PREFACE
UNIVERSALISM ASSERTED seems to me to fill a great
want of the day. A book was needed which should face fairly and thoroughly, the
subject of future Punishment, for although there are many works on the subject,
they either face one aspect of the matter only, or they are written for
scholars only, not for the multitude. Mr. ALLIN'S writing is emphatically
writing which can be :understood of the people," and surely his book must kill
the false accusation so often made that, those who believe in the ultimate
triumph of Christ, and in the Redemption of the world, make light of sin.
Far from being a weak sentimentalist who shrinks from the thought of
suffering, the Universalist, as Mr. ALLIN shows very conclusively in his second
and third chapters, is convinced that every sin meets with its just and
remedial punishment; he points out, too, how very injurious is the moral
tendency of the popular belief in the everlasting existence of evil, - in a
purposeless suffering, in an unjust and revolting system of torture. And all
this is written calmly and thoughtfully, with a view to meeting the
difficulties of those who are in doubt on the subject.
Perhaps the most interesting part of the book is that which shows how
throughout the entire history of the Church the belief in universal salvation
has been held by many of the best and truest of Christ's followers. And to my
mind one of the finest touches is the description given in chapter i., pp.
10-2, of the position of those who, shrinking from the current notions of hell,
and dissatisfied with that most unsatisfying theory - Conditional Immortality,
take refuge in saying, that nothing can be definitely known, and that they are
content to wait in uncertainty.
The sympathetic way in which the writer meets their position, and his
fearless exposure of the dangerous vagueness which lurks beneath its apparent
humility is beyond praise. How is it possible that those who know the depths of
sin and ignorance, those who hear the character of God slandered by believers
and unbelievers, those who love the ones who pass unrepentant into the Unseen -
how is it possible that they should rest satisfied, while retaining in their
hearts even a shadow of a doubt that, "as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall
all be made alive ?"
The old merciless teaching is still taught ; there yet remains in many a
nursery, as well, alas, as in many a missionary school abroad, a well-known
book called "Peep of Day." In this, little children are allowed to read such
doggrel as the following: ----
"Now if I fight, or scratch, or bite,
In passion fall, or bad names call,
Full well I know where I shall go.
Satan is glad when I am bad,
And hopes that I with him shall lie,
In fire and chains, and dreadful pains.
All liars dwell with him in hell,
And many more, who cursed and swore,
And all who did what God forbid."
Surely it is time that everyone who believes that the Everlasting Father
lovingly, eternally, educates all His children should speak out plainly, and
not be ashamed to confess with the Psalmist, "My trust is in the tender mercy
of God for ever and ever."
EDNA LYALL
Eastbourne
16th December, 1890
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
The question of questions to which an answer is attempted in the following
pages, is essentially this, can Evil triumph finally over Good? If we answer
affirmatively with the popular creed, we are practically falling into Dualism;
if we reply negatively, we are teaching Universalism. Such are the issues
really involved. The more often and the more clearly this is stated as the
turning point of the entire controversy about the larger hope, the better for
those who write, and for those who read. The Calvinist settled this question
by, in fact, affirming that if evil triumphs it is because GOD SO orders, i.e.,
because GOD decrees to evil an eternal existence; thus saving or trying to save
God's omnipotence, but at no less a cost than that of blackening His character,
nay, of virtually making HIM a partner in evil. But the popular creed saves
neither the omnipotence of GOD, nor yet preserves His character. Sin, the one
thing most utterly hateful in His sight, HE tolerates forever and ever,
poisoning and defiling His works, and defying His power - satisfied, if in this
brief life he cannot have obedience and righteousness - satisfied with endless
disobedience and sin hereafter! HE appears before all creation as trying to
dislodge sin, only to fail; as sending His Divine Son to save all men in order
that HE may return rejected, baffled, vanquished. And so the curtain falls on
the great drama of creation and redemption, presenting such a picture as this -
a baffled Savior, a victorious Devil, a ruined creation, sin triumphant - and
so to continue forever - a heaven wholly base, a hell wholly miserable.
Strong as these words are, they are not strong enough, for the horrors and
the contradictions of the popular creed alike defy description. And these
horrors are taught, these contradictions are believed in the face of the
plainest teaching of Con's two revelations, His primary revelation to our moral
sense, His written revelation in Holy Scripture. Of the former and its
teachings, it is needless to speak here; of the latter I have spoken at some
length, and have tried to show that from its first page to its last the Bible
is the story of one who is our Father - one whose 'wrath,' and 'fire,' and
'judgment,' are at once most real, and yet one and all are the expressions of
that essential LOVE which HE is - One who being Almighty is sending His Son to
assured victory, to reconcile to HIMSELF all things, 'whatsoever and
wheresoever they be.' I know how eagerly men strive to save the popular creed
by various modifications, by diminishing the number of the lost, by softening
their torments, by asserting their annihilation, etc. What are all these but so
many tacit confessions that men everywhere feel it impossible to maintain the
creed still generally professed? What are they but in fact so many vain
attempts to disguise the awful fact of Con's defeat, to hide if it may be the
victory of the Evil One? For so long as sin lingers in a single heart, so long
as a single child of the Great Parent perishes eternally, whether annihilated,
or sent to Hell, so long is the Cross a failure, and the Devil practically
victor.
CHAPTER I *** THE QUESTION STATED
"Shall not the judge of all the earth do right" -- Gen. XVIII.:
25.
THE following pages are written under the pressure of a deep conviction that
the views generally held, as to the future punishment of the ungodly, wholly
fail to satisfy the plain statements of Holy Scripture. All forms of partial
salvation are but so many different ways of saying, that evil is in the long
run too strong for God. The popular creed has maintained itself on a Scriptural
basis solely, I believe, by hardening into dogma mere figures of oriental
imagery; by mistranslations and misconceptions of the sense of the original (to
which our authorized Version largely contributes); and finally, by completely
ignoring a vast body of evidence in favor of the salvation of all men,
furnished, as will be shown, by very numerous passages of the New Testament, no
less than by the great principles that pervade the teaching of all Revelation.
Again, I write, because persuaded, that however loudly asserted and widely
held, the popular belief is at best a tradition - is not an Article of Faith in
the catholic Church - is accepted by no general Council, nay, is distinctly
opposed to the views of not a few of the holiest and wisest Fathers of the
Church in primitive times; who, in so teaching, expressed the belief of very
many, if not the majority, of Christians in their days.
Further, I write, because deeply and painfully convinced of the very serious
mischief which has been, and is being, produced by the views generally held.
They in fact tend, as nothing else ever has, to cause, I had almost said, to
justify, the skepticism now so widely spread; they effect this because they so
utterly conflict with any conception we can form of common justice and
equity.
Therefore of mercy I shall say little in these pages: it is enough to
appeal, when speaking of moral considerations, to that sense of right and wrong
which is God's voice speaking within us. Indeed, among the many misconceptions
with which all higher views of the Gospel are assailed, few are more unfounded
than that, which asserts that thus God's justice is forgotten in the prominence
assigned to His mercy. This objection merely shows a complete misapprehension
of the views here advocated. For these views do in fact appeal to, and by this
appeal recognize, first of all, the justice of God. It is precisely the sense
of natural equity which God has planted within us, that the popular belief in
endless evil and pain most deeply wounds.
These considerations are in fact a complete answer to some other objections
often heard. "Why disturb men's minds," it is said, "why unsettle their faith;
why not let well alone ?" By all means, I reply, let well alone, but never let
ill alone. Men's minds are already disturbed: it is because they are already
disturbed that we would calm them, and would restore the doubters to faith, by
pointing them to a larger hope, to a truer Christianity. A graver objection
arises, but, like the former, wholly without foundation in fact. It is said,
"By this larger hope you, in fact, either weaken or wholly remove all belief in
future punish. meat. You explain away the guilt of sin." The very opposite is
surely the truth, for you establish future punishment, and with it that sense
of the reality of sin (to which conscience testifies) on a firm basis, only
when you teach a plan of retribution, which is itself reasonable and credible.
A penalty which to our reason and moral sense seems shocking, and monstrous,
loses all force as a threat. It has ever been thus in the case of human
punishments. And so in the case of hell. Outwardly believed, it has ceased to
touch the conscience, or greatly to influence the life of Christians. To the
mass of men it has become a name and little more (not seldom a jest); to the
skeptic it has furnished the choicest of his weapons; to the man of science,
and to the more thoughtful of all ranks, a mark for loathing and scorn: while,
alas, to many a sad and drooping heart, which longs to follow Christ more
closely, it is the chief woe and burden of life. But the conscience, when no
longer wounded by extravagant dogmas, is most ready to acquiesce in any measure
of retribution (however sharp it may be) which yet does not shock the moral
sense, and conflict with its deepest convictions. And so the larger hope most
fully recognizes at once the guilt of sin, and the need of fitting retribution:
nay, it may be claimed for it, that it a/one places both on a firm and solid
basis, by bringing them into harmony with the verdict of reason, of conscience
and of Holy Scripture.
It is better now for clearness sake, to define that popular view of future
punishment, of which I shall often speak. It is briefly this: That the ungodly
finally pass into a state of endless evil, of endless torments; that from this
suffering there is no hope of escape; that of this evil there is no possible
alleviation. That when imagination has called up a series of ages, in
apparently endless succession, all these ages of sin and of agony, undergone by
the lost, have diminished their cup of suffering by not so much as one single
drop; their pain is then no nearer ending than before. Those who hold this
terrible doctrine to be a part of the "glad tidings of great joy" to men from
their Father in heaven, differ indeed as to the number of the finally lost:
some make them to be a majority of mankind, some a minority, even a very small
minority. This division of views is instructive, as illustrating the ceaseless
revolt of the human heart and conscience against a cruel dogma.
For the Bible is clearly against any such alleviation when read from their
own standpoint. The texts on which they rely, if they teach the popular creed
at all, teach, just as clearly, that the lost shall be the majority of men.
"Many are called but few are chosen." "Fear not, little flock." "Narrow is the
way that leads to life and few there be that find it." These are our Lord's own
words. They present no difficulty to those who grasp the true meaning of
"life," and "death," and "election," the true working of the purpose of
Redemption throughout the ages to come.
They present an insuperable difficulty to that very common form of the
traditional creed, which seeks to lighten the horror of endless evil by
narrowing its range. Indeed, it seems perfectly clear that the popular view
requires us to believe in the final loss of the vast majority of our race. For
it is only the truly converted in this life (as it asserts), who reach heaven;
and it is beyond all fair question, that of professing Christians only a small
portion are truly converted; to say nothing of the myriad's and myriad's of
those who have died in Paganism. But even waiving this point, the objections to
the popular creed are in no way really lightened by our belief as to the
relative numbers of the lost and the saved. The real difficulty consists in the
infliction of any such penalty, and not in the number who are doomed to it. Nor
need we forget how inconceivably vast must be that number, on the most lenient
hypothesis. Take the lowest estimate; and when you remember the innumerable
myriads of our race who have passed away - those now living - and those yet
unborn - it becomes clear that the number of the lost must be something in its
vastness defying all calculation; and of these, all, be it remembered, children
of the great Parent - all made in His image - all redeemed by the life blood of
His Son; and all shut up for ever and ever (words, of whose awful meaning no
man has, or can have, the very faintest conception) in blackness of darkness,
in despair, and in the company of devils.
Let me next show what this hell of the popular creed really means, so far as
human words can dimly convey its horrors, and for this purpose I subjoin the
following extracts-
"Little child, if you go to hell there will be a devil at your side to strike
you. He will go on striking you every minute for ever and ever without
stopping. The first stroke will make your body as bad as the body of Job,
covered, from head to foot, with sores and ulcers. The second stroke will make
your body twice as bad as the body of job. The third stroke will make your body
three times as bad as the body of Job. The fourth stroke will make your body
four times as bad as the body of Job. How, then, will your body be after the
devil has been striking it every moment for a hundred million of years without
stopping? Perhaps at this moment, seven o'clock in the evening, a child is just
going into hell. Tomorrow evening, at seven o'clock, go and knock at the gates
of hell and ask what the child is doing. The devils will go and look. They will
come back again and say, the child is burning. Go in a week and ask what the
child is doing; you will get the same answer, it is burning. Go in a year and
ask, the same answer comes - it is burning. Go in a million of years and ask
the same question, the answer is just the same - it is burning. So, if you go
for ever and ever, you will always get the same answer - it is burning in the
fire."
