Sir Isaac\nNewton's Alertness of Mind--Reason and Intuition--Capturing the Most\nIncorrigible--Evil Environment--Suffering a Necessary Factor--Agony\nof Remorse.\n\n\nWe must remember that God has ways and means of reclaiming men that we\ndo not see ordinarily put forth in this life. But we do see singular\nexhibitions of grace and power sometimes. I have referred to the case of\nSaul. Witness his conversion. He was a blaspheming, malignant\npersecutor. He says he was \"exceedingly mad\" against God's saint. It is\nsaid that he \"breathed out threatening and slaughter.\" He said that he\nwas the \"chief of sinners.\" Possibly that was no mere rhetoric. He may\nactually have been the worst of mankind.\n\nBut in a moment he was changed. He was utterly transformed. His\nblasphemy was turned to prayer. From that day forward he would do\nanything, or go anywhere, or suffer the utmost persecution, if only he\nmight serve Him whom he had before persecuted and blasphemed. And what\nwas it that effected such a marvellous change? The Lord manifested\nHimself to him, and spoke to him; that was all. How we adore the grace\nand power that can work such marvels!\n\nAnd in the life to come who can say but such marvels will be used, and\nwith similar effect? We simply do not know, but we can see that such\nmeans can be used, and we can imagine that they will be, especially in\nthe case of those who had no chance before. In such a case, the period\nof suffering may not need to be greatly prolonged. In other cases we can\nimagine that the suffering may be long continued before the\nsinner repents.\n\nAnd it is wonderful how, in the case of Saul, no violence was done to\nthe freedom of his will. He was no mere machine. He was simply taken\ncaptive. He willingly, gladly, surrendered. He could say afterward, \"I\nwas not disobedient to the heavenly vision.\" It was a case of divine\nsovereignty combined with human freedom. It may be that we shall never\nunderstand how these two forces unite. But one thing we do know; it is\nthe Lord's way, and it is marvellous in our eyes. Meantime, we take\nthese words of Tennyson as the best definition of the mystery that\nwe know:\n\n     \"Our wills are ours, we know not how;\n      Our wills are ours, to make them thine.\"\n\nWho can say but some such divine yet free constraint may be exercised\nin the life to come?\n\nIt will be seen that I do not think of freedom as the prime faculty of\nthe soul. I rather think, with McCosh, that conscience is supreme. And\nwhy? For two reasons: First, conscience deals only with questions in the\nmoral realm. This gives it a peculiar dignity and sacredness. It does\nnot concern itself with questions of mere expediency, but with questions\nof right and wrong, and discriminates intuitively between truth and\nerror. Yes, even in mathematical truth I think there is an element of\nmorality. If a man could believe that two and two are five, he would\nappear to me a worse man, morally, for so believing. So then, conscience\nrather than freewill is the highest quality of the soul, because it\ndeals with questions solely in the higher realm.\n\n\nSIR ISAAC NEWTON'S OPINION.\n\nThen, as I have said, there is another reason why we think of conscience\nas our highest faculty. That is, that it acts instinctively. It has a\nsensitiveness of feeling towards questions of right and wrong, and of\ntruth and error. This seems to me to be a higher faculty than mere\nreason. It seems to ally conscience more closely with the divine. We\ncannot think of God arriving at conclusions by reasoning. He is\nconscious of the truth without any intermediate process of reasoning.\nIt is said of Sir Isaac Newton that he perceived at a glance the truth\nof many propositions that had to be tediously reasoned out step by step\nby inferior minds. We recognize at once the superiority of such an order\nof mind; and in the realm of morals it is such a faculty with which\nconscience is endowed.\n\nThus in both respects that have been indicated, freewill seems to occupy\na lower plane. For one thing it has largely to do with matters in a\nlower realm. It concerns itself, not chiefly with higher questions, but\noften with matters of the most trifling character. Its daily operation\nis mainly with the commonplace. And besides, it has not the gift of\nintuition but of reason, and often of conflicting reason. For such\nreasons as these freewill--important as it is--must be conceived as a\nlower faculty than that of conscience. Because conscience operates\nsolely in a higher realm, and because its operations are of a higher\nquality, I think of it as a superior function of the soul.\n\nIf there is too much theory here, consider the matter for a moment in\nits practical aspect. We often see that one strong will can dominate a\nweaker one, without in the least impairing its freedom. There is no\ndoubt that the weaker will is as free as ever. It freely yields to the\ninfluence of the stronger will. And it may yield intelligently. It is\neasy to conceive that influences may be brought to bear on it by which\nit is captured, without losing a particle of its freedom.\n\n\nTHE WORST OF MANKIND.\n\nWe may reasonably conceive, then, of Christ acting on the most\nincorrigible of mankind, and entirely capturing them without in the\nleast depriving them of freewill. What influences He may bring to bear\nupon them, who can say? What unfoldings of eternal love He may reveal\nare impossible to be imagined. We can thus believe that the worst of\nmankind might be captured and redeemed. I appeal to the capture of Saul\nof Tarsus as an example of such a possibility. What a door of hope is\nopened here for our lost race!\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt may be asked why such a redemption is not effected in the present\nlife. Let us beware of intruding into divine mysteries. We might as well\nask why Saul was not arrested and redeemed before he made such a havoc\nof the church, and went down to such a low depth of infamy. Or we might\ninquire why he was arrested at all. Or we might inquire why God went to\nthat idolatrous people in Ur of the Chaldees, and took Abraham from\namong them, and made him not only the progenitor of the chosen race,\nbut one of the greatest and most noble men in history. Yet God in his\nsovereign pleasure took that course, leaving the rest of those heathen\npeople in their idolatry. And so through all the ages we see the\nmanifestation of God's electing favor. I say, we must beware of\nintruding into the divine mysteries. To all such inquiries we can only\nsay, \"Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Thy sight.\"\n\n\nTHEY MAY YIELD SPEEDILY.\n\nIt is well, however, to remember that the environment may be much more\nfavorable in a future world than here. There are many who are almost of\nnecessity sinners from their youth up, because of their evil\nsurroundings. It would be hard to expect them to be much better than\nthey are. But their surroundings may be entirely different in the next\nlife; and they may yield speedily to the better influences. We see such\neffects so often in this life that we may well cherish hopes for their\nlarger operation in the next. No details are revealed; but we can\nimagine this as a reasonable possibility. In such a case there may be\nthe most surprising reformations.\n\nIt may be objected that I have taken very little notice of suffering as\na necessary factor in the process of future redemption. I may say that\nI have always had it in view; but we have no details as to the nature of\nit, or the duration of it, or how it will be inflicted. That there will\nbe suffering I have no doubt. But I regard suffering rather as\nreformatory than punitive.\n\nTake the example of Saul, to whom we have just referred. If ever there\nwas a case of sudden conversion, surely we see it there. It did not take\nhim long to pass out of the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of\nlight. But he went through a very agony of remorse. He passed through\nsuch a horror of darkness that for three days and nights he did not eat.\nCertainly, the intensest suffering accompanied his conversion.\n\nIn the light of such facts as these we can see how possible, and how\nreasonable it is to expect the most wonderful transformation in the next\nlife. The greatest sinners may become the greatest saints. I have taken\nthe case of Saul to show how such marvels of redemption may be effected\nin a future life. Possibly his case is the most notable that has\noccurred. And yet, who can say? From cases that we have known we can\nwell believe that there are thousands of such cases that have never got\ninto any history. But we have seen enough to warrant the belief that in\nthe next life there will be marvels of spiritual transformation.\n\n\n\n\nXVII.\n\n\nETERNAL SEPARATIONS.\n\nAn Everlasting Pang--David and Absalom--Strained Ideas of Late\nMomentary Repentance--King Solomon--King Saul--The Gracious Character\nof Sympathy--George Eliot's View--A strong Argument for Restoration\n--Heresy of a Minister's Wife--The Minister's Orthodox View--Wonderful\nGoodness of a Criminal--Where Will He Finally Go?--Our Very Imperfect\nFriends--Glossing Over Their Faults When They Are Gone--Our\nInstinctive Hope for the Worst--Restoration the True Solution--A Final\nEra of Joy.\n\n\nWe might glance here at another difficulty which is solved by the theory\nof Restoration. Apart from this theory, those who are saved we think\nmust have everlasting regret that friends whom they have known and loved\nare not with them. Suppose those friends are annihilated. Will not the\nknowledge of that fact be an everlasting pang to the friends who have\nattained eternal joy? To think that those who were so dear to them were\nworthy of no better fate! To think of the honor and glory which might\nhave been eternally theirs, which now they have forever missed! What a\njoy it would be, too, to have their companionship! But that joy is\neternally forfeited. We think that if regret in heaven can be, it would\narise from the fact that those whom we hoped to meet there we shall\nnever see.\n\nTake one case as an illustration. Is it to be conceived that David would\nnot have an everlasting regret in regard to his son Absalom? We know how\nhis heart was broken when he received the tidings of Absalom's death;\nyes, though Absalom was utterly opposed to him, and was trying to wrest\nthe kingdom from him. It is one of the most pathetic scenes in Scripture\nhistory, when the king received the news of his son's death. We see him\ngoing up the stairs to the chamber over the gates, and we hear his sobs\nand cries, and his broken words: \"O Absalom, my son, my son Absalom;\nwould God I had died for thee; O Absalom, my son, my son.\"\n\nNow can it be supposed that David will have no regret for his son\nAbsalom if he does not meet him in the abodes of bliss? The tenderness\nof heart that characterized him here will surely not be suppressed\nthere. Will not the absence of his son be an everlasting pang?\n\nIt may be supposed--it has been supposed--that somehow at the last\nmoment, Absalom repented, and was saved. We put no limit on the grace of\nGod; but such a supposition is entirely gratuitous. It is a far-fetched\ninvention to square with the idea of supposed final perseverence. The\ndifficulty is, to believe that Absalom died in a state of grace. How\nmuch more likely it is that Absalom came to himself in the next life;\nand that his father could endure--yea, rejoice in--his absence for a\ntime, knowing that the result would be everlasting reunion.\n\nAnd so with Solomon. We read of the high hopes that David cherished\nabout Solomon, and how Solomon so terribly declined in character in his\nlater life, and died, so far as the record goes, in apostasy from God.\nIf he is absent from heaven, will not his absence cause David an\neverlasting pang?\n\nAnd so with King Saul, and many more whom we recall, both in Bible\nhistory, and in our own experience. The unsolved difficulty stares us in\nthe face; but it is no longer a difficulty, but everlasting harmony,\nwhen we believe in Restoration.\n\n\nGEORGE ELIOT'S IDEA.\n\nAnd if the fate of extinction would thus cause everlasting regret how\nmuch more would the knowledge that our friends are in everlasting\ntorment. Surely our knowledge of such a fate would be unendurable. Would\nthere not be everlasting distress in that world of joy? In fact it would\nbe no world of joy. We shall have the same nature then as now. It will\nbe only ennobled and purified. Certainly sympathy--which is one of the\nnoblest of our feelings--will be more tender and intense than now.\nGeorge Eliot said that she estimated her entire moral condition by her\ncapacity of sympathy. We may imagine then the horror of the situation if\nwe have to think of our friends as being in everlasting torment.\n\nSurely this is a strong argument for Restoration. We might endure, and\neven rejoice in, a mild degree of suffering on the part of friends, if\nwe knew that such was a necessary process of purification, and that by\nand by they would rise to eternal happiness. But to think of them as\nbeing forever in torment--inflicted for punishment, and not for\npurification--would be unspeakable torture. We have indeed heard of\nzealots who taught that the saved would even rejoice in the sufferings\nof the damned, as the effect of God's glorious justice. For the credit\nof humanity we would believe that such lurid representations were rare,\nand but the product of temporary excitement, or perhaps a mistaken zeal\nfor orthodoxy.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI was lately staying at a Presbyterian Manse. The minister was from\nhome, but his wife engaged me in several topics of conversation. Among\nother things she instanced the case of a family some members of which\nwere saved, and some were lost; and she asked me if there was any means\nof explaining away the agony of such a separation. Thinking she might\nnot be ready for a thorough discussion of the subject, I tried to\ndismiss it by some casual remark. But it would not do; again and again\nshe returned to the point. At length I stated plainly that I did not\nbelieve in endless torment, or eternal separation. At once, and with\nevident relief, she responded that such was her own view.\n\nNow I think that case is typical of thousands and thousands more. They\nhave been brought up in the orthodox idea of eternal torment; it is\nenshrined in their thought by the sacredness of childish association;\nthey have the conception that it is an evidence of soundness in the\nfaith. But by and by, when they begin to think, their heart rebels; the\nidea hitherto accounted true seems opposed to every humane instinct, and\nmuch more opposed to that mercy that is from everlasting to everlasting.\nThere is thus a sea of conflicting ideas, and they know not which way to\nturn. My hope is, that when they read these pages they will see that a\nlarge pan of the church has been for a long time under a dark cloud of\nerror, and that their humane instinct is but a dim reflection of\nEternal Love.\n\nThe lady referred to told me that her husband's view and hers do not\nagree. It is his idea, she said, that the point of view of the saved\nwill gradually be uplifted until it coincides with God's, and that then\nthey will be able to contemplate the tortures of the damned with perfect\nsatisfaction! And this is orthodoxy! O, for the day when this dark pall\nwill be lifted from the heart of the world!\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThus men have distorted the finest feelings of their nature that they\nmight view with complacency the eternal torments of the damned. They\nreally believed, or tried to believe, that such was God's feeling and\nattitude; and to that divine ideal they felt that they must aspire. It\nwas surely hard work, and would naturally issue in a degree of\nsanctimoniousness and unreality. Yet it was necessary, if the doctrine\nof eternal torment were true. But the moment that doctrine is seen to be\nuntrue, what a change of ideal! Then it is discerned that all this\nhardening process is opposed to the best that is in human nature, and\nutterly contrary to the character of God. We can never estimate the\nspiritual loss that it has been to mankind to have had such ideas of the\nInfinitely Merciful One.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWhen it is once discerned that there is no endless torment, but that\nsuffering in the next life is a divinely appointed means of reformation,\nhow the mind is enlarged in the contemplation of the wisdom, power, and\nlove of God! Yea, and what an uplift, and what a new direction, is given\nto our ideas of human perfection and blessedness! If there were nothing\nelse, we have surely here a strong argument for final Restoration.\n\nEternal blessedness is consonant with our nature; and though details of\nit are not revealed, it is reasonable to believe that it will ultimately\nbe attained. But eternal suffering is abnormal and repugnant. Especially\nis it so as we rise in the moral scale. As a worthy ultimatum it cannot\nbe entertained. It is far more reasonable to believe that under the\nperfect government of God, sin and all its resulting pain will finally\nbe done away.\n\nFurther; it would be hard to find a case of such utter wickedness as not\nto have some mixture of good as well. That gives us the reasonable hope\nthat ultimately the good will triumph. And sometimes we find great\ngoodness mixed with great evil. Just now I notice a very affecting\nreport in the newspaper of a criminal in whom there must have been a\nwonderful mixture of good and bad. He was convicted of a serious crime,\nand sentenced to three years in the penitentiary. When he was leaving\nthe city under arrest, and being taken on board the train that was to\nconvey him to the place of confinement, a number of his late companions\nin crime appeared on the railway platform. They had come to bid him\ngood-bye. And it was no formal leave-taking. With tears and sobs they\nflung their arms about his neck, and kissed him. So affecting was the\nscene that the policeman in charge was utterly broken down. But the man\nhad to go to prison; and the chances are that the evil influences of\nprison life will dissipate much of that extraordinary goodness which\nmust have been in him to develop so much affection.\n\nBe that as it may, the question must suggest itself to every thoughtful\nmind, \"Where will that man go should he die in the meantime?\" He is far\ntoo good for the world of woe; yet he is not fit for the better world\nuntil his criminal propensities are eliminated. How reasonable it is to\nbelieve in--we might say what a moral necessity there is for--a process\nof development of the good, and elimination of the evil. On the\nprinciple that what is good will survive, and that the evil will be\nextinguished, we can hope for nothing less. And when we remember that\nall men, and all conditions, and all worlds, are under the control of\nHim whose love is from everlasting to everlasting, we may believe that\nsuch a man's final destiny is the inheritance of the saints.\n\nAnother argument is derived very naturally from the case of departed\nfriends whose spiritual condition was doubtful. Have we not known of\nacquaintances who passed away, of whose spiritual condition we could\nhave no well grounded assurance? But the moment they were gone we became\ncharitable, glossed over their faults, and hoped for the best. Would it\nnot be a far more reasonable thing to do, to imagine them as having\npassed into some purifying process, from which they would emerge in due\ntime? In the case of many we can believe that such a purifying process\nmight involve no great suffering; and we could endure the thought of it\nwhen we believed in its glorious issue. In fact we would become more\nlike God Himself, who is inflicting pain every day with a view to moral\nperfection by and by.\n\nWell do I remember spending an evening with a personal friend. He was a\nman of sterling character. In his ordinary demeanor, however, he was a\nvery John Bull of a man; you would not think there was a particle of\nsentiment in his whole composition. During our conversation, reference\nwas made to the case of departed friends whose spiritual condition was\ndoubtful; and before I knew, my friend utterly broke down and wept. No\ndoubt he was thinking of one in such a case. I could not at that time\noffer him the consolation of the larger hope; and it is doubtful if with\nhis education he could have accepted such consolation. What a solace it\nwill be, when we can think of departed friends in whom the work of grace\nwas manifestly very incomplete--possibly not begun--as having gone, not\ninto a state of hopeless, everlasting torment--but as having passed into\na state where the work of grace will be completed.\n\nBut speaking of the reformatory process, there is one circumstance that\nmay seem to indicate that it may be very long. I refer to the fact that\nSatan has been so long incorrigible. I take him of course to be a\nconscious personality. In the Word of God I suppose there are a hundred\nreferences to him as a person. If you have any doubt on that point look\nup the references, and I think you will be convinced.\n\nNow, since his temptation of Adam, and we know not how long before,\nSatan has been persevering in a course of evil. Does not that fact seem\nto indicate that sinners must have a long period of suffering in the\nnext life before they are reclaimed, if they ever are?\n\n\nWE HAVE NO DATA.\n\nTo this view a number of answers may be given. In the first place, Satan\nis of another race; we know very little of his former history, or the\ncircumstances of his fall; and we know not if any means for his recovery\nhave been provided. In the next place, a few thousand years may be but a\nspan in the long sweep of his existence. Then further, he does not seem\nto be in a state of suffering at present. There is a hint in the Book of\nRevelation that he will be so by and by; and we know not what may be in\nstore for him. As intimated before, some think he will be restored;\nothers think he will be annihilated. With such ignorance of the\ncircumstances of the case, it is plain that we have no data for forming\nan opinion one way or the other. At the same time, we cannot help being\nin sympathy with the words of Burns; they certainly touch a chord in all\nour hearts:\n\n     \"Then fare ye weel, auld nickey Ben;\n       O wad ye tak' a thought and men'\n     Ye aiblins micht--I dinna ken--\n       Hae still a stake.\"\n\nAs I have said, there are those who teach that Satan will be ultimately\nextinguished. And they lay down that theory with great positiveness.\nWhile there are some hints to that effect in the Word of God, it does\nnot seem to me that they are clear enough to warrant us in being\npositive. We would hardly expect so much. It is not our business to know\nmuch of \"other world\" affairs for the present.\n\nSo far as we may judge, it would appear instead that Satan's long\ncontinuance in sin gives some hope of his ultimate Restoration. For the\nquestion will naturally arise: Why should God spare him so long, if He\nforesees that he must be extinguished at last? Why not extinguish him at\nonce, and thus avoid so much temptation to evil? I am by no means\ncurious on such a question. I merely cite these possibilities to show\nthat the subject is utterly beyond us.\n\nIt really comes to this, that on such high topics it is wise to be\nreverently silent. But with the fact that we do not know, we ally the\nprivilege of eternal hope. So we would say with Tennyson:\n\n     \"Behold, we know not anything;\n       We can but trust that good shall fall,\n       At last far off, at last to all;\n     And every winter change to spring.\"\n\nIf you dissent from some of the views I have advanced, I would ask you\nnot to be hasty in forming conclusions. It may be that after some years\nyou will see differently. I was myself many years before coming to\nentertain these views. But they were growing on me, perhaps\nunconsciously, and at length they took this pronounced form. It may be\nso with you. The ideas which you entertain now may be perhaps the result\nof early training as much as of patient study. Let us ever look for\ndivine guidance. We have the promise. \"Ye shall know the truth; and the\ntruth shall make you free.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI cannot but forecast the new era of joy that will come to the world\nwhen the doctrine of Restoration is generally accepted. It will be like\na burst of sunlight from behind a dark cloud. The world is sad; and I am\nconvinced that one cause of its sadness is the dark view of endless\ntorment that has so long prevailed. The view, from long habit, may be\nheld almost unconsciously; but the dark shadow of it has cast a heavy\ngloom over human life. What an uplift all hearts will have, what a\nradiance of joy will be infused into life, we can now but dimly\nanticipate. Then we can adopt the dictum of Browning, and it will be no\ncheap optimism:\n\n     \"God's in His heaven;\n      All's right with the world.\"\n\nAfter all, that is only our poor human way of expressing the majestic\nthought, \"The Lord God omnipotent reigneth!\"\n\n\n\n\nXVIII.\n\n\nNOT REALLY BELIEVED.\n\nPresent Enthusiasm for Missions--Former Lassitude--The Basis of\nMissionary Enterprise--Supposed Damnation of the Heathen--If Really\nBelieved, Would Drive Us to Frenzy--Ministers' Monday Meeting\n--Pretence Cuts the Nerve of Enthusiasm--Restoration the True Incentive\n--Effective Because Reasonable--Torment Not Really Believed--The Heart\nOften Truer Than the Head--Necessity for Preparatory State--Could not\nHave Details Revealed--Orthodoxy of the Torment View--Trying to\nBelieve It--Be Not Afraid of the Truth--Extreme Calvinists Signally\nHonored--The Reason Why--Our Innate God-given Convictions--Meagre\nExpenditure for Missions--Tacit Acknowledgement That Endless Suffering\nIs Not Believed.\n\n\nWould not the doctrine of Restoration, as I have tried to commend it,\ncut the nerve of enthusiasm for missions? No, I think not; but it would\nprovide a saner basis for them. For what is the true basis of missions?\nIs it not the command of our Lord to preach the Gospel to\nevery creature?\n\nThat the command extends down to our own time is clear from the fact\nthat the disciples were commanded to go into all the world. They could\nnot do so in their own time; so the command extends to their followers.\nMoreover, Christ said he would be with them until the end of the world.\nBut they were not to continue to the end of the world; so the command\nwas intended not only for them but those who would succeed them. Thus\nthe duty comes home to the Christian church now, and cannot be evaded.\n\n\nINCREASED INTEREST AND SYMPATHY\n\nAnd all the Christian churches are agreed that this duty has been laid\nupon them, The churches are alive to this duty as they never were\nbefore. And this is one of the most hopeful signs of the age. It does\nseem at times as if society were getting worse at the core; yet in\nregard to sympathy and helpfulness, especially in regions remote, it is\ncertainly improving. And this increased interest and sympathy relates\nboth to the bodies and the souls of men. This age has witnessed marvels\nof kindness and enterprise that would have been impossible only a few\nyears ago.