The Sight of Hell. *** Rev. J. FURNISS, C.S.S.R.
"The fifth dungeon is the red hot oven. The little child is in the red hot
oven. Hear how it screams to come out; see how it turns and twists itself about
in the fire. It beats its head against the roof of the oven. It stamps its
little feet on the floor." - ib. "Gather in one, in your mind, an assembly of
all those men or women, from whom, whether in history or in fiction, your
memory most shrinks, gather in mind all that is most loathsome, most revolting
* * * conceive the fierce, fiery eyes of hate, spite, frenzied rage, ever fixed
on thee, looking thee through and through with hate *** hear those yells of
blaspheming, concentrated hate, as they echo along the lurid vault of hell;
everyone hating everyone *** Yet a fixedness in that state in which the
hardened malignant sinner dies, involves, without any further retribution of
God, this endless misery."
Sermon by the Rev. E.B. Pusey DD.
"When you die your soul will be tormented alone; that will be a hell for it:
but at the day of judgment your body will join your soul, and then you wilt
have twin hells, your soul sweating drops of blood, and your body suffused with
agony. In fire, exactly like that we have on earth, your body will lie,
asbestos like, for ever unconsumed, all your veins roads for the feet of pain
to travel on, every nerve a string, on which the devil shall for ever play his
diabolical tune of hell's unutterable lament."
Sermon on the Resurrection of the Dead. *** Rev. C. H.
SPURGEON.
Awful as are these quotations, I must repeat that they give no adequate idea at
all of the horrors of hell; for that which is the very sting of its terrors
-their unendingness - is beyond our power really to conceive, even
approximately, so totally incommensurable are the ideas of time and of endless
duration.
It will be said, "we no longer believe in a material hell - no longer teach
a lake of real fire." I might well ask, on your theory of interpreting
Scripture, what right have you so to teach? But let me rather welcome this
change of creed, so far as it is a sign of an awakening moral sense. Yet this
plea, in mitigation of the horror your doctrines inspire, cannot be admitted;
for when you offer for acceptance a spiritual, rather than a material flame,
who is there that cannot see that the real difficulty is the same, in either
case. If evil in any form is perpetuated then the central difficulty of the
traditional creed remains.
Merely to state the traditional doctrine in any form, is to refute it for
very many minds. So deeply does it wound what is best and holiest in us;
indeed, as I shall try to show further on, it is, for all practical purposes,
found incredible, even by those who honestly profess to believe it. This
terrible difficulty, felt and acknowledged in all ages, has been largely met
for the Roman Catholic, by the doctrine of Purgatory, which became developed as
the belief in endless torment gradually supplanted that earlier and better
faith, which alone finds expression in the two really catholic and ancient
creeds, faith in Everlasting Life. How immense must have been the relief thus
afforded, is evident, when we remember that the least sorrow, however
imperfect, the very slightest desire for reconciliation with God, though
deferred to the last moment of existence, was believed to free the dying sinner
from the pains of hell, no matter how aggravated his sins may have been. Among
the Reformed Communions this difficult y was met, no doubt, by a silent
incredulity - often unconscious - yet ever increasing, on the part of the great
majority: indeed, some divines, have at all times, both in England and on the
Continent, openly avowed their disbelief in endless torments. This growing
incredulity has found, in our day, open expression, in a remarkable theory,
that of conditional immortality (itself a revival of an earlier belief). This
doctrine, briefly stated, teaches that man is naturally mortal, that only in
Jesus Christ is immortality conferred on the righteous - that the ungodly shall
be judged, and, after due punishment, annihilated.
Of this dogma I shall at once say, that, while it degrades man, it fails to
vindicate God. "It is that most wretched and cowardly of all theories, which
supposes the soul to be naturally mortal, and that God will resuscitate the
wicked to torment them for a time, and then finally extinguish them. I can see
no ground for this view in Scripture but in mistaken interpretations; and it
does not meet the real difficulty at all, for it supposes that evil has in such
cases finally triumphed, and that God had no resource but to punish and
extinguish it: which is essentially the very difficulty felt by the skeptical
mind. I have called it cowardly, for it surrenders the true nobility of man,
his natural immortality, in a panic at an objection; and like all cowardice,
fails in securing safety."
Donellan Lectures, QUARRY.
Further, let me reply thus;
- I believe in one God the Father Almighty, who wills not the death of a
sinner." If, then, even one sinner die finally, God's will is not done, i.e.,
God is so far defeated and evil victorious. Annihilation is the triumph of
death over life: it is the very antithesis to the Gospel, which asserts the
triumph of Christ over every form of death. It is strange indeed that able men,
who write elaborate treatises advocating this view, should overlook the fact,
that all schemes of partial salvation involve a compromise with evil on God's
part.
- No less strange is the assertion that the moral sense is not shocked by
God, who is absolutely free, yet forcing the gift of life on those whom He
knows to be in fact destined to become the prey of evil so completely, that
they either rot away of sheer wickedness; or, being hopelessly corrupt, are
extinguished by their Father.
- Death nowhere in Holy Scripture implies annihilation, for earthly
destruction is, especially in the case of the Old Testament, that which is
denoted by the term, death : but as a rule this term has a wider significance,
and one far deeper. Nay, as I hope to point out, (ch. vi. on death,) there is
in Scriptural usage, especially in the New Testament, a deep spiritual
connection between death and life; death becomes the path to, and the very
condition of, life.
- Further, this theory wholly breaks down in practice. So far from
"perishing" implying final ruin, Christ came specially to save that which has
"perished," - to apololos, the "lost," "ruined," "destroyed ;" the original
term is the same which is often translated "destroy," and on which the theory
of annihilation is so largely built. The same word occurs in S. Luke xv., and
there is applied to the Sheep, the Coin, the Prodigal Son - all of which are
thus 'destroyed," "lost," and yet finally saved. In S. Matt.X 39, xvi. 25, to
"lose" (destroy) one's life is stated as the condition of finding it. So Christ
is sent to save the "lost" (destroyed) sheep of Israel. So Sodom and Gomorrha
are destroyed, and yet have a special promise of restoration. - Ez. xv. 53:5
Take the Antediluvians. After they had "died" in their sins they were
evangelized by Christ in person. - I S. Pet. iii. 19. Hence the unanswerable
dilemma, either all these are annihilated, or you must give up that sense of
"perishing" on which the theory is based.
- Probably I have said enough, but yet a very grave difficulty remains. This
theory stands in hopeless conflict with the promises to restore all things, to
reconcile all things through Christ, which abound in Scripture; nay, which form
the very essence of its teaching when describing Christ's empire. It seems
amazing that able men are found capable of maintaining that a reconciliation
which is described as coextensive with all creation, Col. i. 15-20, can be
equivalent to restoring some (or many) things, only after annihilating, as
hopelessly evil, all the rest.
Another view adopted by a number, probably extremely large, and increasing,
differs altogether from that last stated. Those who hold it have had their eyes
opened to the fact, that the New Testament contains very many, long neglected,
texts which teach the salvation of all men. They have also learned enough to
have their faith gravely shaken in the popular interpretation of the texts
usually quoted in proof of endless pain. The theory of conditional immortality
fails to satisfy such men. They see that it is altogether unsuccessful in
meeting the real difficulty of the popular creed, i.e., the triumph of evil
over good, of Satan over the Savior of man, and therefore over God. They
perceive, too, the narrow and arbitrary basis on which it rests in appealing to
Holy Scripture. And so they decline to entertain it as any solution of the
question, and say, "We are not able definitely to accept any theory of the
future of man, because we do not see that anything has been clearly revealed.
Enough has been disclosed to show to us that God is love, and we are content to
believe that, happen what will, all will ultimately be shown to be the result
of love divine."
It is impossible to avoid sympathy with much of this view at first sight,
but only then; for when closely examined it is seen to be open to the charge of
grave ambiguity, or far worse. It may mean that in the future God will act as a
loving human parent would, and then, I reply, this is precisely the larger
hope. Again, it may mean a very different and very dangerous thing. It may mean
that at the last my ideas of right and wrong will undergo a complete change-
that the things which I now pronounce with the fullest conviction to be cruel
and vile, will at that day seem to be righteous and just, and that thus God
will be fully justified though He inflict endless torment. But take this
statement to pieces and see what it really means. It means, in effect,
practical Skepticism. It means blank Agnosticism. This is easily shown. For
what this view really tells me is that my deepest moral convictions are wholly
worthless, because that which they declare to be cruel and revolting, is right
and holy, and will so appear at the last. But if this be so, then I have lost
my sole measure of right and wrong. What is truth or goodness, I know not. They
cease to be realities; they are, for all I know, mere phantoms. Religion,
therefore, is impossible. Conscience ceases to be a reliable guide. Revelation
is a mere blank, for all revelation presupposes the trustworthiness of that
moral sense to which it is addressed. Thus the above plea, plausible as it
seems, is wholly ambiguous, and does in fact lead either to the larger hope, or
to mere unbelief.
In opposition to both these theories stand the views here advocated, which
have been always held by some in the Catholic Church; nay, which represent, I
believe, most nearly its primitive teaching. These views are, I know, now
widely held by the learned, the devout, and the thoughtful in our own and in
other communions. Briefly stated, they amount to this :-That we have ample
warrant, alike from reason - from the observed facts and analogies of human
life - from our best and truest moral instincts - from a great body of
primitive teaching - and from Holy Scripture itself, to entertain a firm hope
that God our Father's design and purpose is, and has ever been, to save every
child of Adam's race.
Therefore I have called this book, "Universalism
Asserted." But let there be no mistake. I assert this not as a
dogma, but AS A HOPE: as that which after many years of thought and study seems
to me to be the true meaning of Holy Scripture, as it is certainly in harmony
with our moral sense, and has been taught by so many saints in the early
Church. The term, "Universalism," may not, indeed, commend itself to some, but
I retain it advisedly. It seems to convey an essential truth. "The kingdom of
Christ *** is in the fullest sense *** universal." - Lightfoot. It is an
universal remedy to meet an universal evil. While sin is universal, and sorrow
and pain universal, shall not our hope be universal too? Shall not life be as
universal as death, and salvation as universal as sin?
Can we even think of a divine life and a divine love as other than in their
very essence universal?
CHAPTER II
THE POPULAR CREED WHOLLY UNTENABLE
"These questions * * educated men and women of all classes and
denominations are asking, and will ask more and more till they receive an
answer. And if we of the clergy cannot give them an answer, which accords with
their conscience and reason * * then evil times will come, both for the clergy
and the Christian religion, for many a year henceforth." --- Canon KINGSLEY.-
Water of Life.
"The answer which the popular theology has been tendering for centuries
past will not be accepted much longer * * * I disclaim any desire to uphold
that theology which I have never aided in propagating."
Rev. Dr. LITTLEDALE. - Contemporary Review.
At the outset let me protest against the common and ignorant prejudice that
connects Universalism with lax views of sin or of dogma. As to the first, I
shall have occasion bye and bye to point out, that no system so effectually
affirms God's hatred of sin, as that which teaches that He cannot tolerate its
existence for ever. Again, as to the second, I shall largely base my argument
for Universalism on the fullest acceptance of the great catholic verities. A
narrow Catholicism is a contradiction in terms. To this point I shall return,
confining myself here to the remark that a partial salvation aims a blow at
both the Incarnation and the Atonement. For a vital part of the Incarnation is
the taking of the race of man, as an organic whole, into God through Jesus
Christ, the second Adam. But with this fundamental idea, a partial salvation
is. in hopeless contradiction. No less vital is the blow aimed by the popular
creed at the Atonement. First it dishonors the Cross by limiting its power to
save, to the brief moments of earthly life. Further, it virtually teaches that
the Cross is a stupendous failure. This is easily shown. For plainly that which
misses its end is a failure. And if the end aimed at be noble, then in
proportion is the failure greater and vital. But the scriptural evidence is
overwhelming, that the object of Christ's death was to save the world. "The
Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world." He came that the world
through Him might be saved; i.e., the world in all its extent, not a part of
it, however large. If, then, this end be not gained, if the world be not in
fact saved, the Atonement is so far a failure. Disguise the fact as men may,
the dilemma is inevitable. Answer, or evasion, there is none.