\n\nSurely it is time. It must be confessed that the church in general has\nbeen very slow to take up the subject of missions with any zeal. There\nwas great activity in the first century of the Christian era, and a\nlittle later. If it had only been sustained until the present time,\npossibly the whole world would have been evangelized. But there was a\ndeplorable lapse of interest and of effort. And it was long continued.\nWe might say that for sixteen hundred years the church was almost\nindifferent on the matter. But now there is renewed enthusiasm and\nenterprise.\n\nThis long lapse of interest should certainly make us moderate in our\ninterpretation of Scripture. Here were the Saviour's words, clearly\nbefore the eyes of the church for sixteen hundred years; and it seems we\ndid not see or hear them. He commanded us--and it was one of his last\ncommands--to preach the Gospel to the world. But we took almost no\nnotice. The world might have been dying in heathenism, but we seemed not\nto care. We had not the spiritual alertness to realize that the words of\nChrist had any application to ourselves. Such torpor of spiritual\nunderstanding and sentiment, I say, ought to keep us from being unduly\npositive, or self-assertive, in our interpretation of Scripture. Happily\nthere is renewed interest now; and in this all the churches are agreed.\n\n\nWHAT BECOMES OF THE HEATHEN?\n\nBut what is the basis of all missionary enterprise? I have said that it\nis the command of Christ. It is not necessary to believe that the\nheathen who do not hear the Gospel are lost. There were certainly some\nheathens who were not far from the kingdom of God. The possibility of\nmen being raised to such a high spiritual level, even without the\nGospel, gives us a hint of the ways and means that God can use for the\nultimate salvation of the heathen world.\n\nAnd it is to be noted that Christ made no special appeal to us in order\nto evoke our enthusiasm for the heathen. He gave no hint that there is\nbut the one alternative of damnation if they do not receive and accept\nthe Gospel. He had evidently no morbid hysteria on that ground. He\nsimply gave the command; and that ought to be sufficient. He knows what\npossibilities of grace are in reserve; but that was not the time nor the\nplace to speak of them.\n\nBesides, if we could realize that every heathen who does not hear and\naccept the Gospel is doomed to eternal fire, the thought would drive us\nto frenzy. We cannot bear the thought of a person, though he were an\nenemy, being even burned to death. In such a case, there would be a\ncrowd of ardent sympathizers, though it were known that their sympathy\nwould be unavailing. Failing all relief, there would be sighs, and\ngroans, and prayers on every hand. It is not possible to witness unmoved\nsuch a scene of suffering. And it lasts but a short time. But the\nsupposed case of the heathen is endless agony; and it does not move us.\nThe only conclusion is that it is not really believed. We may think we\nbelieve it; we may count it orthodox to believe it; but if we did really\nbelieve it, it would drive us to insanity.\n\n\nA QUASI ENTHUSIASM.\n\nTherefore any argument drawn from the supposed damnation of the heathen\nis unreal. We may stir up a quasi enthusiasm; we may be moved for the\ntime; but we are not by any means moved to the level of the fate which\nwe deplore. If we really believed it, as so many profess, we would spend\nour last dollar, and make all but superhuman efforts, to take the Gospel\nto the heathen. But instead of that, we are content to hear at long\nintervals a few points of information from the minister, take up a\ncollection for Foreign Missions, to which perhaps we contribute a few\ncents or dollars, and then dismiss the whole matter from our minds.\n\nSome time ago I was present at a ministers' Monday morning meeting. A\nbrother read a paper on Foreign Missions. He and his congregation are\nnoted for their enthusiasm and liberality in that sphere. When he was\nmaking his plea for increased liberality and enterprise, he pictured the\nheathen dropping into eternal torment one by one--I think at the average\nrate of one every minute. When he had done there was a period of\nprofound silence on the part of the brethren who were present. I saw\nthat many of them were confused. They could not in their hearts endorse\nthe brother's argument; and it would be unorthodox to contravene it.\n\n\nCOULD NOT REST IN THEIR BEDS.\n\nIt will thus be seen that the church is in a very unsettled position on\nthis question. Good men are trying to believe what in their hearts they\nrepudiate. They think it a sign of soundness in the faith to believe in\nthe doctrine of eternal torment. If they really believed it they could\nnot rest in their beds at night, nor follow their usual avocations by\nday. But happily they do not really believe it.\n\nThus the theory of eternal torment has this everlasting drawback that\nmen will not believe it. It may be, and has been, accounted the orthodox\nview; and men may try to believe it, but as a matter of fact they do\nnot. To think that a person will suffer forever, and ever, is beyond\nactual belief. Just think for a while of torment without end. Lengthen\nout the time in your imagination, and when you have reached the utmost\nstretch of imagination, then think that eternity is only beginning, and\nthat through eternal cycles of aeons it will go on forever and ever,\nand ever.\n\nIt used to be a favorite method of illustrating the eternity of torment\nto suppose that after a million of years one grain of soil were taken\nfrom the earth; then after another million of years, another grain; then\nafter another million of years, another grain; and so on until the\nwhole of the earth had disappeared; then repeat the proceeding ten\nthousand millions of times; and then eternity would be only beginning!\nImagine, if you can, a soul in torment all these uncounted ages; and\nthen think of the process being repeated over and over again, without\nend, without end, without end! No man can believe it.\n\nBut if you tell him he is to suffer until he is reclaimed, he can\nbelieve that; it comes easily within the scope of his imagination--yes,\nand of his reason too. Hence it will have more effect on a man's\nconviction, and will produce a greater influence on his life, to be told\nthat if he dies impenitent he will suffer until he repents, and\nis reformed.\n\nNow when we consider the natural affinity which the mind has for truth,\nand when we recognize the impossibility of believing in endless torment,\nwe have a strong presumption that the theory is not true. At all events,\nin the present unsettled state of the question would it not be a\nwholesome thing to take the more limited view of suffering, and have men\nbelieve it in their inmost souls, rather than the view of eternal\ntorment, with a hesitating, half hearted presentation of it, and\nconsequently without producing genuine conviction? This is a serious\nquestion; let all serious minds ponder it.\n\nThe want of candor in expressing definite conviction on this subject\nseems to me to be a formidable barrier to church union. The following\narticle of mine on this point lately appeared in _The Homiletic Review_:\n\nThe contemplated organic union of the Presbyterian, Methodist, and\nCongregational Churches in Canada has not yet been consummated. One\nthing that involved some delay has been the discovery of a basis of\ndoctrine that would suit the three churches. At length such a basis has\nbeen formulated. It contains one statement, however, which I am rather\nsurprised to see. It says that the doom of the finally impenitent will\nbe \"eternal death.\" Now what does that mean? Might it not be honestly\ntaken to mean two very different things? Might it not be taken to mean\n\"eternal torment\" or \"eternal extinction?\" The manifest ambiguity of\nsuch a statement would seem to me highly objectionable. I quoted the\nphrase to two thoughtful friends, and asked them what it meant. They\nmade a long pause, and said they did not know.\n\nIf the phrase has been adopted on purpose to make it the expression of\nthe two views referred to, such a course is surely wanting in candor and\nhonesty. To be sure it is a Scripture phrase; but inasmuch as it is\ntaken to express two very different views, it ought not to be adopted.\nBy all means let us be clear and simple and straightforward.\n\nThere has been too much vagueness on the part of preachers on this\nmost solemn theme. Lately I heard a preacher speaking of unsaved men as\n\"miserable failures, going out into the darkness.\" Now what did he mean?\nEither he has no definite idea himself, or he judged it unwise to\nexpress it; or he was afraid to express it. Does not such a statement as\nI have quoted pander directly to infidelity?\n\nSurely the time has come when we ought candidly to recognize that on\nthis question there may be a legitimate difference of opinion. There are\nmen whose godliness and ability are beyond all question, who hold\ndiverse views on this matter. Whether it be the theory of eternal\ntorment or extinction or Restoration that is held, let us concede all\nhonor and confidence to the men who hold it. The more of that spirit we\nreally possess, the sooner will the divine light break upon our souls.\n\nWith regard to a basis on which conscientious men can really unite, is\nit well to go so much into detail? Mere creeds will never conserve the\ntruth. Men will think, whether we will or no; and men will have diverse\nviews. Do we not put a premium on dishonesty by constructing a creed for\nall details, and expecting men to subscribe to that creed? Have we not\nhad too much of that in the past? A noted official in the Methodist body\ntold me lately that he does not believe in eternal torment, but that if\nit were known, he would lose his position. But eternal torment is in\nthe Methodist creed, and he had profest his adherence to it. It is so\nwith many Presbyterians. I have spoken privately with several, and not\none profest to believe in that doctrine. But we say, \"Truth is mighty\nand will prevail.\" Yes, I believe it will; but it would surely prevail\nfaster if we were always loyal to it. Besides, is there anything that\nmakes more directly for the degeneracy of character than such evasion?\n\nTo avoid all peril of this kind, how would it do to take for a basis of\ndoctrine this simple statement, \"I believe the Scriptures of the Old and\nNew Testaments to be the Word of God?\" Or, \"I believe the Scriptures of\nthe Old and New Testaments to contain the Word of God?\" Then, with\nfurther \"light breaking from God's holy word,\" we would not need to\nexpunge anything from our creed, or add anything to it.\n\nLately I heard a most fervid appeal on behalf of missions. But the\nspeaker really gave no worthy, definite incentive, by which the appeal\nwould be made effective. He gave no hint whatever as to the fate of the\nheathen if we failed to Christianize them. He did not say they would\nhave to pass through pains in the next life necessary to their\nreformation. Nor did he say they would be extinguished at death, or some\ntime after. Nor did he say they would drop into eternal fire. Any of\nthese three possibilities if duly presented, would be more or less an\nincentive to action. But he simply referred to the heathen being saved\nin some vague way, which almost meant nothing. The nerve of enthusiasm\nfor missions is cut if the appeal cannot be enforced by some definite\nincentive to action; but usually there is no such incentive advanced.\nThere is no doubt or hesitation as to the positive part of salvation;\nbut as to the negative part of it there is no clear-cut deliverance.\n\nThe presumption is that there is usually no definite conviction. In the\nevangelical churches there is some faint survival of the doctrine of\nendless torment; but the preacher rarely or never presents it; it may be\nbecause he does not really believe it; or because he knows that the\npeople will not believe it. I say, would it not be better to present the\nidea of Restoration, and present the view strongly, with a pronounced\naccent of conviction? Not only is such a course in my view required by\nthe claims of honesty, but the effect would be better beyond all\ncomputation.\n\nI have just referred to the incentive that we have to impel us to a\nworld-wide Evangelization. We have seen that the command of Christ was\npractically unheeded for many hundreds of years. We can imagine that the\nchurch will never again lapse to that low level of insensibility.\n\nBut, along with the command, we have a worthy incentive in the doctrine\nof Restoration. If we can only realize that by faithful missionary\neffort the heathen will require a pruning and development when they pass\nout of this life, will not that be an effective and worthy incentive to\nthe best efforts of which we are capable?\n\nIt may be thought by some that the old doctrine of endless torment would\nbe more effective as an incentive. At the first glance it may appear so.\nWhat could be more effective than the warning that men will drop into an\nendless hell if they do not receive the offers of grace before they die?\nThat was relied upon formerly. It was thought that no other warning\nwould have such force. But as a matter of fact it failed, except that in\nsome cases it produced a temporary panic. And why did it fail? Simply\nbecause it was not heartily believed. Men might think they believed it;\nthey might try to believe it; they might think it orthodox to believe\nit; but as a matter of fact they did not believe it. If they had, they\nwould have moved heaven and earth to avoid such a doom, both for\nthemselves and others.