The next step will be to state more in detail the various considerations
that render it impossible to accept the traditional view of future punishment;
or any modification of it which teaches the endless duration of evil, moral or
physic ii, in even a solitary instance; a fact essential to bear in mind, when
I refer to the traditional creed, or the popular creed anywhere in this book.
My first appeal shall be to that primary revelation of Himself which God has
implanted in the heart and conscience of man. I am merely expressing the
deepest and most mature, though often unspoken, convictions of millions of
earnest Christian men and women, when I assert, that to reconcile the popular
creed, or any similar belief in endless evil and pain, with the most elementary
ideas of justice, equity, and goodness (not even to mention mercy), is wholly
and absolutely impossible. Thus this belief destroys the only ground on which
it is possible to erect any religion at all, for it sets aside the primary
convictions of the moral sense; and thus paralyses that by which alone we are
capable of religion. If human reason be incompetent to decide positively that
certain acts assigned to God are evil and cruel, then it is equally incompetent
to decide that certain acts of His are just and merciful. Therefore if God be
not good, just, and true, in the human acceptation of these terms, then the
whole basis of revelation vanishes. For if God be not good in our human sense
of the word, I have no guarantee that He is true in our sense of truth. If that
which the Bible calls goodness in God should prove to be that which we call
badness in man, then how can I be assured that, what is called truth in God,
may not really be that which in man is called falsehood? Thus no valid
communication - no revelation - from God to man is possible; for no reliance
can, on this view, be placed on His veracity.
"We dare not," says the Bishop of London, "let go the truth, that the
holiness, the goodness, the justice, the righteousness, which the eternal moral
law imposes on us as a supreme command, are identical in essential substance,
in our minds and in His." - Bampt. Lect. " We dare not 1" Why? Precisely
because, if we do, the foundations of religion collapse - perishing as the
moral order perishes. We are worshipping once more the unknown God. Mere
skepticism is our sole refuge. We have lost our standard of right and wrong,
and are wandering in a pathless desert, creed less, homeless, hopeless, mocked
all the while by phantoms of virtues that are probably vices, and of vices that
are probably virtues. For let me repeat that if goodness in becoming infinite
turns into evil - if infinite love may be consistent with what we call cruelty
- then, for all we know, truth may turn into falsehood, justice into flagrant
wrong, light into darkness. Therefore, we dare not let go the truth that in our
moral nature we have a true revelation of the divine mind, i.e., that the ideas
of right and wrong are in their essence the same in our minds and in God's-
that they are true universally; as true beyond the grave as here and now. But
if so, then that which so flatly contradicts all our deepest moral convictions,
as does the dogma of endless sin (a dogma which, however modified, no
imaginable hypothesis can reconcile with either justice or mercy) must be
absolutely false, and in teaching it we are but libeling God.
Further, if endless evil may be defended, in even a solitary case, it may be
defended logically in every case. This follows strictly from the ground taken
by advocates of the traditional creed. "They say we cannot judge what is cruel
or the reverse on God's part." Be it so, for argument's sake. Then it follows,
that if every human being fall under the sway of evil foe ever, and God be thus
left face to face with an universal Pandemonium, then we should have no right
even to murmur, for we have right to judge, having no faculties adequate to the
task. But in fact we are not alone justified in arguing from our own minds to
God's; we are forced to do so, or to remain agnostics. It is from our minds
that we gain a knowledge of the divine mind, from the working of our
intelligence and will that we gain a knowledge of God's will and intelligence.
This is the pathway God has traced, the foundation He has laid. And there is no
other possible.
We smile at the ignorant savage who mutilates his body, thinking thereby to
please his God. Are not we far worse who think to please our God by mutilating
our noblest part, and to hear him better by silencing his voice in us? But our
opponents do not forbid the argument from our nature to God: they only forbid
the argument from what is best in our nature to His. They are ready to ascribe
certain base qualities of humanity to God. Because we delight in vengeance, so
does God. Because we are cruel, God must be so. But eighteen hundred years have
not taught the mass of Christians to credit their heavenly Father with even so
much love for His children, as a frail woman can feel for her offspring.
The mode in which the ordinary creed does its hateful work of hardening the
skeptic, and saddening the most devout, may be shown by two brief extracts.
"All the attempts yet made," says a stern moralist, "to reconcile this doctrine
with divine justice and mercy, are calculated to make us blush, alike for the
human heart that can strive to justify such a creed, and for the human
intellect that can delude itself into a belief that it has succeeded in such
justification." "Nothing," says the late General GORDON, "can be more abject
and miserable than the usual conception of God *** Imagine to yourself what
pleasure it would be to Him to burn us, or to torture us. Can we believe any
human being capable of creating us for such a purpose? We credit God with
attributes which are utterly hateful to the meanest of men *** I say that
Christian Pharisees deny Christ *** A hard, cruel set they are, from high to
low. When one thinks of the real agony one has gone through in consequence of
false teaching, it makes human nature angry with the teachers who have added to
the bitterness of life."
The popular view is familiar, and most men do not realize its true bearing,
or the light in which it really presents the character of God. But consider how
this dogma of endless evil must strike an inquirer after God, one outside the
pale of Christianity, but sincerely desirous of learning the truth. There are
such men - there are many such. You tell this inquirer that God is not Almighty
only, but all good; that God is indeed love; that God is his Father. But these
terms are words without any justification at all, if they have not their common
ordinary sense when applied to God. Such a man will say, you tell me God is
good, but what acts are these you assign to Him? He is a father; but He brings
into being myriads of hapless creatures, knowing that there is in store for
them a doom unutterably awful. He calls into existence these creatures, whether
they will or no; though the bottomless pit is yawning to receive them, and the
flames ready to devour them. The question is not, whether they might have
escaped; the real questions are, do they in fact escape? and does He know that
they will not escape? and, knowing this, does He, acting freely, yet create
them? And you assure me that this Great Being is Almighty, is Love essential,
is the Parent or the Creator (here the terms are practically equivalent) of
every one of these creatures, who are doomed and damned. What fair answer do
you propose to give to these questions if addressed to you? I may put the
inquiry in the words of a well-known poet.
A lost soul asks-
"Father of mercies, why from silent earth
Did You awake, and curse me into birth?" --- Night
Thoughts.
Pressed by the irresistible weight of these arguments many take refuge in
ambiguous and evasive phrases, e.g., "Be sure God will do the best He can for
every man." Ambiguous and evasive words, I repeat, as used by the advocates of
endless torment and evil. For if they really mean that the best an Almighty
Being can do for countless myriads of His children is to bestow on them, -
practically to force on them - whether they will or not, an existence, stained
with sin from the womb, knowing that in fact this sin will ripen into endless
misery - then such phrases as the .above are but so much dust thrown in our
eyes, they are as .argument beneath refutation. And if they do not mean this,
such pleas are worthless as a defense of the ordinary creed. If endless misery
is the certain result, known and foreseen, of calling me into existence, then
to force on mc the gift of life, is to do for me not the best, but the worst
possible.
Others take refuge in the vain assertion that the larger hope implies the
escape of the wicked from all punishment. .and places the sinner on a level
with the saint. Let me .once for all reply that no statement can be more
unfounded. For the very method of healing the finally impenitent, as taught by
the larger hope, is the severity of the divine judgment, is that consuming
fire, which must burn up all iniquity. Thus the larger hope is especially bound
to teach for the obstinate sinner the certainty of retribution, for in Cod's
judgments it sees the mode of cure (see chap. vi.), the mode in which the grace
of the Atonement often reaches the touched heart. Thus, unrepented sin leads to
awful future penalty, to penalty proportioned to the guilt of the sinner and
continued till he repent. The larger hope - so falsely called "sentimental
"-thus not merely accepts, but emphasizes for the ungodly the dread warning of
wrath to come - of the fires of Gehenna - for in these it sees not a wanton
revenge, but at once a just retribution; and a discipline that heals the
obstinate sinner.
Again, it is said, that perhaps the flames of hell may be needed to
terrorize some far distant .sinful orb; that rebels against God in some other
planet may read, by the light of hellfire, the dangers of sin. Yes, it has been
gravely alleged that a Being, Whose name is Love, will light, and keep alight
through unending ages, a ghastly living torch for such a purpose as this - a
torch- each atom of which is composed of a lost soul, once His child, once made
in His image, once redeemed by the Cross of His dear Son! You know this has
been taught, and yet you actually complain that men are skeptical, and that
thoughtful artisans reject such a creed with scorn. Many, too, but in vain,
seek to mitigate the just horror and loathing which the popular creed inspires,
by saying that the torments of hell are not material but spiritual; and by
asserting further (contrary to the plainest teachings of experience) that
somehow the majority do really turn to God in this life, or at the last moment
of half conscious existence. I say nothing of the bribe thus offered to the
selfish instincts of the majority, by the assurance that somehow they will
shuffle into heaven, and that only a worthless few perish. But this shabby plea
is (1) false from the standpoint of those who teach it (p. 4), and (2) does
not, if true, even touch the central difficulty of the popular creed. For
whether our Father permits (to use the softest term) the endless misery and
evil of countless myriads upon myriads of His own children, or of thousands
only; whether hell receives fifty, or five, or only one per cent of the sons of
God, of the brothers of Christ Jesus: and again, whether its torments are
applied to their bodies, or to their spirits, all these are points that,
however decided, do not even touch the central question, i.e., can evil be
stronger than God, ever, under any circumstances? - can a Father permit the
endless, hopeless, sin and woe of even one of His children, and look on calmly
for ever and ever unmoved and unsympathising - can the Bible be mocking us when
it teaches a restitution of all things, and that a time is coming when God
shall be "All in All."
Some will, no doubt, say that we have no right to measure God's ways by our
private judgments, no right to seem to dictate what He will or will not, can or
cannot do. I reply that this objection rests on a complete misapprehension. We
do not presume to discuss what God, in the abstract, can or cannot do, still
less to dictate to Him. The argument employed in these pages is open to no such
objection as the above, for it is simply this - that God has both in His
primary revelation of Himself to our moral sense, and in His written word,
distinctly and emphatically declared against the doctrine of endless evil.
Because God has so spoken, we therefore speak. Others again assert that endless
misery is sufficiently accounted for by saying that it comes as the natural
result of sin, and not as arbitrarily decreed. I am wholly unable to see how
this in the very least alters the divine promise to restore all things, or
annuls the work of Christ, which is to "put away sin by the sacrifice of
Himself." Surely the more natural the tie between sin and misery, the more
assured is the destruction of both; for the closer the bond, the more certain
it becomes that to put away, i.e., to abolish (Heb. ix. 26) the one is to
abolish the other.
The law of continuity, however, it is said, forbids Universalism. Those who
go on to the close of life impenitent must be presumed to continue impenitent
hereafter. But why? They will continue so only if the forces working for
impenitence hereafter are stronger than the forces making for good. And the
conditions under which these forces will work in a future state, will certainly
be very unlike, those now obtaining, and very much more favorable to
conversion. "In that other life there will be no room for unbelief, when Christ
has been seen. Then that great source of evil which is in the flesh, will be at
an end; no inner lust will remain: no external food for vice: no temptation to
concupiscence, to ambition, to avarice, will survive. How then the lost can for
ever cling to sin, unless divinely hardened, I fail to see." -
BURNET De statu mort.