\n\nThe doctrine of Restoration has no such disadvantage to contend with. It\nis credible in the highest degree. It is an urgent incentive, and a\nreasonable one. If a sinner goes out into the next life unreconciled to\nGod, there must be a terrible looking for of judgment. He will be\nreclaimed; but the age-long pruning he may have to undergo is a fearful\nthing to contemplate. If he knew his Lord's will, and did it not, he\nwill be beaten with many stripes.\n\nThere is nothing incredible to him in that. He sees the reasonableness\nof it. An appeal of that kind will move him, when any picture of hell\nfire will have but a small effect. I believe this is the standpoint to\nwhich the churches will have to come.\n\nIn corroboration of the idea that even Christian people do not believe\nin eternal torment, I would say that lately I met a lady, and I inquired\nthe latest news of her friend who had slipped and broken his leg. She\nsaid that she had just come from the hospital, and that he was dying.\nShe added that it would be a relief when he was gone, for he would then\nbe out of pain.\n\nNow this lady is a member of a church that professes to believe in\neternal torment, but she had no idea of her friend going into\neverlasting suffering when he died. He made no profession of religion;\nbut that circumstance seemed to give her no concern. Is not such the\ngeneral feeling? And thus it is that many practically repudiate their\nown creed. They hang on in theory to the doctrine of endless suffering,\nbecause it is in the creed of the church; but practically they deny it.\nWould it not be far better to believe steadfastly in a state of\ndiscipline and purification? Would not that be a much better incentive\nto prepare for the end of life, than the half heathenish idea that there\nis nothing whatever to fear? As a gentleman said to me lately, when\nspeaking of the Roman Catholic fear of Purgatory, \"The Methodists and\nPresbyterians would need some kind of purgatory too.\"\n\nIt may be objected that no details are revealed of such a preparatory\nstate; and some may be so foolish as to think that this is an argument\nagainst its existence. I have surely only to remind you that neither\nhave we details of the blessedness of heaven. In fact we could not have\nsuch details. That would probably involve a great deal of the history\nand condition of other worlds, which would be utterly confusing to us at\npresent, and would serve no good end. We have enough to stimulate hope,\nbut not enough to pander to curiosity.\n\nThat the advocates of eternal torment have no really deep conviction of\nits truth, let me also give a quotation that I have just met with:\n\n\"That its advocates themselves have little or no faith in it is very\nmanifest from the fact that it has no power over their course of action.\nWhile all the denominations of Christendom profess to believe the\ndoctrine that eternal torment and endless, hopeless despair will\nconstitute the punishment of the wicked, they are all quite at ease in\nallowing the wicked to take their own course, while they themselves\npursue the even tenor of their way.\n\n\"Chiming bells and pealing organs, artistic choirs, and costly edifices,\nand upholstered pews, and polished oratory which more and more avoids\nany reference to this alarming theme, afford rest and entertainment to\nthe fashionable congregations that gather on the Lord's day, and are\nknown to the world as the churches of Christ and the representatives of\nhis doctrines. But they seem little concerned about the eternal welfare\nof the multitudes, or even of themselves and their own families, though\none would naturally presume that with such awful possibilities in view\nthey would be almost frantic in their efforts to rescue the perishing.\nThe plain inference is that they do not believe it.\"\n\nThen follows a reference to the \"Mental Bias\" of the early translators,\nas accounting for their erroneous translations, because they were just\nbreaking away from the old papal system. Then the later translators are\nscathed for what the author calls \"duplicity and cowardice\" in\ncontinuing such errors.\n\nConsider, too, that we are God's own children. This is no mere figure of\nspeech. We are as truly God's children as our children are our own. If\nour children are evil, it is our glory to reclaim them. No matter how\nbad they are, we could not bear the thought of even one of them being in\ntorment. But according to some, God can bear the thought, can even\nexult in it--that myriads of His children are in torment of the most\nhorrible kind, and that for ever and ever. And it is conceived that this\nis so, notwithstanding the story of the Prodigal Son!\n\nMore than that, we hear the Father sighing out of His heart the broken\nwords, \"O that they were wise, that they understood this, that they\nwould consider their latter end!\" Yes, and we see Christ weeping over\nthe doomed city, and we hear His pathetic words. \"If thou hadst known--O\nif thou hadst only known the things that belong to thy peace!\" And yet\nGod is conceived of as contemplating with equanimity the everlasting\ntorment of His own children.\n\nHappily, however, men do not really believe in eternal torment. They may\ntry to do so; it may seem orthodox; they may profess their faith in it;\nbut their heart is often better than their head, and they do not really\nbelieve it. On this point, I will transcribe a paragraph from Rev.\nArthur Chambers. It is so true, and so well expressed, that it will\ncommend itself to every candid mind. He says:\n\n\"Thank God for the happiness of humanity! Man's intuitive instincts are\nbetter than his formulated creeds. The hope is secretly cherished that\nthe grace of God, because it is the grace of an infinite Being, must and\nwill operate beyond the limits defined by a narrow theology. No\nChristian, however staunch to the pitiless teaching of the school to\nwhich he belongs, ever brings himself really to think that any one\nbeloved by him in the World Beyond is irretrievably lost. His creed,\nperhaps gives him no hope in regard to that one who dies without\nreligion; but his own heart refuses to surrender its hope; and so he\nkeeps his reason, and his faith in God.\"\n\nI know there are those who accept the doctrine of Restoration, who yet\nthink it an unsafe position to take in the case of some. They cite the\ncase of parties who having accepted the larger view, drift into\ninfidelity. The reason given is, that the doctrine of endless torment\nhas been so long identified with orthodoxy that when that doctrine is\nsurrendered, the vital doctrines of Christianity are in danger of going\nalong with it.\n\nBut I do not think we need have any grave fears of that kind. For one\nthing, we ought not to be afraid of truth having an evil influence. On\nthe contrary, it is a sanctifying power. Hence our Lord's prayer.\n\"Sanctify them through Thy truth; Thy Word is truth.\" So if a man drifts\ninto infidelity it is not the truth that leads him there. I imagine it\nis half truth that leads him astray; and a half truth is often really a\nfalsehood. So if a man takes up the idea of Restoration in a careless or\nflippant spirit, thinking chiefly of it as a happy escape from\npunishment, it is a half truth; to him it is really a falsehood. But let\nhim consider also the facts by which the idea of Restoration is\nsustained; let him be imbued thoroughly with these; and I think there\nwill be little chance of him drifting into infidelity. I think on the\ncontrary he will be far more devout. He will be let into such views of\nthe wisdom, love and power of God as will more than offset any tendency\nto rationalism.\n\nBesides, we know not what punishment, either in duration or intensity\nmay await sinful men in the next life. We do not claim that suffering is\nabolished. Very far from that. We only claim that it is not of endless\nduration, and that it is of a reformatory character. If a man is\nthoroughly imbued with such ideas, he will be very far from being a\nsceptic. He will realize that the truth is a sanctifying power.\n\nOn this basis you give him something that he can really believe. You can\ntell him that he must suffer until he surrenders. He can believe that\nthoroughly. It appeals to his reason. But if you tell him that whether\nhe surrenders or not, he must suffer forever and ever and ever, without\nany hope of release through all eternity, he does not really believe\nthat; it is entirely beyond him; and it makes but a slight impression.\nThe truth is the main thing; and the truth is divine; yes, divine; both\nin its nature and effects.\n\nWe have to remember, too, that there is such a thing as turning the\ngrace of God into lasciviousness. The German proverb that the best\nthings may become the worst, is along the same line; but it is\ncommonplace compared with the trenchant words of Jude. According to him,\neven \"grace\" may become \"lasciviousness.\" We have there a solemn\nwarning. It does seem to me that really worthy thoughts of God are not\ncompatible with the idea of endless torment.\n\nIn favor of the doctrine of eternal torment, it may be claimed that God\nhas signally honored many men who hold, or have held, this view, and\nthat therefore that view is the correct one. In the matter of revivals,\nespecially, were not such men signally owned and honored? Witness the\nearlier Methodists, and later the Salvation Army. Especially think of\nMr. Finney, under whose ministry there was a mighty revival.\n\n\nENCUMBERED THOUGH IT BE.\n\nBut there are two or three facts that ought to be remembered in this\nconnection. One is, that God is often pleased to own even a small\nmodicum of truth, encumbered though it be with a great deal of error.\nSuch may have been Finney's case in particular. He preached the Gospel;\nthat was the secret of his genuine success. Men were simply frightened\nby his lurid descriptions of hell. So extreme was he in this respect\nthat strong men trembled, and Finney had to be pulled by the coat tails\nthat he 'might go no further. So it was not his awful descriptions of\nthe lost that were so blessed. It was the modicum of Gospel truth,\npresented with great earnestness, that really told.\n\nLet me give two examples of the same principle from New Testament\nhistory. There was a certain Jew named Apollos. It is said of him that\nhe was \"mighty in the Scriptures,\" that he was \"instructed in the way of\nthe Lord,\" that he \"mightily convinced the Jews.\" Yes; but at the same\ntime he \"knew only the baptism of John.\" Great as that man was, he was\ntaken in hand by those obscure Christians. Aquila and Priscilla, who\n\"expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.\" The truth he had was\nencumbered for a time with a great deal of error; but it was owned and\nblessed notwithstanding.\n\n\nWANT OF PROPORTION.\n\nA more notable case was that of Peter. You remember his glorious\nresponse to our Lord's challenge, \"Whom say ye that I am?\" Peter\npromptly and gladly responded, \"Thou art the Christ, the Son of the\nliving God.\" By that confession, Peter has covered his name with\nimmortal honor. You remember, too, his sermon on the day of Pentecost,\nwhen three thousand men were converted. You recall also that sermon a\nlittle later when the converts numbered five thousand. Yes; but the man\nwho was thus owned and honored really believed that the Gospel was for\nthe Jews alone. Notwithstanding all his advantages, he was really a\nsubject of that delusion. And he continued so for some time. Three\nmiracles had really to be wrought to convince Peter to the contrary.\nThis want of proportion in the man's illumination is really marvellous.\nIt goes a long way to explain many revivals since that time.\n\nThus, Peter--grand apostle though he was--and notwithstanding that for\nthree years he had been the bosom friend of Christ--had very narrow\nviews as to the intended scope of the Gospel. He believed that the\nGentiles were common and unclean; and it took, first a vision, and then\na miraculous experience, to cure him of that insular idea. But he was\ncured, and never went back to his former contracted ideas.\n\nSo, it seems to me, the Christian World of to-day needs a vision along\nthe same line; but larger. They have to take in the millions of\nun-Christian people in Christian lands, together with the uncounted\nmillions of heathen during all time; and they have to learn that from\nthe divine standpoint not one individual of them all is common or\nunclean. We believe that every one of them is destined for glory, and\nhonor, and immortality. It may take a long time, and methods which as\nyet we know nothing of, to work out that glorious issue; but we cannot\nconceive of anything less as being worthy of eternal wisdom, power,\nand love.\n\nFrom this point of view there can be no uncertainty about the end.\nWhether we think of God as desiring the highest character and happiness\nof His creatures; or whether we think of the means that Christ has used,\nand is using, to secure that end; or whether we think of the capacity of\nman for attaining the highest and the best--we can have no doubt that\nsuffering will ultimately be done away, and that God will be all in all!\nThat is, everything in everybody! Let us try to realize it. It is no\nmere golden dream.\n\nI heard lately of a boy in Chicago under whose addresses people were\nbeing continually converted; and it was said there was nothing peculiar\nabout his addresses but want of grammar. It is thus that God often\nchooses the weak things of the world to confound the mighty. The mere\nfact, then, that successful revivalists believed in the old theory of\neternal torment, is no proof, nor even an indication, that it is true.