I may add that beyond the grave illusions will cease. Here men are blinded;
and most often, if not always, follow evil not as being evil, but as a fancied
good. "Had they known, they would not have Crucified the Lord of Glory," - I
Cor. ii. 8 - pregnant words. In fact, this objection seems but a roundabout way
of saying that the devil is stronger in the long run than God. Surely the
presumption, even apart from a revealed promise of the restoration of all
things is, that evil being an intruder and an alien, and the world being under
divine government, this government can never cease working, till order and
right wholly replace disorder and wrong. Why are we to assume that God means to
share His throne for ever with the powers of evil, or that He has, in any case,
exhausted His means of cure in the present brief life?
In fact, we totally err in our estimate of the relative strength of good and
evil when we treat the latter as though it were on a par with the former in
fibre, in duration, or in essence. For this there is no shadow of excuse: it is
dualism thinly disguised. It is this degrading heresy to which the traditional
creed is ever tending. I deny, then, any presumption that because evil has gone
on for years it will go on always. The logical and moral presumption is
precisely the other way, viz., that the weaker will in the long run yield to
the stronger: the usurper to the lawful owner: the evil one to God. Further,
the facts of the physical and spiritual worlds are alike fatal to any such
narrow theory of continuity. What is the Creation but a striking breach of
continuity? So, too, was the Deluge; so is every earthquake, &c., &c.
And it is worth careful noting that the only appeal in Scripture to the laws of
physical continuity comes from the unbeliever, and is made in the interests of
skepticism. - 2 Pet. iii. 4. I admit that there probably is a higher continuity
than any we can at present trace. The very breaks in the established order may
be but parts of a higher order, and may thus range themselves on the side of
and not against a true continuity. But it is impossible to argue that, merely
because a certain order of things continues for long unbroken, it will
therefore go on for ever. If so, there could be no Creation, no Resurrection no
final Judgment. It is merely suicidal for a Christian to argue as the objection
requires.
I turn to consider a further objection frequently alleged against the larger
hope. It is said that probation in order to be real involves the possibility of
some utterly failing. Note first, the ambiguity of this plausible plea. It
speaks only of a possibility of failure; I ask, then, must some he lust
finally, if all are put to a real trial? Unless this be so, the objection does
not help the traditional creed; for if 1,000 persons can be tested without a
single failure, why not 10,000 or 100,000? Why not all? But if a real probation
of all involves endless evil in some cases, then I reply such probation is an
immoral thing. For probation is but a means to an end, viz., the promotion of a
higher standard of virtue than if men were not tested. Now it is immoral to use
an instrument that brings to some men a higher standard at the cost of the
endless ruin of others. A higher type of virtue in the saved would be an evil,
if gained practically at such a price as the hopeless degradation of the lost,
and the perpetuation of evil in the universe. Meantime, all the difficulty
arises from men's believing probation to be an adequate description of our
position under God's moral government - an assumption absolutely groundless.
Such conceptions imply a radical and most mischievous error, viz., that God's
relation to us is like that of a Head Engineer testing his works, or a Police
Inspector on a vast scale. But God is "Our Father," and if so the central fact
is, and must be, His education of His children. True, we are being tested, but
only as a part of our education - which is the real conception of our position
as God's children. Realize this truth, and how absurd becomes the objection we
are discussing: how truly absurd it becomes to say "God's education cannot be
real unless some of His pupils go the devil/or ever ;" or, there cannot be a
second probation - which really means that God cannot continue and complete His
work of education.
Some again say - " Why try to solve a question which is probably insoluble,
viz., the problem of man's destiny ? In reply we ask what the objection really
means? Are we to give up every great question because we can only partly solve
it? To do so would be to give up all questions, to bid farewell to all
knowledge. For every great question contains an insoluble element. Take, e.g.,
the problems of Life, of Matter, &c. Take such questions as the Trinity, or
the Incarnation. Are we to give them all up? All human knowledge is in fact the
knowledge of things partly known, partly insoluble at present. To act as the
objection requires would simply land us in agnosticism, scientific and
religious. Lastly, the objection lies equally against the traditional creed,
for that decides this so-called insoluble question quite as much as does
Universalism - a fact which the objectors quietly ignore.
A further plausible argument against Universalism is the alleged danger of
teaching the larger hope. Those who so argue surely forget what their words
involve if true. They involve a serious reflection on the Creator (a) who
permits His children, made in His Image, to descend to such an abyss of
degradation that only an endless hell can restrain them from sin; and Who, (b)
knowing this, yet conceals, or permits to be concealed, from the vast majority
of men this necessary antidote to sin; and Who, (c) in the Old Testament, gave
a special revelation of Himself, and said nothing or almost nothing of it. And
this cry of danger has been used against every improvement, moral, social, or
scientific.
Having premised this, I meet the objection frankly by saying - look at the
verdict of history. Its answer is decisive. Never did lust and vice in every
guise so rage and riot as when in the middle ages this dogma was most firmly
held. Hellfire bred a veritable hell on earth. Those who talk of Universalism
as Antinomian do not face the facts of history. Better were it if they did so,
and then were to look at home, and remember the awful danger of teaching a
creed whose fruits are so often those well described in the following striking
words, in which a Roman Catholic Priest states twenty years' experience in the
Confessional: "The dogma of hell, except in the rarest cases, did no moral
good. It never affected the right persons. It tortured innocent young women and
virtuous boys. It appealed to the lowest motives and the lowest characters. It
never, except in the rarest instances, deterred from the commission of sin. It
caused unceasing mental and moral difficulties. *** It always influenced the
wrong people, and in a wrong way. It caused infidelity to some, temptations to
others, and misery without virtue to most." - R. Suffield. What, I ask, has the
dogma of endless pain and sin really effected? Has it checked the growth of
heathenism in our cities? Has it kept the artisan in the fold of Christ? Can a
single sin be named which it has banished from our midst? Has the Gospel of
fear evangelized thoroughly a solitary English family?
Hellfire is preached inside the Church, while outside the baptized harlot
plies her trade, and the burglar weaves his plot. What wonder, so long as we
preach to the fallen a God, nominally loving, but in fact a God whose acts
towards myriad's of His children would excite horror even amid the outcast, and
the lost. Ineffective always, such teaching is more than ever so in these days,
because the intelligent are by it forced into open revolt; and because
experience clearly teaches that gigantic penalties go hand in hand with
gigantic crimes, and penalties diminished to a reasonable amount with
diminished sin. Such has been the result in our penal code. Such has been the
result in Norfolk Island, in Western Australia, in Germany, in Spain, &c.
Excessive terrorism provokes not alone incredulity but mirth. Even in days far
more credulous than ours, Satan, in the religious dramas, soon subsided into a
clown; his appearance provoked shouts of laughter.
True Universalism deters from sin, because it preaches a righteous
retribution with unequaled force and certainty: on this its creed largely
hinges. Restoration is taught because of retribution, a fact on which too much
stress cannot be laid. "Thou, Lord, art merciful for Thou renders
to every man according to his work."- Ps. lxii. 12.
Probably the way in which most people satisfy their own minds, when doubts
arise as to the endless nature of future torment is this: "Endless pain and
torment is but the result of sin freely chosen and finally persisted in by the
sinner".
First, before discussing this, let me ask - why all this stress is laid on
man's will to ruin himself, rather than on God's will to save? Is man the pivot
on which all hinges? To me it seems bad philosophy, and worse theology, not to
recognize God as center, and His will and purpose as supreme. But to
resume,
- - I would point out one consequence of defending endless evil and
misery, on the plea of man's free choice, viz., that, if this plea avail in any
one case to excuse endless evil, it would avail, logically, in every case: and
it would justify an universe in which every reasonable being should choose evil
finally, and God should remain presiding over an universal hell.
- - Again, if endless sin be repugnant to every true conception of
God, if it be repugnant to morality, for God freely to create any being, for
whom such a doom is reserved, then you do not alter this fact by any possible
theory as to the power of the human will. That which is incapable of defense
morally, remains indefensible still.
- - Next, you cannot fairly oppose a mere theory to a revealed
assurance of the reconciliation of all things to God finally. Your theory
indeed proves a possibility of the final choice of
evil: you cannot reasonably oppose a possibility, to a direct statement of Him
Who made the human will.
- - Next let me add, that the very term, "free will," is ambiguous;
it may mean a will partly, or a will wholly, free. If it mean the former, I am
most willing to admit man's freedom. But if the latter be meant, then let me
remind my readers that the acts of a will wholly free, i.e., undetermined by
motive, would have no moral value whatever.
- - Doubtless the problems of freedom and necessity contain an
insoluble element. But we can look at them practically. You insist that
everything depends on human choice. I reply, see how on the contrary man's
choice is limited at every hand. First, man is born in sin; that is, certainly
not wholly free. Take, next, the facts of life. In the first place man can
exercise no choice at all as to the time and place of his birth - facts all
important in deciding his religious belief, and through that his character; no
choice as to the very many and very complex hereditary influences molding his
entire life, though most often he knows it not; affecting for good or for evil
every thought, every word, every act of his; no choice at all as to the
original weakness of his nature, and its inherent tendency to evil. More,
still, man can exercise no choice at all on this vital question, whether he
will or will not have laid on Him the awful perils, in which, on the popular
view, the mere fact of life involves him. Further, man can exercise no choice
at all as to the strength of that will be receives; no choice at all as to the
circumstances that surround him in infancy and childhood, and which colors his
whole life; man has no choice as to the moral atmosphere he must imbibe in
those early years of training, which color almost of necessity, the whole after
life. "But a creature cannot" you reply, "choose these things, from the very
nature of the case." That, I answer, only proves my point, that a creature
cannot be wholly free, from the very nature of the case. What the facts point
to, is that God grants a limited freedom, intending to train man, His child,
for the enjoyment hereafter of perfect freedom.
- - The vast extent of human ignorance also confirms the view that
the final destinies of the universe are not placed in man's keeping. We know
nothing absolutely, we know but appearances - phenomena. We are acquainted with
the outsides of things at most, with the insides never. We talk of Life, of
Matter, but these and all other things, are in themselves to us unknown, and
unknowable. Every thing we do, every object we see, every natural operation is
to us incomprehensible. Are these the hands to which a wise Creator is likely
to commit absolutely the awful issues of endless sin, the ruin of creation?
- - But it is said, that if man be not wholly free, his goodness is
but a mechanical thing. If so, I reply, better ten thousand fold mechanical
goodness that keeps one at the side of God for ever, than a wholly unrestrained
freedom which leads to the devil. But the assertion is in fact as hollow as it
is plausible. Man is not a machine because the power of defying God finally is
not granted to him. Freedom enough is granted to resist God for ages; freedom
to suffer, and to struggle; to reap what has been sown, till, taught by
experience, the will of the creature is bent to the will of the Creator. If all
this does not involve a freedom that is real, though limited, then human words
are vain as a vehicle for human thought.
- - A reasonable theory of human free will is in perfect accord
with Universalism: so true is this, that the greatest advocates of the larger
hope have been the most earnest champions of free will, and often
base on it their teachings; while the advocates of endless sin
and hell, like Augustine and Calvin, have been enemies to free will. Indeed,
man's rescue depends on his freedom.
- - Further, this pleading for endless sin in hell on the ground
that it is freely chosen by man, would, if true, but enhance the great
difficulty of the popular creed - the victory of evil; for plainly, the more
free on man's part, the more willful his choice of sin, so much the more
complete is the triumph of evil, so much the more absolute is the failure of
the Cross. What is this plea but in fact seeking to vindicate the Almighty by
laying stress on His defeat, seeking to justify Omnipotence by emphasizing His
Impotence?
- - This plea contradicts itself; for to assert that because of
man's freedom he can go on for ever choosing evil, is, in fact, to plead not
for human freedom, but for servitude, the basest, the most degrading. Take the
assertion to pieces and it comes to this. To preserve man's dignity he must be
permitted to become the slave of evil if he will, the associate of devils for
ever - to secure his prerogative of freedom he must be allowed to sink into
hopeless servitude to sin. What would you say were an earthly father to reason
thus ?-I will permit my child to become a hopeless drunkard for the sake of
preserving his sobriety; I will permit my daughter to sink into vice for the
sake of preserving her chastity. Under these circumstances, it is mere rhetoric
to talk of "forcing" the will. The will yields, because it is free, and because
good is finally the strongest force in an universe ruled by God.