\n\nWhat a recoil we experience now when we read Jonathan Edwards' appalling\ndescription of sinners in the hands of an angry God! Even our beloved\nSpurgeon fell into this most horrible mistake. In all such cases it was\nlogical enough. These men were but honestly following up the necessary\nresult of their creed. Yet it may be well to quote Spurgeon's own\nwords, that we may see what the old doctrine infallibly leads to. He\nsays: \"When thou diest, thy soul will be tormented alone. That will be a\nhell for it. But at the Day of Judgment, thy body will join thy soul,\nand then thou wilt have twin hells; thy soul sweating drops of blood,\nand thy body suffused with agony. In fire, exactly like that we have on\nearth, thy body will lie, asbestos-like, forever consumed, all thy veins\nroads for the feet of pain to travel on, every nerve a string, on which\nthe devil shall forever play his diabolical tune of hell's\nunutterable lament.\"\n\nNo doubt such descriptions are awful. But are they not reasonable, if\neternal torment is true? It is no use to turn away awe-stricken from\nsuch details; they are quite in harmony with the main idea of torment.\nGet the main idea right, and all such details will disappear. In fact,\nthey have largely disappeared now. Why? Because the main idea is really\ndisbelieved. Yes, disbelieved, though it is confessed. Surely, this\ndisloyalty to what in our inmost souls we believe to be the truth is\ndisloyalty to the Spirit of Truth.\n\nSpurgeon's words are horrible enough; but they are far exceeded by\nothers. Take the case of the Rev. J. Furniss, in a book of his on the\n\"Sight of Hell.\" This author would be fiendish, if he were not silly.\nHere are his words:\n\n\"Little child, if you go to hell, there will be a devil at your side to\nstrike you. He will go on striking you every minute forever and ever\nwithout end. The first stroke will make your body as bad as the body of\nJob, covered from head to foot with sores and ulcers. The second stroke\nwill make your body twice as bad as the body of Job. The third stroke\nwill make your body three times as bad as the body of Job. The fourth\nstroke will make your body four times as bad as the body of Job. How,\nthen will your body be, after the devil has been striking it every\nmoment for a hundred millions of years without stopping?\n\n\"Perhaps at this moment, seven o'clock in the evening, a child is just\ngoing to hell. To-morrow evening at seven o'clock, go and knock at the\ngates of hell, and ask what the child is doing. The devils will go and\nlook. They will come back again, and say, The child is burning,' Go in a\nweek and ask what the child is doing. You will get the same answer, 'It\nis burning,' Go in a year and ask. The same answer comes, 'It is\nburning.' Go in a million years and ask the same question. The answer is\njust the same, 'It is burning in the fire!'\"\n\nThis is lurid enough; but is it not logical? It does seem to me that in\nthis as in many other instances there is a great want in the popular\nimagination. Men will think it reasonable to believe in endless\nsuffering; consider it even a sure sign of orthodoxy; sometimes speak of\nit glibly; but when the idea is drawn out into detail, they will shrink\nback from the detail in horror.\n\nThe fact is, that the theory does not bear to be presented in detail;\nwhen it is, even its supporters are horrified. Yet the most lurid\ndetails are strictly logical. For there is no conceivable detail of\nagony to be compared with that of its eternal duration. The most\ndreadful suffering that can be imagined pales almost into insignificance\ncompared with the idea of endless--endless--endless duration. Even a\nmild discomfort, if eternally prolonged, infinitely surpasses in amount\nthe most fearful suffering that has an end. But men will accept the\ntheory of endless suffering almost as a commonplace, yet recoil with\nhorror from any presentation of it in detail.\n\nThe fact that it does not bear to be even thought of in detail goes a\nlong way to discredit the whole theory. A little development of the\nimagination here would be more effectual with the majority of men than\nall the logic in the world. And let us not think that imagination is\nsome kind of a wild and exuberant offshoot of pure reason. No; it is a\nGod-given faculty, and of a quality almost divine. As Ruskin says, \"It\nis the greatest power of the soul.\"\n\nJust think for a moment that sane men and kindly men could really\nbelieve in the lurid descriptions which I have quoted! Yet this passed\nfor orthodoxy! Is it not a marvel that men ever believed it, or tried to\nbelieve it? Only think of infinite love, infinite power, and infinite\nwisdom, combining to accomplish such a result! It is almost beyond\nbelief that men of ordinary feeling, and with the Bible in their hands,\never tried to believe it. For the truth must commend itself to the heart\nas well as to the mind. If it does not, we ought to be on our guard.\n\nOn this most serious aspect of the case, I quote from Carlyle. He says:\n\n\"What the light of your mind, which is the direct inspiration of the\nAlmighty, pronounces incredible, that, in God's name, leave uncredited;\nat your peril do not try believing that.\"\n\nIt will be seen that what I have elsewhere called an \"affinity for\ntruth,\" Carlyle calls the \"direct inspiration of the Almighty.\" There is\nno contradiction. The one phrase notes the effect of our intuition; the\nother recognizes its origin. At all events, this mental and moral\nrepugnance to the theory is a strong indication that it is not true.\n\nOn this most serious aspect of the case, let us pause for a moment\nlonger. The more our mind dwells on it the more pronounced is our\nconviction that it is not true. Just think of one soul being consigned\nto everlasting torment. Through ages and ages interminable, to be\nsucceeded by other ages forever and ever, the agony is prolonged, with\nthe absolute certainty that forever and ever there will be no release or\nmitigation.\n\nWould not the very thought of such a fate drive us insane? Surely it\nwould; yes, though the supposed criminal had committed the most\natrocious crimes, and though he had done us the worst conceivable wrong.\nBut here we are, giving our minds to business, our hearts to pleasure,\nand our nights to sleep, yet all the while professing to believe that\none of our fellow creatures, perhaps one whom we have known, it may be\none whom we have loved, is in everlasting torment. Yet if a stranger was\nconfined in a burning house, we would make the most frantic efforts to\nrelieve him; and if we failed, the very memory of his fate would be\npainful to us all our days.\n\nBut the case we are trying to imagine is very different. He is no\nstranger, but one with whom we were acquainted; perhaps one of our own\nfamily; possibly one whom we have loved as our own life. And he is not\nsuffering for a few minutes only, but forever and ever, without any\npossibility of relief. Yet we go about our business or our pleasure\nwithout giving him a thought. Is there not a strong presumption that\ndeep down in our souls we do not really believe that he is in eternal\ntorment? We may try to believe it; orthodoxy may tell us that it is\ntrue; but do we really believe it? Our innate, God-given conviction may\nturn out to be nearer the truth than our creed.\n\nAnd let it be remembered that the supposed torment is eternal fire;\nyes, eternal fire. We may conceive of the fire as being changed somehow\nto suit our spiritual condition; but not less is it eternal fire. And we\ncalmly think of such endless fire as a possibility!\n\nYet we have thought of but one person as enduring such a fate. But if it\nis the portion of even one, it must be so for countless millions. For\nmillions have lived and died in heathenism, and millions are dying in\nheathenism now. Other millions in Christian lands are passing away in\npractically the same condition. And all of these are our brothers and\nsisters of the human race. By far the great majority of them had no\nchance of hearing the joyful sound. Yet some of them rose to sublime\nheights of character. And yet they are all consigned to this holocaust\nof everlasting fire!\n\nConsider also that the Being who is thus supposed to deal with these\nuncounted myriads is a Being of mercy inconceivably tender; of a love\nthat is from everlasting to everlasting; of a wisdom that is infallible;\nof a power that can use any means for the execution of His will. Then\nask yourself this question, and answer it truly from your own soul: Is\nit possible to believe that such a Being has nothing better in store for\nHis own children? Surely, surely, such a fate as we profess to believe\nmust have had its origin in the heart and brain of a fiend! That it can\nbe seriously entertained by devout and reasonable men we think must be\naccounted for on these grounds, that it comes to us with the stamp of\northodoxy, and that it is not candidly examined. Otherwise, to every\nsincere and candid mind, and to every heart that has any genuine\nfeeling, it would seem revolting and incredible.\n\nWith regard to the possibility of a man trying to persuade himself that\nhe really believes with mind what he utterly repudiates with his heart,\nI have already quoted some very trenchant words from Caryle. In another\npassage, he speaks of \"the most orthodox of mortals making the impious\nattempt to put out the eyes of his mind, to persuade himself to believe\nthat he believes.\" Then, he says: \"Away with it; in the name of God,\ncome out of it, all true men.\"\n\nSuch forced complacency in the knowledge that loved friends are\nconsigned to hopeless torment, is repugnant to our humanity; yes, and\nmost repugnant when humanity is at its best. On such themes some people\ndo seem to lose their common sense and common feeling. If there were\nnothing else, such outrageous conceptions ought to be enough to\ndiscredit the whole theory of eternal torment. But we can endure the\nidea of temporary separation, when we know that such separation is\nnecessary, and that it will issue in everlasting reunion.\n\nAs to the sincerity of our professed belief that thousands of the\nheathen are every day dropping into everlasting fire, let me give a\ndiagram which I have just met with, showing the relative expenditure in\nthe United States for various commodities per year; and the amount\ncontributed for Foreign Missions. And yet, this is a liberal showing for\nmissions, compared with that of many other Christian countries.\n\n================================================================= Liquor\n===================================== Expenditures for Meat\n=================================== Tobacco, Cigars, Etc.\n================================= Bread, including Flour and Meal\n=============================== Iron and Steel\n============================== Dairy and Egg Products\n=========================== Sawed Lumber\n========================= Cotton Goods\n======================= Boots and Shoes\n====================== Woolen Goods\n=================== Sugar and Molasses\n================= Fruit\n=============== Public School Education\n============= Furniture\n=========== Tea and Coffee\n== Salaries of Ministries\n= Foreign Missions\n\nNow, will any person pretend that we are sincere in our professed\nbelief that the heathen are dropping by the thousand every day into\neverlasting fire? Surely, if we really believed that, and if we believed\nthat there is only one way of averting such a fate, we would move heaven\nand earth to avert it. The common-sense inference is, that we do not\nreally believe it. We may flatter ourselves that we do; long usage may\naid the deception; but let us be honest with ourselves, and see how the\ncase really stands. We may think that it would never do to drop the\ntraditional attitude; but let us be sure of this, that self-deception\ncan never be an aid to true religion. In this as in all things, let\ntruth have the right of way.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI have just seen an extract from a Canadian Journal which speaks for\nitself. Here it is:\n\n\"To enter Canada costs a Chinaman $500. Last year thirteen hundred and\neighty paid the tax, the treasury of the country receiving from them\n$690,000. _The Missionary Witness_ makes the statement that combined\ncontributions of the Christians of Canada for the evangelization of\nheathen nations was only about half as much as the Chinese paid for the\nprivilege of living in Canada. It asks, Is it not amazing that in\nprosperous Canada 1,380 men cannot be secured who will voluntarily tax\nthemselves to send the Gospel to heathen lands as much as 1,380\nheathens are taxed by us to land on our shores? The love of Christ\nconstraineth us! How much?\"\n\nHave we not here a practical acknowledgment that the idea of the heathen\ndropping every moment into endless fire is not really believed?\n\nAs I say elsewhere, this revulsion of heart and mind is a strong plea\nthat the doctrine is not true. And it is a fearful thing to quench that\ninner light. I have already quoted Carlyle's trenchant words on this\npoint. But I have just now met with another saying of his of still more\nscathing intensity; and I would ask you to ponder his words well. He\nsays: \"What is incredible to thee, thou shalt not, at thy soul's peril,\nattempt to believe. Elsewhither for a refuge, or die here. Go to\nPerdition if thou must--but not with a lie in thy mouth; by the Eternal\nMaker, no!