- - Nay, the only condition of true freedom for man is the divine
control. The seeming paradox is true - constraint of man's will, because it is
weak and evil, is his emancipation. "If the Son make you free, then shall you
be free indeed." To plead against this constraint of the divine grace, as
annulling human freedom, is as unreasonable as it would be, on the part of the
friends of some fever-stricken patient, to object to the restraints of the sick
room and the physician. A lunatic is to be restrained; a criminal to be
imprisoned; an incendiary to be arrested; but the moral criminal, the spiritual
incendiary, these are not to be constrained even by grace divine! They are to
gravitate slowly to perpetual bondage- in the name, I repeat, of LIBERTY ?
God's will is to be set at naught permanently, in order that the devil's will
may be done.
- - Next, is it not strange that this claim to be independent of
God, to defy His control finally, is made for man, in one direction only, i.e.,
precisely when and where it may do to him irreparable mischief? We cannot add
so much as a cubit to our stature, cannot determine so much as the length of an
eyelash. We cannot of ourselves take a single step heavenwards. But we can, on
this theory, take as many steps hell wards as we please. We cannot save
ourselves, but we can damn ourselves
- - But again, it obviously follows that if man is in this sense
free, i.e.., is free to defy God finally, then either (a) God does not in any
real sense will the salvation of all men, but does will man's absolute freedom,
at the cost of his salvation (if the two conflict), or (b) He does will it, but
is unable to accomplish it. And, if so, then He is not free. He wills but His
will is useless to save; it is fettered and bound. And what is this hut a
virtual denial of the true God? Whoever such a being may be, He is not the God
of the Bible. To the very essence of God it pertains to be sovereign and
supreme over all wills and all things whatsoever. "I appeal to the tribunal of
a sovereign judge," says Canon WESTCOTT, "Whose will is right, and Whose will
must prevail." - Hist. Faith. And again, "It is enough for us to acknowledge
the supreme triumph of divine love from first to last - one will of one God
reconciling the world to Himself in Jesus Christ His only Son."- Ib.
- - It is impossible to quote more than a fraction of the passages
in which Scripture, while recognizing in man a power of
choice, so that no one is saved against his will, but by God's
working in Him a good will, yet points distinctly to God's will as supreme, as
certain finally to prevail. "My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my
pleasure." - Is. xlvi. 10. "Whatever the Lord pleased, that did He, in heaven
and on earth." - Ps. cxxxv. 6. "He does according to His will, in the armies of
heaven and among the inhabitants of earth." - Dan. iv. 35; V. 2 I; iv. 3, 17;
vii. 14. Prov. xix. 21; Xxi. I. Ps. lxix. 13; xcix. x; ciii. 19; x. ;6; xxix.
10, &c., &c. Nay, Scripture goes farther still. It tells us plainly
that the creature (creation) has been made "subject to vanity (sin and
imperfection), not willingly, but by reason of Him who has subjected the same
in hope." - Rom. viii. 20. Again, "God has shut up all unto disobedience that
He might have mercy upon all "-Rom. XI. 32. And so of salvation we are plainly
told that it is "NOT OF HIM WHO wills, BUT OF GOD Who shows mercy." - Rom. ix.
i6. You are saved not of yourselves," says St. PAUL - Eph. ii. 8. And S. JOHN
assures us that the sons of God are born not of the will of man, but of God -
S. John i. 13. "You, " says a greater than S. JOHN, "have not chosen Me, but I
have chosen you." -lb. xv. t6. So the Gospel is the proclamation of His
kingdom. "Thy kingdom come," not Thy Salvation, but Thy Rule. We are to work
(and so far are free), but behind and above and beneath our work, there rules
and works the will of God. "Work out your own Salvation," says the Apostle; but
why I not because here is a sphere outside the divine will, but, precisely
because here too God rules, "for it is He Who works in you both to will, and to
do." It is "not according to our works" that He calls and saves, - 2 Tim. i.
g., but "according to His own purpose, "according to the counsel of His own
will." -.Eph. i. ix.
This divine supremacy is ever in S. Paul's thoughts in passages too numerous
to quote. And so our Lord does not hesitate to say "compel "-literally
necessitate-" them to come in." - S. Luke xiv. 23. For "the Lord God omnipotent
reigns" - Rev. xix. 6. Men fear the reproach of Calvinism, which is quite
another creed from this; and so have lost all true conception of a divine
sovereignty, which is universal love. Nor is man a machine, because God is and
must be, Master in His own house. Man can resist, but God's grace is stronger.
Perhaps the strongest assertion the New Testament contains of human freewill is
S. Malt. xxiii. 37, "You would not:" but, reading on, we learn that even they,
who would not, are one day to say, "Blessed is He that comes in the name of the
Lord."
The exigencies of controversy must be great to induce men to teach, on the
authority of the New Testament, that the clay can absolutely defy the great
Potter. May I remind our opponents that, when controversy is forgotten, we all
in fact admit this divine supremacy. So the Prayer Book tells us that God can
"order the unruly wills of sinful men, " evidently
teaching that He will do this. It states that He disposes the hearts of kings
(and if so, of all,) as it seems best - not to human freewill - but to His will
and governance.
- - And that which Scripture so plainly affirms, the very idea of
Redemption implies. For Redemption is either an empty sound, or it implies
setting free the will of man, i.e., bringing it into harmony with God's will.
"The bondage I groan under is a bondage of the will, and that has led me to
acknowledge God as emphatically the redeemer of the will; *** but if of my will
then of all wills."- F. D. MAURICE. I have stated my glad acquiescence in human
freedom, only preserving God's freedom and sovereignty. For if consciousness
assure me of a freedom very real in its own sphere, yet there is another side -
a Divinity that "shapes our ends, rough hew them how we will,"- words that may
fitly sum up this controversy.
In resuming, let me draw an argument from the fact of creation, a subject to
which I shall return in a future chapter. "Nothing," says Bishop NEWTON, "is
more contrariant to the divine nature and attributes than for God to bestow
existence on any being, whose destiny He fore knows must terminate in
wretchedness without recovery." - Final State of Man.
Let us take an illustration that we may see this more
clearly. "A frail and narrow bridge swings across a gulf, fearful and fathom
less. On this, as it rocks wildly in the winds, a father places his young
child. Beyond, on the other side of the gulf, he has placed a prize beyond
estimate, which he promises to the child if he passes the bridge safely, and
then compels him to go, commanding him to look neither to the right nor left. *
* * The boy, heedless and disobedient, hesitates, reels, the bridge quivers for
a moment, swings from under him, and hurled into the gulf, he is caught and
impaled on a sharp rock down the abyss. There he hangs for long and weary
years, agonizing and writhing in torture, and crying to his father for help and
deliverance. But his father turns a deaf ear to all his entreaties, wholly
indifferent to the horrible sufferings of his child, and justifies himself by
saying, 'The boy might have passed the bridge safely, he was warned, and he
suffers justly.' Admitting the possibility of passing safely, yet all men would
pronounce this father a monster and a fiend. And shall God place me on the
frail and narrow bridge of life, stretched over the awful and flaming abyss of
endless perdition, with the possibility of a heaven beyond, and then leave me
there to cross it, swinging fearfully in the winds of temptation, knowing that
as a matter of fact I shall, in crossing, be precipitated into the horrible
pit, there to lie for ever in hopeless agony ?"
Who would not cry out with the poet already quoted -
"And canst Thou then look down from perfect bliss
And see me plunging in this dark abyss,
Calling Thee Father in a sea fire,
Or pouring blasphemies at Thy desire ?"
Yes, the question is essentially this, and no argument can evade this
inquiry :- Is God good, and is He a just God, as men use these terms, or is He
not? Indeed, if the God we worship be not good, as we call goodness, it were
better for us not to worship Him at all; better for us to worship nothing at
all, than to worship an evil deity. But the popular view represents God as
doing that which the most degraded human being would not do. "This view," says
the Rev. Dr. LITTLEDALE, "puts God on a moral level with the devisers of the
most savagely malignant revenge known to history." - Cont. Review - words that
fall far short of the truth.
To this in fact it comes, that the popular view, while admitting God's power
and goodness to be infinite, yet teaches that evil shall ultimately prevail - a
position obviously untenable, and indeed absurd. "Order and right
cannot but prevail finally in an universe under His government."
- BUTLER'S Analogy. For argue as you please, refine, explain away, it continues
still an insuperable difficulty, on the popular view, or any mere modification
of it, that the devil is victor, and triumphs over God and goodness. It is
nothing at all to the purpose to allege, either that those who perish finally
have chosen evil of their own will, or that all evil beings are shut up in
chains and torment: it is the very permanence of evil in any shape: its
continued presence- no matter from what cause - that constitutes the triumph of
the evil one. "To suppose," says Canon Wectcott, "that evil once introduced
into the world is for ever, appears to be at variance with the essential
conception of God as revealed to us." - His t. Faith. I repeat that if evil be
as strong as God, as enduring as God himself, there is no escape from the
conclusion that you proclaim in so teaching the triumph of the evil one. You
are proclaiming, not the catholic faith, but a dualism. You blot from the faith
of Christendom its fundamental article, "I believe in one God the Father
Almighty." What are all heresies, all errors, that have stained the Church of
God, compared with this supreme heresy, this dualism, which seats evil on the
throne of the universe, a power enduring as God Himself? The torments, physical
and mental, of the popular hell, awful as they are, recede into almost nothing
as compared with the far more awful spectacle of God vanquished, of God trying
to save but failing, and watching His children as they slowly sink beneath the
endless sway of evil; of God's Son returning, not in triumph, but in defeat; of
the Cross so far prostrate, paralyzed, vanquished.
Again, so revolting to our moral nature is the popular creed, that it. more
than any other cause, as has been said, produces the most wide-spreading
unbelief. "Compared with this," remarks J. S. MILE, "all objections to
Christianity sink into insignificance." Let me speak plainly. Too long - far
too long - have the clergy been silent; content to complain of a skepticism, of
which a main cause is a doctrine they continue to teach (without, I believe in
many cases, more than a languid and merely traditional acceptance of it). And
as this doctrine is the parent of unbelief at home, so abroad in the mission
field it is a grievous hindrance to the spread of the Gospel. The very heathen
are shocked by a dogma more cruel and horrible than anything of which they have
ever heard; the more so when they are asked to receive this awful teaching as
part of the message of good news. There is certainly a chapter of missionary
work yet unwritten, which would, if frankly told, surprise the friends of the
traditional creed. This is a chapter which any thoughtful person can construct,
if he will try to place himself in the position of an intelligent heathen, when
he learns that the Load news of the missionary Contains a revelation often more
ghastly and cruel than any that has crossed his mind. A cruel Gospel produces a
scanty harvest. I repeat that no thoughtful man can believe a doctrine
condemned by the conscience; arid so men will seek a refuge in skepticism, when
they hear the clergy teaching these evil traditions (for they are no more) as
part of the revelation of that God, Whose blessed Son tasted death for every
man. Yes, the peculiar horror of the popular creed is, that it sets up evil as
an object of worship - of reverence - of love.
Nor let us forget the insult offered to God by the traditional creed. Amid
the crowd of sins there stands out one in sad preeminence because it has not
forgiveness "for the age," eis ton aiona. Its
forgiveness demands ages - demands a period indefinitely long. Now, from our
Lord's own words we may understand in what lay the essence of this awful sin.