\"\n\nTo be sure, such courage and candor might cost dear. Some years ago\nthere was an able and conscientious minister of the Canadian\nPresbyterian Church who took the risk of being candid. He was a most\nlovable man; able, eloquent, active, helpful, humorous, candid, tender,\ndevout; in fact, possessed of nearly every desirable quality. But he had\nthe larger hope; and one day he unguardedly gave expression to it in the\nwords of Tennyson:\n\n     \"O yet we trust that, somehow, good\n      Will be the final goal of ill--\"\n\nand so on. Immediately he was a marked man, and the question was not\nallowed to settle until he was placed on trial for heterodoxy. There was\nconsiderable turmoil and excitement; but ultimately some kind of a\ncompromise was reached by which his orthodoxy was vindicated. He told me\nthat if he were once out of the church of which he was then minister, he\ncould get no other. I suppose he meant that he could not accept the\nstandards of the church; and of course that attitude would debar him.\n\n\nSOUNDNESS IN THE FAITH.\n\nAt the same time it is but right that the Church should protect its\nsoundness in the faith by some form of subscription. The trouble is,\nhowever, that the form now in force is subscribed to with reservations.\nThen what reservations? They are not defined; so it comes to this, that\neach subscriber makes his own reservations.\n\nAs evidence that such is the case, I may say that no minister in the\nPresbyterian Church of Canada, with whom I have spoken--and I have\nspoken with many--really believes in endless torment. Yet that doctrine\nis clearly stated in the Confession of Faith which ministers formally\naccept. The corrective of such a state of things in my opinion would be\nthe adoption of a simple evangelical creed that men of the most diverse\nviews on other matters could honestly accept.\n\nEven in reference to the manner in which the creed is accepted in the\nPresbyterian Church of Canada, there seems to me to be a want of candor.\nWhen a minister is being received, or installed in a charge, he is asked\nif he is prepared to sign the Confession of Faith. He is not asked to\nsign it then and there. To express his willingness to sign it does not\nseem to be so much of a tax on his candor as actually to sign it. Such a\nproceeding seems to me to put somewhat of a premium on insincerity. It\nis well known that there are reservations. Would it not be more honest\nto accept a short statement of evangelical truth, which could be\naccepted without any reservation?\n\n\n\n\nXIX.\n\n\nWORKING MEN AND THE CHURCH.\n\nEfforts to Attract Working Men to the Church--Restoration Would Largely\nSolve the Difficulty--Common Sense of Working Men--Glorious Expansion\nof Truth--Recasting Traditional Views--The True Basis for Unity.\n\n\nThere is one aspect of this question that is of vast importance, but\nwhich, so far as I know, has not been recognized. I mean its bearing on\nthe relation of working men to the church.\n\nIt has to be admitted that working men in general are shy of the church.\nYet almost every expedient has been resorted to in order to make the\nchurch attractive to them; and still they do not go. Some ministers\nthink that working men are to be caught by secular preaching, and so the\nGospel of success has in certain instances almost displaced the Gospel\nof salvation. Other ministers, and earnest ones, give a Gospel talk in\nworkshops and factories during the dinner hour. The men civilly attend\nand listen, but they do not go to church. Other ministers assume a\nforced familiarity of manner with the men, in order to create the\nimpression of equality. Some actively engage in sports in order to come\ninto closer contact with working men; and still the working men do not\ngo to church. Why?\n\nI believe that a candid and outspoken avowal of a belief in a process\nof purification beyond death would go a long way in solving the whole\ndifficulty. For sensible working men see very clearly that such a\nprocess of purification is necessary for all, whether they are Christian\nor non-Christian. Working men know beyond all doubt that there are in\ntheir own ranks many men of far higher character than the average\nnominal Christian. Yet it is taught that the Christian, however low in\ncharacter he may be, goes straight to everlasting bliss; while the\nnon-Christian, though of the noblest character, is consigned to\neverlasting torment. Common sense, and justice, and fitness, all rebel\nat such a dictum. This is especially the case with those who have not\nbeen early instilled with orthodox doctrines, as many of the working men\nhave not. This is the real equality of man--the fact that all men are\nsinners, and that all need purification. Only let these facts be\nhonestly and definitely avowed, and I believe the chasm would largely be\nbridged over.\n\nOf course common sense and observation would recognize a marvellous\ndifference in men as to their need of purification. It would be\nconceived that some would suffer but very slightly, or not at all; but\ntheir eyes would be opened to see truth of which they had never dreamed.\nOthers might need a long and painful discipline to purge them of evil\nhabits which they had contracted through long years. But equality would\nconsist in the fact that all need to be purified in a greater or less\ndegree, to fit them for a higher or lower place in the better world.\n\nWould not this be a wholesome Gospel for working men, and for all men?\nWould it not be a powerful appeal to any man to be able to say to him,\n\"You must repent, and leave off your sins now; for if you don't do it\nnow, you will surely do it in the life to come?\"\n\nI do not believe that working men are specially averse to spiritual\nideas. But they are amenable to common sense, and justice, and the\ngeneral fitness of things. Let them know that we are all on the same\nplane as sinners; be very emphatic that Christ died for the whole race;\nthat the plans and purposes of God are not limited to the present life;\nthat somehow and at some time grace will completely triumph over sin;\nand I venture to think that working men will be responsive. And in my\nview, this will be no curtailment of the truth, but a glorious\nexpansion of it.\n\nSurely none of the evangelical churches would treat such a Gospel as\nheresy. Even if they did, I do not think that the truth would suffer in\nthe long run. Special attention would thus be called to the truth with\nthe result, I believe, that the world would take a step forward into\nthe light.\n\nWe read that \"all Scripture is profitable for doctrine.\" Now is the\ndoctrine of everlasting punishment profitable? If it is true it must be\nprofitable. But is it? Possibly it may be claimed that it is profitable\non certain occasions. Then on what occasions? I never heard it directly\npreached on any occasion since I was a child. It may be hinted at, or\nimplied in some vague way; but so far as I know, it is never insisted on\nas a vital and saving truth. Yet, it is of such tremendous import that\nthe fair inference is, that the preacher himself does not believe it, or\nthat he is afraid to avow his belief of it, or that he has an\ninstinctive feeling that to proclaim it clearly is never \"profitable.\"\nYet, if it is not profitable, it is not \"doctrine,\" but error. And if it\nbe error, it is the most dark and dismal error that ever found its way\ninto this sinning and suffering world.\n\nAnd if this doctrine is not preached in this Christian land, is it\npreached in heathen lands? I do not positively know; but I have a strong\nconviction that it is not. I would challenge any missionary to say that\nit is. Then why not, if it is \"doctrine\" and therefore \"profitable?\"\n\nI can well believe that hosts of so-called converts might be frightened\ninto an avowal of Christianity by such preaching. If a simple heathen\ncould really believe it, would he not at once adopt Christianity as a\nmeans of escape from everlasting fire? But what would such a so-called\nconversion be worth?\n\nI have more faith in missionaries than to believe that they would be so\ninsane. They would realize that such a doctrine would either repel the\nheathen, or win them to an unreal acceptance of Christianity. In either\ncase, what would be accomplished? So the missionary would naturally\npostpone this \"profitable\" doctrine until some more convenient season,\nand probably that more convenient season would never come.\n\nI have heard many missionaries speaking of their work among the heathen;\nbut not once did I ever hear of the \"doctrine\" of everlasting fire being\nused as a converting power. Yet the Scripture declares that all doctrine\nis \"profitable.\" If it cannot be used, the inevitable inference is that\nit is not doctrine, and is not true.\n\nHere then is an idea for the Layman's Missionary Movement. How many men\nin that movement really believe in eternal torment? Like myself, many of\nthem may have been taught the catechism which speaks of \"God's wrath and\ncurse both in this life, and that which is to come;\" also \"the pains of\nhell forever.\" But what is their belief now? In many cases do they not\nutterly repudiate such ideas? In other cases, and I think the great\nmajority, they may not have seriously thought of the matter at all. But\ntheir instincts would strongly favor the more liberal view.\n\nOught not all men in that great movement seriously think of the matter\nnow? Are they satisfied that such a doctrine should still remain in our\ncreeds. For it does certainly remain in the creeds of the Methodist and\nPresbyterian Churches. Surely it is not enough to say that it is not\npreached. Any very zealous missionary might preach it, and you could not\nforbid him. And when some cultured heathen would find out that such a\ndoctrine is in our creed, would it suffice to tell him that we do not\npreach it? When he would realize that on a matter of such awful import,\nwe really professed one thing, and believed another would he have any\nuse for our Christianity? Besides; if the Spirit of Truth has taught us\nthe truth in our inmost souls, and yet if we repudiate that truth, how\nshall we give our account? We quoted Carlyle, who has a most scathing\nwarning for all those who act such a double part.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt seems to me then that the Laymen in this Movement should prepare the\nway for an honest and candid world-wide mission. Let them give\nthemselves no rest until this doctrine of eternal torment is expunged\nfrom the creed of both the Presbyterian and Methodist Churches. If it is\nfalse, and known to be false, no worldly wisdom should be allowed to\nretain it. Apparent missionary results might be slower, but would they\nnot be more real, and in the end far more numerous? And what a boon it\nwould be, not to have to suppress or disguise the Eternal wisdom, the\nEternal Power, the Eternal Love!\n\nThis reformation seems to me to be specially laid at the door of the\nLaymen's Missionary Movement. It will readily be understood how\nministers of undoubted ability and consecration, are backward to\ninaugurate such a movement. That many are in hearty sympathy with such a\nreformation, I know well. Only let the men in the Missionary Movement\ntake a constitutional initiative in the matter, and they will be\nsurprised how many ministers will be with them. I know for a fact that\nmany are longing for just such a reformation.\n\nI believe the time will come--perhaps has come--when the evangelical\nchurches will recast their traditional opinions on these doctrines. And\nin recasting their opinions, who knows to what extent they may further\nthe spirit of unity? May the glorious day be hastened!\n\nI can fancy that some will say that throughout this whole treatise I\nhave appealed too much to reason, and have not given sufficient\nprominence to Scripture. I think any such charge would be unfair. Look\nback and see if it is just. I have taken Scripture and reason combined;\nand let it ever be borne in mind that both are equally divine gifts. On\nthe highest plane they are in perfect unison.\n\nI have dealt with the plainer passages of Scripture especially, and\nchiefly with those that combine with reason. This is a common sense\ntreatise. I deemed it better, therefore, to make essential matters\nplain, even to repetition, than to indulge in long disquisitions about\nmistranslations, and such like matters, which in the case of many would\nonly leave the question in a haze. Besides; we have to remember that\ntruth is truth, and will never contradict itself. It is for opponents,\ntherefore, to controvert the positions I have taken, rather than to\ncriticise what I have omitted. If the latter course would hold in\nargument, it would be easy enough to make out a case for anything.\n\nI would ask you personally then to think over the entire question for\nyourself. Do not suppose that the matter is too high for you. I think it\nis, in the main, quite on the level with any ordinarily intelligent\nmind. Of course, it involves some deep problems; but these can be\npostponed for the present; it is the main question that claims paramount\nattention.\n\nSome preachers delicately approach the idea with hints and inuendos and\nmild threatenings, which are really worse than utter silence. I heard a\npreacher speaking lately of men as \"utter failures, going out into the\ndarkness.\" Now what did he mean, or did he mean anything? Again;\npreachers speak of \"eternal death,\" which might mean eternal extinction\nor eternal fire. And yet that vague phrase is actually proposed as one\nof the bases of union of the churches.\n\nA short time ago I wrote _The Toronto Star_ somewhat along these lines.\nThe editor wrote a most responsive article, concluding with these\nstrong words:\n\n\"This question and all that hangs upon it must be faced. A man has a\nright to know what his church teaches. The man in the pew--the man even\nwho is not in the pew but who might be--has a right to expect that the\nman in the pulpit not only believes what he preaches, but preaches what\nhe believes. A religion made up of hidden folds and mental reservations,\na creed marked by evasions and ambiguities, cannot reach and warm the\nheart of the world.\"\n\nThere is hardly a more vital truth known to us than the one I have tried\nto commend. For its candid consideration we need the illumination of the\nHoly Ghost. But we have the promise that if we ask for Him He will be\ngiven. We have also the Word of God. And then we have reason. It is a\ndivine gift, never to be despised. With these sources of illumination we\nhave the twilight now. Yes; but it is the twilight of the\neternal morning!\n\n\n\n\nXX.\n\n\nTHE SEEN AND THE UNSEEN.\n\nBeauty Evolved from Chaos--Future Capacity of Motion--Gleams of the\nInvisible--Changing into the Divine Image--Crying Out for God--From\nBarrenness to Beauty--The Glow of the Firefly--The Effulgent Divinity\n--Sunset on the Prairie--Universal Sense of Beauty--Guardian Angels\n--Death as Seen from This Side and That--Sunset on the Yellowstone\nRiver--A Drop of Dew--Reality of Heaven--The Literal and the\nfigurative--The Spiritual Body--Expanding Glory of Creation--Sunset\nin Dakota--Lights Dim and Clear--Christ's Unsullied Purity--A Rent in\nthe Cloud--An Imprisoned Lark.\n\n\nWe have been dealing with matters that are related chiefly to the next\nlife. But let us not forget that such matters have a close relation to\nus now. There can be no doubt that there are correspondences between\nthis world and the world unseen. I would notice a few of these\ncorrespondences, so that we may realize how closely we are related to\nboth worlds. If we keep our mind and our heart open to see such\ncorrespondences, we shall often be surprised at the vividness of their\nsuggestion. But they are suggestion only. They are not proof. That is\nnot their function. But when an idea is seen in itself to be probable,\na vivid illustration will confirm it.\n\nThe world is full of such correspondences between the natural and the\nspiritual. To discover one of these correspondences is in my view a\ngreater achievement than a discovery in science. It is greater because\nit is a discovery in the realm of spirit instead of the realm of matter.\nIt is no wonder, then, that Emerson says that \"such correspondences, if\nadequately executed, would be the poem of the world.\"\n\nI will notice a few of those correspondences, that have occurred to my\nown mind. I might cite many more, but I think these few will tend to\nfortify the conclusions we have been trying to arrive at. I apprehend\nthat many readers who are not fond of argument will feel the force of\nillustration. Thus they will have a more vivid appreciation of the\nunseen than can be conveyed by mere argument. To be sure, there is a\ngreater appeal to the imagination than to the reason. But we must not\ndecry imagination except when it runs riot into mere fancy. Ruskin says:\n\"Imagination is the greatest power of the soul.\"\n\nOnly yesterday my boy asked me a curious question. He wanted to know why\nso many millions of flowers and other beautiful things that men never\nsaw or will see, were created. I said that the very same thought was in\nmy own mind years ago, but at that time I could find no answer. But I\nfound the true solution since. The true solution is, that God is the\nBeautiful One, and He naturally--it may be of divine necessity--has to\nexpress Himself in forms of beauty. So He creates millions of beautiful\nthings that no man or angel will ever see. In so far as they do see\nthem, and their sense of beauty is developed thereby, that is good, but\nit is secondary. The primary thing is, that the Infinitely Beautiful One\nnaturally expresses Himself--perhaps must express Himself--in\nbeautiful forms.\n\nI have seen the potter working at his wheel; and it is wonderful to see\nthe beautiful effects he can produce. He can take a lump of clay, and\nfrom that shapeless mass of matter he can make vessels and ornaments of\nrarest beauty. He has no machinery but that simple wheel, but by that\nand the skillful movements of his hand, he can evolve beauty out of\nchaos. It made me think of the way God evolved this beautiful world out\nof chaos at first. There is this difference, that the potter uses\nmechanical power, and he uses his hands, whereas God uses only His word\nand will. He spake and it was done; He commanded and all things stood\nfast. But the effect is of the same order. It is the reduction of chaos\ninto beauty; and though we can produce such effects only in a small way\nand by mechanical means, it gives us a hint of almighty power and\nbeauty. Yea, and that almighty power, as seen here in such beautiful\neffects, gives us a suggestion of the transcendent glory of the world on\nhigh. Not only so, but we have a vivid hint as to the fact that divine\npower and grace can transform a sinner into a saint.\n\nOne function of the glorified body will be its amazing capacity of\nspeed. Along this line we have even now and here suggestions of\nwonderful possibilities. You have noticed when on the train the swarm of\ninsects that keep easy pace with your rapid flight. Those insects not\nonly seem to enjoy a race with the train, but to show how easily they\ncould leave you behind, they indulge in all sorts of airy gymnastics, at\nthe same time whirling to and fro, and up and down. What marvellous\npower of motion is there, if you only think of it! How inconceivably\nrapid must be the movements of those little wings. It is computed that\nsome of those insects open and close their wings no less than two\nhundred times in a second. It is amazing. And is it not suggestive of\nthe capacity of motion with which this body may easily be endowed when\nthe cumbrous flesh is changed into the immortal, ethereal body? Since\nthose tiny insects are so wonderfully endowed for their little life\nhere, so aimless as it might seem, what glorious capacities may not be\nin reserve for us, God's redeemed children, who are to live forever,\ngoing forth on God's errands through the wide amplitudes of uncounted\nstarry worlds.\n\nIt is truly amazing to notice what glorious effects God can bring out\nof materials that seem so simple and common. Out of the earth's dark\nsoil, by the action of light and heat, He calls forth myriads of\nflowers. A heavy cloud, that contains nothing but murky vapor, by the\nrays of the setting sun is made to flash and glow like a burning\nsapphire throne. The falling shower, by another action of the sun's\nlight, is painted with rainbow colors so pure that they seem to be\nreflections of heaven's own beauty. Surely God has flung these glories\nround about us here to give us hints and promises of the unimagined\nglories of the beautiful, better land. Not only so, but we have a vivid\nhint as to how the earthly can be transformed into the image of\nthe heavenly.\n\nIt is a law of our nature that we insensibly change into the likeness of\nthat which we behold and admire. Even in outward, material things we\nsometimes see the working of this law. There is a gorgeous sunset. Come\nout of the dingy house, and gaze on the scene. The western sky is ablaze\nwith purple and crimson and gold. The radiant clouds stretch out in\nfeathery, fantastic forms, like angels' wings; or pile themselves up in\nsolid blocks of glory, like celestial mountains; or shape themselves\ninto golden bars, like heaven's pearly gates.\n\nAs you gaze on that scene, I notice that the lines of your face soften,\nthe eye that was hard grows tender, the whole face loses its careworn,\nearthly expression, and it is suffused with softened, heavenly light.\nYour countenance is just reflecting a little of the glory of the skies.\nAnd so, when with the spiritual eye we see the beauty of Christ, we\nbegin to be somewhat like Him. When His moral glory is flashed upon us,\nit transforms us more or less into His likeness. Beholding, though only\nin a glass, the glory of the Lord, we are changed into His heavenly\nlikeness, from day to day.\n\nGoing west, you pass through what seems an endless waste of sage-bush\nand sand. Perhaps this has continued all day long, and you retire at\nnight expecting to look out again in the morning on the same dreary\nwaste. But in the night the scene has changed. When you look out in the\nmorning the first thing you see is the broad Columbia River, with its\nbanks of green; beyond the river, mountains rise, clothed in green and\nyellow and purple; then an open space in the nearer mountains reveals\nothers in the distance, enveloped in a blue haze, and crowned with\ngleaming snow.\n\nWhat a blessed change from the experiences of yesterday, and how easy\nand unconscious the transition. And so it will be with many in passing\nfrom this life to the next. Dreary and monotonous their life has been,\nand it seemed at times as if it might go on so forever. But they are\nnearing the heavenly land; and some night, perhaps when they are not\nexpecting it, they will leave the dreariness and desolation all behind\nthem; they will awake in a world of beauty such as human fancy never\ndreamed of.\n\nWell do I remember the night when on seeing the sudden glow of a firefly\nthere flashed on my mind the idea of the ease and naturalness with\nwhich, after all, this fleshly body of ours may become immortal and\nglorious. If an insect like that can transform itself at pleasure into a\nlittle star, who can say what latent power may be lodged in the body of\na glorified saint? Truly, \"it doth not yet appear what we shall be.\" No;\nbut we have hints of it that may well fill us with an adoring hope\nand joy.\n\nThere were times when Christ's eternal power and Godhead could not be\nquite obscured by the fleshly body, but would shine out through this\ntabernacle of clay, as we may suppose the shekinah glory of old would\nshine through every crack or crevice in the temple. It was a hint of the\ncoming glory in which we may all shine by and by.\n\nThere is a divine sense of beauty implanted in every one of us. Have you\nnever noticed how the beautiful things in the shop windows attract all\nthe ragged urchins of the street? Yes, they may be ragged and dirty, but\nthe divine instinct of beauty is in every one of them. Whatever is\nreally beautiful--whether it be a beautiful face, or a beautiful sky, or\neven a beautiful ribbon in a window--is sure to attract and\nfascinate them.\n\nNow this instinct, which is so universal, is intended, I believe, to\nhave its final and full development in God. He is the Source and Essence\nof all beauty. All the beautiful things that surround us here are but\nglimmerings of the Eternal Loveliness. These beautiful things educate\nand develop our taste for the final and full fruition of the very beauty\nof God. When we see Him--and not till then--will our sense of beauty be\nsatisfied.\n\nIt is curious and very charming to notice the variety of effects of\nsunsets. I saw a sunset on the Yellowstone River which, though not\nremarkable in itself, suggested to me the boundless variety of effect.\nGlinting and shimmering through the green foliage of the trees the\ndistant river was aglow with crimson and gold, reminding me of the\ncelestial \"sea of glass mingled with fire,\" And if we have such beauty\nand variety here, what unimagined beauty and what endless variety\nmust be there.\n\nCan you cherish the sweet memory of a sainted father, or mother, or\nchild? If you can, that sacred memory will be a purifying, ennobling\ninfluence for you all your life long. Our sainted dead are not quite\nlost to us; the dear face Is seen again as the face of an angel; the\nfamiliar tones come back to us like music in our dreams. And these\nblessed memories do not seem to fade; on the contrary, they seem to grow\nmore vivid and spiritual with the lapse of years. Sometimes, when such\nmemories would make us ashamed of ourselves and our sin, we may try to\ncrush them out of sight and hearing. We cannot sin comfortably with\nthose faces before our eyes, and those tones ringing in our ears. But\nsuch memories will not be utterly banished; they come back suddenly,\nwhen they are not expected; they pursue us like good spirits from a\nworld unseen. Eternity alone will tell how often a course of sin was\narrested, and the penitent wooed to a better life by the memory of a\nsainted friend. I regard these holy memories as God's guardian angels.\nThey follow us with tender ministries of love; they often raise us when\nwe fall; they lift us above the dull level of the world; they nourish in\nus higher ideals of purity and blessedness; they foster a more vivid\nfaith in the world unseen.\n\nA dark, heavy, threatening cloud everspreads the face of the heavens.\nBut that cloud is heavy, and dark, and threatening, only on this side.\nThe other side, if we could but see it, is ablaze with heavenly\nradiance. We can easily imagine that this storm cloud of ours may be\nseen on the other side by angels, and that they gaze with admiration on\nits glowing colors, as we gaze in admiration on the golden glories of a\nsunset. How different the cloud appears as seen from this side and from\nthat. And we may well believe that it is just so with death. Death does\nappear to us a very dark and heavy cloud; but it is so only when seen\nfrom this side. Wait until we get above the cloud, and then what was\ngloomy will be radiant. Death has two sides; the dark side that is\nturned to earth; and the bright side that is seen from heaven.\n\nIn many of the glorious scenes depicted in Scripture, especially in the\nBook of the Revelation, it is not easy for us to say how much is\nfigurative and how much is literal. Sometimes in grand mountain scenery,\nwhen the clouds settle upon the lofty peaks, we cannot say what is\nmountain and what is cloud. If we were near the mountain top we might\ndistinguish; but we cannot do so down here in the valley.