It lay in confounding the good and evil Spirit, in ascribing to the one the
works of the other. If, then, any one whose conscience whispers that endless
misery can only be inflicted by an evil being on his own children, still
persists in ascribing its infliction to God, does not such an one incur sad and
sinful risk of committing this greatest of all sins? I invite your earnest
attention to this. Does your conscience say I cannot reconcile this awful
doctrine with any idea I can form of love, of justice, or of goodness; and yet
I believe it? If so, then beware lest in ascribing such things to God, you come
perilously near to, if indeed you are not guilty of, this sin, which is of all
sins the greatest (known in the popular creed as the unpardonable sin.)
Yes, the question of all questions is, is God indeed love, is the Gospel
really good news, not possible but actual glad tidings to all? All around us
thoughtful men are more than ever reflecting on these points; what answer do
you propose to give? They are thus inquiring - pondering - of themselves, of
their lot, of their hopes and fears in the future "I find myself in this
world;" (so run the thoughts of each inquirer) "on me are laid,
whether I will or no, the awful responsibilities of
time and of eternity. Sin has from the very womb crippled me, before any power
of choice was possible for me. For this calamity, too often, I receive blame
and not pity. Is it fair or just to bestow sympathy on a body naturally
crooked, and to have no pity, but wrath, for a spirit naturally crooked? At my
entrance on life I received a nature already fallen; and that for no fault of
mine; stained, and that with no sin of mine. And to this nature so weak, so
fallen, come, in every variety, temptations, wiles, and allurements such that
no man has wholly withstood, or can withstand, their subtle power. Now, if this
be a part of my training, if it be a path to better things, I can in submission
- nay, in gladness even - bend to my Creator's will: I can take courage, and
though faint, still pursue the narrow path that leads to life. But how can I
believe that a loving Father - all powerful as He is all good, and absolutely
free, does so arrange, does so permit, that for any one soul, this sad and
fallen estate of human nature shall prove but the portal to endless woe; that
the gift of life - which Providence has forced on me - shall ripen to endless
woe and sin ?" So men reason. I do not wonder, I rejoice, that they have ceased
to believe, that a divine parent can do that which an earthly parent could not
do without eternal infamy. For imagine any possible degree of folly and sin
that can stain human nature, to be accumulated on the head of some sinful child
of man ; and I ask, can you believe that any human father, any mother, that
once loved that child, could bring herself calmly to sentence her offspring to
an endless hell; nay, herself to keep that child there in evil that never shall
terminate?
Take next a clear exposure of the traditional creed from another point of
view. Christ, we know from the Bible, is the Savior of the world. He
is, therefore, on the popular view, the Savior of those whom in fact He does
not save. This evidently follows. But this principle once admitted, it is
wholly immaterial, as a matter of reasoning, what the percentage of the lost
may be. Although out of the countless myriads of our race but a few hundreds
were saved, God would still save every man. Indeed, though not even one
solitary soul were saved, God would still, on the principle popularly held,
save every man. For that principle is this, that to offer salvation, though the
offer come to nothing, is to save. Hence it undoubtedly follows that God might
be the Savior of the whole race of men, though not one soul were in fact saved.
All might be saved on this principle, though all were in fact damned !
There is a further difficulty in the way of the popular creed. Who are those
whom it represents as finally unsaved ?-the finally impenitent, the most
obstinate sinners. And what is that but to say, in so many words, that those
precisely whose case furnished the strongest reason for the Savior's mission,
are unsaved? Admit their guilt, recognize as we do to the very utmost the need
and the certainty of retribution; still, when all this has been said, it
remains true that Christ came to save the "lost," and if so, the more "lost"
any are, the more Christ came to seek and to save them, and if He fails, the
more marked His failure Thus on the ordinary view, precisely those for whom
Christ especially came receive no salvation; those whose claims are strongest
perish, those whose claims on a Savior are weakest, are rescued. For the
fullest admission of the guilt of sin, must not blind us to the sinner's claim
on our sympathy. Sin abounding calls out grace much more abounding; such is the
great principle enunciated by S. PAUL. Are we to say with the traditional
creed, sin abounding beyond certain limits (obstinate sin) ceases to call out
grace?
Let us apply this consideration to a plea often used to disguise, if that
may be, the awful fact of endless torment by teaching that but few,
comparatively, will share this horrible lot. Elsewhere I have shown the
futility of this plea, on other grounds - but here I desire to press this
aspect of the case, that these few are precisely those, whose case appeals most
of all to a Savior. Hence, so to argue, implies a misconception of the very
essence of the Gospel. Am I to say the Good Physician can heal all except those
who need Him most? He came to save sinners (emphatically sinners). Am I to read
the passage thus: He came to save all sinners except the greatest? And let us
not forget how much the traditional creed has fostered in man a spirit of
cruelty. It is sad, but true, to recollect how much of the suffering inflicted
by man on his brother man, has been due, directly or indirectly, to the belief
in an endless hell. It gave to torture an apparent divine sanction-" In every
prison the crucifix and the rack stood side by side." Medieval torments have a
character peculiar to themselves "They represent a condition of thought, in
which men had pondered long and carefully on all the forms of suffering; had
combined, and compared, the different forms of torture, till they had become
the most consummate masters of their art."- LECKY; Hist. of Ration. i. 330. For
if men believed that God would light up the gloomy fires of hell and keep them
blazing to all eternity, it was an easy and a natural step, to set up in His
name a little copy of His justice, and thus, as it were, to anticipate God's
sentence. "As the souls of heretics are hereafter to be eternally burning in
hell," such was the reasoning of Queen MARY in defense of her awful
persecution, "there can be nothing more proper than for me to imitate the
divine vengeance, by burning them here on earth." I say, that however
familiar this may be, it is necessary to ponder well the sad facts, for, by
awaking a righteous horror and indignation, we may often most effectually
combat such dogmas. And more must be said, not alone have the popular doctrines
done all this, but they have greatly influenced for evil the general course of
human legislation, and human thought. Many pages might be filled in enumerating
the horrors, and anguish, added to human life by these doctrines. Let me only
add that they have poisoned the very fount of pity and love, by representing
Him, Whose we are, and before Whom we bow, as calmly looking on during the
endless cycles of eternity, at the sin and agony of myriads upon myriads of His
creatures.
Thus it is that by this shocking creed the moral tone is lowered all round,
wherever it is accepted. Men are familiarized with the idea of suffering and
sin as permanent facts. They have even in some sort learned to consider heaven
as dependent upon the belief in an endless hell. The very holiest men believing
the popular creed are unconsciously depraved, morally and spiritually. You will
find for instance, even one like KEBLE, pleading (see hymn for second Sunday in
Lent), for endless torment, on the ground that if this were not true, then
endless bliss in heaven would also not be true. To put it plainly, he would, as
I understand his words, purchase heaven's unending bliss at the terrible cost
of the endless, hopeless, torture of the lost! Here I will only say, that I
know not whether his logic, or his moral tone be more unsound. Compare the
spirit of KEBLE with, I will not say the spirit of Christ, but with that of S.
PAUL, who wished himself accursed from Christ, if thereby he could save his
brethren. As to KEBLE'S argument, that will be, I trust, fully answered in
considering, in a later chapter, 8. Mall. xxv. 46.
Meantime, as a further illustration, I copy the
following from a periodical lying before me: "I was talking the other day with
a very learned Catholic ecclesiastic, who told me that he had been called on to
give the last sacraments to a poor Irishman. He found his penitent with some
freethinking friend, who was arguing that there was no hell. The
dying Celt raised himself up with much indignation; 'no hell,' he exclaimed,
'then where is the poor man's consolation?' "-Church
Reformer.
Such reasoning is to suppose that the saints in heaven are without any
memory of the past. Even Dives, in the flames of Hades, remembers with pity his
brethren. But unless you make the impossible supposition, that the blessed lose
all memory in heaven, then they must either suffer keenly at the thoughts of
the torments of their dear ones lost in hell, and tormented for ever and ever;
or they must be on a lower level, morally and spiritually, than was even DIVES
- choose which alternative you please. To this dilemma no answer has ever been
given, for no answer is possible. If Hades kindle the sympathy of the lost,
shall heaven kill the sympathy of the blessed? If the blessed sympathize with
the torments of the lost, can they enjoy even a momentary happiness? If they
fail to sympathize, are they not sunk in selfishness and debased? Or shall we
say that God actually maims His redeemed, depriving them of knowledge and
memory, lest they should miss their lost ones? On this view God's ways are so
awful that if known they would wither up the very joys of heaven, and so He
shuts out pity, and wraps the blessed in a mantle of selfish ignorance. I know
nothing more degrading, or revolting in the traditional creed than the baseness
of its heavenly state. Fancy a mother thrilled through with bliss while (near,
or far off, it matters not) her child is in the grip of devils; a wife joining
in the angelic harmonies, while her husband for ever blasphemes!
Such is the heaven of the ordinary creed; if it be not something worse
still, an exulting over the torments of the lost. To show that this is no mere
figure of speech, I append a few extracts. They are from sources so widely
apart as a medieval school man, and a modern puritan.
"That the saints may enjoy their beatitude more thoroughly, and give more
abundant thanks for it to God, a perfect sight of the punishment of the damned
is granted them." - S. Thomas -Summa iii.
Take another instance from PETER LOMBARD. "Therefore the elect shall go forth
to see the torments of the impious, seeing which they will not be grieved, but
will be satiated with joy * * * at the sight of the unutterable calamity of the
impious. - Senten. iv. 50.
Again, hear another from a modern divine, "The view of the misery of the damned
will double the ardor of the love and gratitude of the saints in heaven." This
is the opinion of the once famous JONATHAN EDWARDS.
Another American divine uses even stronger language. ' This display of the
divine character," said S. HOPKINS, "will be most entertaining to all who love
God- will give them the highest and most ineffable pleasure. Should the fire of
this eternal punishment cease, it would in a great measure obscure the light of
heaven, and put an end to a great part of the happiness and glory of the
blessed."- Works, vol. iv. .Serm. xiii.
To this the popular creed has degraded the ministers of Christ, to penning
passages like the above (easily to be multiplied) - passages, than which all
literature does not contain anything more revolting. It is easy to be shocked
at all this, and to repudiate it, but how is it possible for the friends of God
to be otherwise than pleased with ills judgments?.
I must ask you, as a relief, to read the following
touching picture: -----
What if a soul redeemed, a spirit that loved
While yet on earth, and was beloved in turn,
And still remembered every look and tone
Of that dear earthly sister, who was left
Among the unwise virgins at the gate:
Itself admitted with the bridegroom's train-
What if this spirit redeemed, amid the host
Of chanting angels, in some transient lull
Of the eternal anthem, heard the cry
Of its lost darling, whom in evil hour
Some wilder pulse of nature led astray,
And left an outcast in a world of fire,
Condemned to be the sport of cruel fiends,
Sleepless, unpitying, masters of the skill
To wring the maddest ecstasies of pain,
From worn-out souls that only ask to die-
Would it not long to lease the bliss of heaven,
Bearing a little water in its hand,
To moisten those poor lips that plead in vain;
With Him we call our Father?
0.W. HOLMES. - "The Poet at the Breakfast Table".
I say next that the popular creed does in fact teach men to think lightly of
sin. This seems a paradox, and no doubt you wonder: but consider for a moment
what the fact is. Tell me that God will permit an eternal hell, with its
miserable population of the lost, to go on sinning to all eternity; and what
idea is it you really convey to me? It is, I reply, the toleration
of sin. Have you ever thought of this? "Nothing so effectually
teaches men to bear with sin as the popular creed, because we profess to
believe that God will bear with it for ever." Further, I say that the practical
effect of the ordinary creed is to teach men to think lightly of sin in a very
large class of cases, e.g., where a careless and ungodly life has been lived,
and no apparent repentance has marked the closing scene. For to those who
believe that the few days or moments remaining of life on a sick bed, are the
sole period in which salvation is possible, how irresistible must be the
temptation to patch up a hollow peace, to accept anything in lieu of a genuine
repentance. And so not the thoughtless, but teachers grave and holy - e.g., Dr.