\n\nSo we have in the Scripture a glorious cloud of symbolism hovering, upon\nthe peaks of the eternal mountains; but we are too far down in this\nvalley to discern between what is mountain and what is cloud. We may\nhope to get higher by and by, and then what is hazy and undefined will\nbe seen in its true form and outline. \"Now we know in part; but when\nthat which is perfect is come then that which is in part shall be\ndone away.\"\n\nOn a certain evening, as night was coming on, I stood on the shore of a\nromantic watering place. The tide was breaking on the sandy beach. The\ncrests of the waves sparkled with phosphoric scintillations. Like a\nthing of life, the light flashed along the shore; and the green and blue\nand amber and white of the rippling waves sparkled like incandescent\nfire. As I looked at the spectacle I thought, as I had never thought\nbefore, of the \"sea of glass mingled with fire\" described by St. John in\nthe Apocalypse. Yes, we have hints here of the glorious things to be\nseen there. Surely God has flashed these beauties on the earth and sea\nthat through them we might lift our thoughts and our hearts to heaven.\n\nPassing on the train over the vast prairies of South Dakota, I noticed\none beautiful effect. The rough posts of the ragged fence we were\npassing at the moment were gilded by the rays of the setting sun. It\nseemed as if those rough, ragged posts were fit material wherewith to\nmake the heavenly gates, each of which we are told is one pearl. It\nseems to be God's intention that this earth, even where it is least\npicturesque, should give us hints and tokens of heavenly glory.\n\nIt seems in the highest degree probable that all the bodily senses that\nwe possess now will be wonderfully intensified and enlarged when this\n\"natural body\" passes off, and the \"spiritual body\" is taken on. I think\nwe have a beautiful hint of this glorious probability in the invention\nof the telescope and the microscope. By these two inventions we are\nintroduced to new worlds of which we never before had dreamed. By the\ntelescope we are let into the glory of the immense; by the microscope we\nare let into the marvels of the minute. We never had really seen either\nthe heavens or the earth before. Now, since by an invention of man our\nsight has been so marvellously quickened, it is surely easy to believe\nthat it will be quickened in a far greater degree when all the powers of\nthis natural body are renewed and immortalized. So then, while the eye\nof the spiritual body may sweep the far fields of glory, it may also\ndiscover worlds of beauty in dew drop, and leaf and flower.\n\nAs the moon shines pure and clear in a muddy pool, so Christ shone here\nin this muddy, filthy world, without the serene lustre of His purity\nbeing ever dimmed or soiled. And so we may shine in our poor human way\nnow, but perfectly later on.\n\nIt was my privilege lately in crossing the Atlantic, to witness one of\nthose glorious sunsets, which once seen can never be forgotten. Of\ncourse the sun sets every evening upon the sea, as upon the land; but\nseveral different circumstances must be happily combined to produce the\neffect I witnessed. It was a Sabbath evening,--a fitting time for such a\nscene. The day had been calm and bright, the glassy surface of the sea\nbeing broken only by the gentlest of ripples. And now the sun had just\ngone down. The clouds, from the western horizon almost to the zenith,\nwere piled up like very hills of glory, flashing with crimson and amber\nand purple and gold. The glowing colors of the clouds were Deflected on\nthe sea, with a new and wonderful effect. The gentle ripples of the sea\nbroke up and blended these colors in a manner all its own. What seemed\nsolid in the sky became changeful on the sea. The crimson and amber and\npurple and gold broke and mingled and glanced and gleamed on the molten\nsea, until we had before our eyes that very \"sea of glass mingled with\nfire\" which John saw in Apocalyptic vision. Oh, surely, God has flashed\nthese beauties on the earth and sky and sea to keep us in mind of the\nsurpassing glories of the beautiful better land.\n\nIn the spiritual world, as in the natural, God has made greater lights\nand lesser lights. Some have more light and some have less. The main\nthing is, to use well such light as we have. A traveller is making his\nway home. He is very glad to have daylight, that he may see his way\nclearly. But when he cannot have daylight, he is thankful for moonlight:\nand if he has not moonlight he will fain use starlight; and if he has\nnot starlight he will be glad to have even a lamp or taper. The\ntraveller wants to get home, and if so be that he gets home even by a\ntaper light, it is well. And so, I believe that there are millions of\nheathens who are led home by tapers. Many of ourselves, we hope, God\nwill light home by dim lights. The way seems dark enough, and in the\ndarkness we may stumble and fall; but if we use well the light we have,\nwe shall find our way.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nHere is a drop of dew. It is suspended from a leaf. It glints, and\ngleams, and glows, in the clear morning light. As you look into it, if\nyou are in a contemplative mood, the drop of dew expands into a world;\nand what a world of beauty! It seems a very paradise, where the redeemer\nof the Lord might walk; where angels might soar and sing.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSome time ago an organist died in the assured hope that he would be the\nleader of a heavenly choir. It does not seem far fetched to believe that\nhis ambition is gratified. At this very hour he may be a director of\nthose harpers that are harping upon their harps.\n\nHere is a sketch which we may term \"Imprisoned.\" It was suggested to me\nby a lark flying into the room, and dashing itself against the windows\nin its efforts to escape:\n\n     Oh! birdie from the blue,\n     This is no home for you!\n       In spacious fields of air,\n       Beneath a boundless sky,\n       Without a fear or care,\n       You sang, and soared so high;\n     I wonder much what brought you here\n     To this dark room's contracted sphere.\n\n     Oh, birdie dear, beware!\n     Poor fluttering thing, take care!\n       I fear you'll hurt your pretty wings\n       Against these hard, material things.\n     Would you were free to rise,\n     And seek your native skies,\n       And from those heights no more to roam,\n       Or seek a lower, earthly home.\n     And see! I ope your prison door!\n     Escape, and sing, and heavenward soar!\n\n     Oh! spirit from the blue,\n       This is no home for you.\n     In fleshly walls confined\n       Frets the aspiring mind;\n       Imprisoned here in human clay,\n     We pine and long to soar away.\n     The soul would burst these prison bars,\n     And find its home beyond the stars.\n\n     Oh! heaven born soul, beware!\n     Poor fluttering thing, take care!\n       Oh do not hurt your spirit wings\n       Against earth's hard material things;\n     A hand some day will ope your prison door!\n     Oh, glad escape, to sing, and heavenward soar!\n\nThese are a few of the many suggestions with which nature abounds,\npointing our faith beyond the bourne of time to the eternal glory\nbeyond. But we have no corresponding hints of endless wrath. To be sure,\nthere are suggestions of divine anger, but not that God will be angry\nforever. Like the sun breaking out from behind a dark cloud,--\n\n     \"Behind a frowning Providence\n      He hides a smiling face.\"\n\nOh yes! We believe that sin and suffering will finally be done away. All\nthe ransomed of the Lord will yet come to Zion with song!\n\nI have thrown in these few illustrations by way of conclusion, thinking\nthey may be a pleasant offset to mere argument.\n\n\n\n\nXXI.\n\n\nTHE FINAL DAY.\n\nEverlasting Love--Resources of Infinite Wisdom and Power--Redemption\nof the Whole Race--Forecast of the Final Day--The Conquest of Love\n--Christ Is Satisfied--He Is Singing with Joy--Ancient Prophecy\nFulfilled--Adoration of the Heavenly Hosts--The Saviour Crowned.\n\n\nThe main subject on which there is a division of opinion in the\nevangelical churches pertains to the ultimate destiny of the wicked.\nThere are three main points of view. There is the theory of Extinction;\nthere is the theory of Restoration; and there is the theory of\nEverlasting Torment. Of late years there has been a great change as to\nwhich is the correct view. For a long time eternal Torment was held to\nbe the orthodox doctrine. Men tried to believe it: it was the doctrine\nof the church; and thoughtful men did not like to break with orthodoxy.\nI can fancy that in cases where it was suspected to be untrue, men\nrecoiled from its examination, and satisfied themselves that it is a\nmystery beyond human investigation. If a man's feeling stood in the way\nof his conviction, feeling was repudiated as a dangerous thing in the\nstudy of doctrine. So men went on for a long time, even the most devout\nand kind-hearted, coolly consigning millions and millions of their\nfellowmen to everlasting fire.\n\nAt length a better day dawned. Feeling was discerned not to be so\ndreadfully dangerous as was supposed. It began to be realized that the\nheart sees as well as the head, and often much truer and quicker. The\nfact is that feeling on the part of a man at his best, is no small\nfactor in distinguishing between right and wrong, and between truth\nand error.\n\nAnd if in our best moods we have any hesitation in consigning millions\nof men to eternal torment, the thought will suggest itself---Has not God\nmore reluctance? Then when we think of Him being everlasting love; and\nmoreover, when we think of Him as possessing the resources of infinite\nwisdom and power, we begin to see that there must be some other\nalternative.\n\nExtinction would be one alternative. But would not extinction be a\nfrustration of the divine intention, and unworthy of God? Would it not\nhave been better and wiser never to create those millions of men than to\nextinguish them? That is not like an outcome of the divine Mind, that\nsees the end from the beginning.\n\nWhat remains, then, but Restoration? That seems for more consistent with\ndivine power and divine love? But what about divine justice? Will not\njustice require a penalty, and an infinite one? Well; surely a penalty\nhas been paid, and a penalty of infinite value. So we can see no\ndifficulty on that ground.\n\nBut what about man's free will? Will he not persist in sin? Has he not\nbeen made a free agent? So if any reformation is forced upon him, would\nit be a real reformation? Besides, if he were reformed only externally,\nwould he be fitted for a better world?\n\n\nDIVINE POWER AND GRACE.\n\nWell, though he is a free agent, we believe that divine love and power\ncould turn him, without in the least destroying his freedom. We\ninstanced the case of Saul. In a moment he was overpowered by divine\nlove; the whole man was changed; yet he lost not a particle of his free\nwill. So it is easy to believe that divine power and grace may be\nbrought to bear on the very worst of mankind, with the result that while\nlosing none of their free will, but using it to the full, they are\nrecovered and redeemed. And it is easier to believe this when we realize\nthat suffering will be a factor in the process of reformation. These,\nand many such considerations have been referred to with all candor. As\nwe survey them we are forced to exclaim, \"O, the depths of the riches,\nboth of the Wisdom and Knowledge of God.\"\n\nOne practical word, my dear friend, in conclusion. It may be that this\nmaze of argument only bewilders you. If so, then brush all argument\naside, and take the plain Word of God. Take these words in Isaiah: \"The\nLord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all.\" Surely, you can believe\nsuch a plain statement as that. And yet, even that statement may be too\ngeneral for your case. Then take the words of Paul: \"He loved me, and\ngave Himself for me.\" Ah; that is closer. Does not that bring the matter\nhome to yourself? And surely, it is a very personal matter. Be sure of\nthis, that what Paul said of himself is just as true of _you_. The\nSaviour loved _you_, and gave Himself for _you_. Believe that in your\ninmost soul, and it will transform your whole character and life. Think\nof Christ loving you personally, and giving Himself for you personally.\nYes; for He was divine, and so in the infinite sweep of His thought He\ncould fix His love on you individually, as though not another soul\nneeded to be redeemed. If you dwell on that thought you will be filled\nwith adoring wonder, and love, and praise.\n\nWe forecast such a salvation for the whole race, Christ will be\nsatisfied yet: Oh, He will be satisfied! Let us anticipate the glorious\nday Love has conquered! The worst of mankind has been won. The last\nprodigal has come home. Christ is satisfied at last! Ah, He is more than\nsatisfied! Listen! He is singing! Surely the great multitude that no man\ncan number will hush their hallelujahs to hear Him singing! Yes, He is\nactually singing with joy over the recovery of lost souls. It was\nwritten of Him long ago, and the words are now fulfilled: \"He will joy\nover thee with singing.\" Oh, won't we crown Him then! Won't we\n\n\"CROWN HIM--CROWN HIM--CROWN HIM--LORD OF ALL!\"","title":"Love's Final Victory: Ultimate Universal Salvation on the Basis of Scripture and Reason","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":88566}