PUSEY - do in fact, as they endeavor to escape the awful difficulties of the
ordinary creed, lay stress on the possibility or probability of men leading a
wicked life, up to the very last moment of existence, and in that last moment
receiving the divine grace. Can any teaching be at once more repugnant to all
experience, more contrary to all reason, and more likely to cause the young and
the careless to make light of sin?
Indeed, it is often precisely those who most deeply feel the taint and evil
of sin who reject most completely the popular creed; for in proportion to their
horror at sin, is the depth of their conviction that sin cannot go on for ever.
There is, too, this further question, if sin is to endure for ever in hell,
must it not increase and go on increasing for ever and ever? Think to what
point of horror the accumulated sin of the myriads of the lost will have
reached, when even a few of the cycles of eternity are over: and this vast and
inconceivable horror and taint is to go on, and on, and on, for
ever, and ever, and ever increasing, under the rule of Him Who is
of purer eyes than to behold iniquity. Think of endless blasphemy and
rottenness: of moral foulness tainting God's universe: the leprosy of undying
evil poisoning all around: cries of endless agony blending with the angelic
choir. God knows how painful such thoughts are to write down. But it is a duty
to try and bring home to men's minds what the traditional creed really means.
"Think, too, how grotesque a parody of the divine justice it is to say, as the
popular creed does, that God requires obedience and righteousness here, but if
He cannot have these, He will he satisfied with endless disobedience and sin
hereafter as a substitute. We are gravely told that if the wrong be not righted
within a specified time, justice will be satisfied to increase the wrong
infinitely, and perpetuate it to all eternity." I repeat, that the powers of
imagination, if taxed to the utmost, could hardly conceive any more ludicrous
parody of justice than the above.
There is,however, this further difficulty. For we must ask - How is this
perpetuation of evil possible? Can a literal fire for ever prey on the hapless
limbs, and never consume them? Can nature support this for ever? Are we to
return to the hideous conception (of some early writers) of the "intelligent
fire," which renews, as it consumes, in order to make the agony endless? Or if
we take a more spiritual view of future punishment, can degradation be
perpetual? Must not such a process end at some time from its very nature?
Further, all sin, be it never so black (and God forbid that I should even
seem to weaken its blackness), is but finite. Yet, for these finite sins, I am
told, an infinite punishment is the due penalty. But finite and infinite are
wholly incommensurable terms. Have you ever set yourself seriously to
realize what punishment, protracted for ever and ever indeed means? In
fact the idea of illimitable time mocks our utmost efforts to grasp it. "The
imagination can come to a stand nowhere or ever. On the mind goes, heaping up
its millions and billions and quadrillions of millions. It is to no purpose -
time, without a beginning - without an end -still confronts it. As thus thought
of, the mind recoils from the contemplation, horrified, paralyzed with terror."
If we grasp never so faintly the idea of what an infinite punishment means, it
becomes clear that no proposition more revolting to the idea of justice can be
stated than this, that finite sins deserve an infinite penalty. Expand the
finite as you will, and it still falls infinitely short of infinity. Hence, it
is but the sober statement of sober fact, to assert that a single sentence of
unending torment would outweigh the whole sins of the whole human race. To
prove this I need but assume that, to which every conscience responds, that
what is finite can in justice receive only a finite punishment. But any
possible number of finite sins put together will still fall short (nay,
infinitely short) of infinity - of infinite guilt.
If it is said, that there maybe some
infinite evil in sin, that, even if true (which nobody knows and Scripture
nowhere teaches), does not make human guilt infinite. For on any just
principle, guilt is determined by the capacities and powers of toe agent, and
all these are in man strictly finite. Nay, the Bible, so far from taking this
view, tells us that Israel has received of the Lord's hand double for all her
sins, which involves a direct contradiction of any such theory of infinite
guilt. - Is. xl. 2; Jer. xvi. 18. Besides, does not endless punishment prove,
if true, that the judge never obtains satisfaction.
Add together all sins ever committed, be their blackness what it may, be
their horrors never so great; still the sum of all, because the guilt of finite
mortals is but finite, and unless all justice is to be outraged, would deserve
a sentence that, however awful, would be finite. Hence it follows that a single
sentence of infinite misery would undoubtedly outweigh, if there be such a
thing as justice, the sins of all men who nave ever lived, and who shall ever
live.
There is again, a difficulty - an impossibility rather - in reconciling
endless penalties with the view, which either Holy Scripture or reason give of
punishment - its object and nature. This most important topic, with the kindred
question of the scriptural doctrine of forgiveness, needs our best attention.
Let us briefly consider the latter first. Doubtless God always accepted the
penitent. But a wholly novel duty of forgiving has emerged since Christ said,
"Love your enemies, do good to them which hate (are hating, keep hating) you."
-- S. Luke vi. 27. No doubt in this novel view we have a distinct revelation of
the divine character. But if so, is it possible to suppose that the Gospel
presents us with two contradictory pictures of God, e.g., a God Who does good
to His enemies only for the few years they spend on earth, and then proceeds to
do them all possible evil in hell? If God's attitude towards His worst foes is
love, that attitude is permanent, is eternal; nay, must be so. Whatever be the
sin of His enemies, He must be to them the same unchanging God of love, and
never more so than when He most inexorably punishes. Note the emphatic "BUT I
SAY unto you, love your enemies." Here is the very heart of God disclosed; here
is the dividing line; here the spiritual watershed between a true and a false
theology.
Next I say, that endless penalties contradict the true end of punishment.
Apart from all question of its justice - apart, too, from the horror it excites
- endless torment, is an useless, and therefore a wanton, infliction: it is a
mere barbarity, because it is only vindictive, and in no sense remedial. There
is something positively sickening in the thought of the cruelty, combined with
the uselessness, of penalty prolonged, when all hope of amendment is over, and
when retribution has been fully exacted. To go on punishing for ever, simply
for punishment sake, shocks every sentiment of justice. And the case is so much
the worse when, as remarked, the punishment is really the prolongation of evil,
when it is but making evil endless. But the true view of punishment is not to
oppose, but to combine its retributive and remedial aspects, for through
retribution it aims at amendment. Our day has seen a complete revolution in the
ideas men form of punishment and its end: in few things has the advance been
more marked over the past than in our recognition of the true object of
penalty. But let me ask, to whom is due this marked change for the better in
our ideas of punishment? Surely to that Great Being Who guides and orders by
His providence all human things. This being so, it is wholly incredible to
assign to the divine punishments this very character of mere vindictiveness,
which men have in all enlightened systems abandoned. This is, I repeat,
impossible to believe, for when God chastises it is for our profit, as the
Bible says. He punishes, as an old Father puts it, medicinally. Yes, it is
impossible to believe the ordinary dogma; for if God does indeed by His
providence - by His Spirit- direct and enlighten men's minds, leading them to
higher and truer thoughts on this subject (as on all others), then to suppose
that His own punishments are regulated on the very system, which He has taught
us to abandon, is truly impossible. Nor can I discuss this subject without
remarking that there is a highly significant expression found in that very
passage, most often on the lips of the defenders of endless pain, which yet,
curiously enough, furnishes the material for an answer to their creed, I speak
of S. Matthew xxv. 46. The term there applied to the punishment of the ungodly
is not the ordinary Greek word to denote penalty or vengeance (timoria), but it
is a term (kolasis) denoting, literally, pruning, i.e., a
corrective chastisement - an age-long (but reformatory)
punishment.
It is most important to gain clear conceptions as to the true function of
punishment. Three stages may be clearly distinguished - though united by a
period of transition- through which men's minds have passed in their treatment
of crime. At first all penalties are purely vindictive and personal; in the
rudest stage of society we have the wild justice of revenge, an eye for an eye,
a tooth for a tooth. This idea lingers yet in some semi-barbarous districts,
e.g., the Corsican vendetta. Next comes a higher conception, in which the wrong
done to the state replaces the wrong done to the individual. Society exacts the
penalty; the tribunal takes the place of the knife. In this stage our ideas
have rested for centuries. But this stage we now see to be, at least, wholly
imperfect. It repeats the wrong, and thus tends to perpetuate it: it thinks
little of the criminal's amendment, content to rest mainly on the vindictive
idea; differing from the rudest stage in this chiefly, that the revenge is
exacted in the name, not of the individual, but of the state.
At length we are on the verge of a truer conception of penalty: we are
beginning to dwell most of all on the amendment of the criminal The main idea
is not the wrong done to the injured person, as in the first stage; nor the
wrong done to society, as in the second; but it is rather the wrong done to the
criminal himself by his crime. This is the reformatory age on which we are now
entering with steady, if slow, steps. Need I add that the relation of all this
to theology is the closest possible? When we seize on - as perhaps the central
idea of sin - the wrong done by the sinner to himself, and not merely the
offense against God, true as that is, we can better estimate the true function
of punishment as retributive indeed, but in its essence remedial. Nor does any
sentimentality lurk here, for we recognize the need of stern retribution, and
enforce the penalty: but our aim is different. Through suffering we would
always heal. The end aimed at is the extinction of sin, and the restoration of
the sinner; for no other end is worthy of God, and of man made in His image and
likeness
CHAPTER III
THE POPULAR CREED WHOLLY UNTENABLE (continued)
"Far be it from me to make light of the demerit of sin. But
endless punishment admit my inability (I would say it reverently) to admit this
belief together with a belief in the divine goodness - the belief that God is
Love, that His tender mercies are over all His works." - JOHN FOSTER on Future
Punishment.
THE considerations just stated illustrate well the growth of morality. In
fact we have still vast arrears to make up, for the growth of our moral
conceptions has been at once very slow, and very one-sided. In the fierce
struggle for success the intellectual faculties have been sharpened, while the
sympathetic tendencies have been dwarfed. Even yet we have hardly begun to
realize what that saying means, "Thou shall love thy neighbor as
thyself". Take an illustration. All Christendom is a vast camp:
all Europe is armed to the teeth. What does all this mean ?-this at any rate,
that our whole life is still permeated with a spirit of revenge. These
armaments preach the gospel of hatred of our enemies. They are schools ever
open, in which the obvious lessons are a formal contradiction of the Sermon on
the mount. Whatever reasonable excuses may be offered, certain it is that all
this reacts on our opinions. It blinds us to the idea of Love as supreme, and
of humanity as one family. It sets up resentment as an ideal of duty. And if
this be so still, how much more was it the case in those ages in which war was
the chief occupation, and the chief glory of civilized (?) human beings? Men
living in such a state were wholly incapable of rising to true Christian
teaching. They held half, or more than half, their neighbors in bondage as mere
chattels. They tortured their criminals they burned them, or boiled them alive,
their foes they massacred. Now precisely through such channels as these very
much of current theology has filtered down: it is, in fact, an anachronism. We
are still drinking largely from poisoned wells. &t if our awakening be slow
it is sure. A cruel Deity watching unmoved to all eternity the agonies, moral
or physical, of His creatures, will seem to our children but an evil dream. Is
it credible that, when torture has been banished from human justice, divine
justice shall stand alone in consigning offenders to torture without any
end?
Pursuing our remarks, I must also remind you of another feature of the
popular belief, which seems to present a great difficulty ; it is what I must
call its paltriness, its unworthiness of God. Let us for the moment not think
of God as a good, loving, and righteous Being. Let us now simply regard Him as
great, as irresistible, as almighty. Viewed thus, how difficult is it to accept
that account which the ordinary creed gives us of this Being's attempt at the
rescue of His fallen creature man. An Almighty Being puts forth every effort to
gain a certain end; sends inspired men t& teach others; works miracles,
signs, wonders in heaven and on earth, all for this end of man's safety; nay,
at the last, sends forth His own Son - very God - Himself Almighty. The
Almighty Son stoops not alone to take our nature on Him, but lower still - far
lower - stoops to degradation; meekly accepts insults and scourging, bends to
the bitter cross even, and all this to gain a certain end. And yet, we are
told, this end is not gained after all, man is not saved, for countless myriads
are in fact left to hopeless, endless misery; and that, though for every one of
these lost ones, so to speak, has been shed the life blood of God's own Son.
Now, if I may be permitted to speak freely, it is wholly inconceivable that the
definite plan of an Almighty Being should end in failure - that this should be
the result of the agony of the eternal Son. God has, in the face of angels and
of men, before the universe and its gaze of wonder, entered Himself into the
arena, become Himself a combatant, has wrestled with the foe, and has been
defeated. I can bring myself to imagine those, who reject the Deity of Christ,
as believing in His defeat; but it is passing strange that those who believe
Him to be "very God Almighty," are loudest in asserting His failure.
To continue this thought -- If we think of God at all worthily, we cannot
help thinking of Him as working for high and worthy ends. Therefore we cannot
help thinking of Him, as in creation, working for some end worthy of Himself.
But what end does the popular creed assign to Him? A creation mutilated,
ruined, and that for ever. A creation ending in misery and endless sin to
infinite numbers of the created; and all this misery and horror brought into
sharper relief by a vain and fruitless attempt to save all: by a purpose of
love declared to all, and yet not in fact reaching all: a creation which is but
the portal to hell for so many of the created. And you gravely ask thoughtful
inquirers to believe this; to believe that, contemplating these horrors
destined never to cease, the morning stars are described as singing together,
and all the sons of God shouting for joy on the morning of creation.
The sons of God shouted for joy, as they contemplated creation; but they
should have wept had the popular creed been true. For that creed represents the
present life as darkened by the prospect of evil triumphant; our present
sorrows made keener by the prospect of a future life, which will be, not to the
wicked merely, but to the whole race of man, an evil and a curse - a life which
every good man would, if he could, bring to an instant end. To prove this, I
will take a definite example. Further, I will concede to the advocates of the
popular creed one point of very considerable importance (to which they have no
right), e.g., that the number of the saved greatly exceeds the lost. "Suppose
it were offered to the father of three children to take his choice whether two
should be received into heaven and one condemned to hell, or the whole should
be annihilated in death. What would a parent say? Where is the father who would
dare to secure the bliss of two children at the cost of the endless misery of
one? Which of the family would he select as the victim, whose undying pain
should secure his brother's immortal joy? Is there any one living who would not
suffer himself and his children to sink back again into nothingness, rather
than purchase heaven at such a price? Now, if so, if we should so act in the
case of our own children, we are hound morally to make the same choice with
respect to every one. No moral being would consent to purchase eternal
happiness at the price of another's eternal woe. Hence it follows that a future
life, on the popular view, is an evil to the human race, not to the wicked, but
to all. For if annihilation of the whole race should be tendered as the
alternative, no moral being could, as has been shown, refuse to accept it." -
BARLOW, Eternal Punishment. Thus, there is, I repeat, if the popular creed be
true, no alternative, no escape from the conclusion that creation is an cvii
thing, and a future life a curse to the whole human family. What is to be our
answer to the scorn of the skeptic, to the challenge of the atheist? So long as
we cling to an immoral creed there is none - absolutely none. What awful
mockery is a gospel whose message is, in fact, damnation to countless myriads;
whose issue is endless sin - sin ever ripening, ever progressing. And I am to
accept such a gospel as good news, as glad tidings of great joy - glad tidings
of never ending pain and curse and sin.
Again, there comes this very serious obstacle to accepting the popular
creed. I shall state it thus, either this creed is true or false If false - the
question is ended. If true, can this strange fact be explained - that
nobody acts as if he believed it? I say this, for any man who so
believed, and who possessed but a spark of common humanity - to say nothing of
charity - could not rest, day or night, so long as one sinner remained who
might be saved. To this all would give place - pleasure, learning, business,
art, literature; nay, life itself would be too short for the terrible warnings,
the burning entreaties, the earnest pleadings, that would be needed to rouse
sinners from their apathy, and to pluck them from endless tortures. Ask me what
you will, but do not ask me to believe that any human being, who is convinced
that perhaps his own child, his wife, his friend, his neighbor, even his enemy,
is in danger of endless torment, could, if really persuaded of this, live as
men now live, even the best men: who can avoid the inevitable conclusion that
its warmest adherents really, though unconsciously, find their dogmas
absolutely incredible? In fact these men (and it is the best thing to be said
for them) teach their creed without real conviction. Their best eulogy is that
they are self-deceivers.
These remarks also explain an obvious difficulty, viz., it has been shown
how the popular creed cuts at the root of all religion, poisoning the very
fountains whence we draw our conceptions of love, of righteousness, of truth.
But if so, it may be fairly asked, how is it that society subsists, that
morality is not extinct? Because, I reply unhesitatingly, because no society,
no individual, can possibly act, or has in fact acted, on such a creed, in the
real business of life. It is simply impossible: who would dare so much as to
smile, if he really believed endless torments were certain to be the portion of
some member of his household - it may be of himself? Marriage would be a crime;
each birth the occasion of an awful dread. The shadow of a possible hell would
darken every home, sadden every family hearth. All this becomes evident when we
reflect, that to perpetuate the race would be to help on the perpetuation of
moral evil. For if this creed be true, out of all the yearly births a steady
current is flowing on to help to fill the abyss of hell, to make larger and
vaster the total of moral evil which is to endure for ever. "The world would be
one vast madhouse," says the American scholar HALLSTED, "if a realizing and
continued pressure of such a doctrine was present." Remark again how this
doctrine breaks down the moment it is really put to the test. Take a common
case: a man dies - active, benevolent, useful in life, but not a religious man,
not devout. By the popular creed, such a man has gone to hell for ever. But who
really believes that? nay, instinctively our words grow softer when we speak of
the dead in all cases. Do even the clergy really believe what they profess? I
cannot refrain from most serious doubt on this point. If they believe, why are
they so often silent? Habitual silence would be impossible to any one believing
the traditional creed in earnest. The awful future would dwarf all other
topics, would compel incessant appeals. But what do we find? Everything, I
reply, that marks a declining faith in endless evil- silence; excuses;
modifications; evasions of the true issue.
Take next a grave difficulty which arises on the popular view. How can you
on any such principle deal equitably with the mass of men? Let us speak
plainly: do tell me who and what are the great, nay, the overwhelming majority
of the baptized? They are assuredly neither wholly bad, nor wholly good; they
are neither bad enough for hell, nor good enough for heaven. Now how can you
adapt your theory to this state of things, which is, I think, quite impossible
to deny? Look around you, survey the mass of mankind: of how few, how very few,
can you affirm that they are truly devout, converted, Christ-like; take which
term you please. Can you affirm this of one in ten, in twenty, in a hundred
even, of those baptized into Jesus Christ? Take as an illustration any English
parish you please. Take any village, or select some one of our English towns,
muster its whole population in imagination, how many true, holy servants of
Jesus Christ will you find there? The mass - what are they? Let us meet this
question, and look the facts straight in the face. What is to be the doom of
the mass of baptized Christians; they are not holy, but are they bad? Nobody
out of the pulpit - and seldom there in these days- ventures to assert any such
thing. For in truth there is abundant good in this crowd of human beings; and
still more, there is almost infinite capacity for goodness amid the evil.
Everywhere you will find unselfish parents, hard workers, loving sisters, true
friends; everywhere traces, distinct enough amid all the sin, nay, traces in
abundance of goodness, patience, self-sacrifice, sometimes carried even to
great lengths. Let an emergency arise, let sickness come, what devotion does it
not call forth, what love unstinted, what self-forgetfulness? Now your system,
that which you call the good news brought from heaven by Jesus Christ, forces
yon to believe that God will consign all these hapless children of His, because
unconverted in this life, to a doom, which in its lightest form is awful beyond
all powers of imagination, to the company of devils for ever and ever. Permit
me one question more, would not any creed, or no creed, be a positive relief
from such a gospel? as this of yours? Can there be a mockery more solemn, more
emphatic, than to call this any part of the glad tidings of great joy? Is it
not time for the clergy, not merely in private to ponder these things,
convinced or half convinced of their truth, but to speak out as in God's name -
as God's ministers?
And while I am speaking of men as they are, and of the life they lead, let
me add here a statement of another very grave difficulty in the way of
accepting an endless hell as the doom of any man, the issue of any life.
Wherever human beings exist, in what form of community it matters not, in what
climate or under what conditions of life soever, there is found everywhere a
deep spontaneous belief, call it feeling, instinct, what you please, that
connects the marriage tie and the birthday with joyful associations, with mirth
and gladness. Now why is this - has it no meaning? So deep an instinct, one so
truly natural and spontaneous as this, comes surely from the Creator of all.
His voice it is that bids the bridegroom rejoice over the bride, that bids the
heart of the mother overflow with tenderness towards her babe. This being so,
again let me put the question, and ask, why has this been so ordered? It is God
who has so ordered; do you think He has had no purpose in so doing, no message
to convey to those who have ears to hear? Is it possible that our Heavenly
Father should bid His creatures everywhere to rejoice with a special joy at the
marriage feast, at the natal hour, if these births were in fact destined to add
largely to the ranks of hell, to the hosts of evil? Do think over the matter
calmly, and ask yourself if that is possible, if you can believe any such
thing? And as you think it over, take with you these words of Jesus Christ
(that hint so much). They remind us how the mother, in the "perilous birth"
bath sorrow; but add, that all that sorrow is swallowed up in joy--" joy that a
man is born into the world." Dwell on these words, that you may grasp all they
convey. Indeed, it may almost be said that in this lies the whole matter. It is
a joy that a man - any man - should be born into the world. See how wide the
words are. If you tell me that this joy is but a blind instinct of the mother:
yes, I reply, it is this very blindness, as you call it, of the instinct that
constitutes its force, for it thus betrays its origin ; it is implanted, and by
whom? by the Great Parent, for it is spontaneous and betrays His hand. Do you
ask me to believe that He has done this without a meaning, without a certain
purpose of good? Can I believe that our Father bids any mother's heart to stir
with joy at the sight of her infant, while He knows that this infant is
destined to be, will be, in fact, shut up into endless torment and sin?
And again, can you reconcile the theory of endless evil awaiting so large a
portion of our race with that natural thirst for joy, that longing for
happiness each one finds within? It matters not whether this has been slowly
developed or created at one stroke, all that matters to this argument is its
naturalness, its universality. This longing for happiness cannot then have been
accidental, there must be in it a design on the Creator's part. Now, what was
that design? To delude us, - is that possible? "If the popular theory of future
endless torment were true, what sublime mockery would there be in placing poor
wretches first upon earth, where are heard the merry shouts of careless
children, the joyous song of birds, where above our heads "with constant kindly
smile, the sleepless stars keep everlasting watch," where beneath our feet the
delicate beauty of flowers of every tint gladdens the eye. What would have been
thought of the propriety of placing a hundred bright and cheerful objects,
suggestive of peace and happiness, in the anteroom to the torture chamber of
the inquisition? It deserves, too, to be noted that man, the only animal that
laughs, has of all animals, according to the popular theory, least cause to
laugh."
- Errors and Terrors of Blind Guides.
There is much to be said beyond remarking on our natural thirst for joy and
happiness, and the difficulty of explaining why it was ever implanted in man,
except with a design that it should one day be gratified, fully and freely.
There is this to be said, there is stored in every man a vast possibility of
growth, of expansion, mental and intellectual, no less than spiritual. There
are almost infinite germs in man, so to speak, latent as yet, but capable of a
development perhaps practically boundless: they are probably unsuspected by the
majority, and it is only at intervals, and as it were by chance, that we gain a
passing glance at them. But undoubtedly they exist, and their existence, like
that of all other natural facts, requires an explanation. Why do they exist-
who planted within us these powers, and for what end? They have been given to
all, not to the good merely, but to man as man. I Cannot but see in the very
fact of their existence a silent prophecy, an intimation that the spark shall
riot be quenched in any case. Are they not a very message to man from God, a
hint, eloquent by its very silence, eloquent, and instinct with hope?
Consider next how strongly the analogy of nature, which is, after all, a
very real revelation of God, bears against the popular view, which limits to
the few moments of our present life all our chances of discipline, amendment,
and probation; and that though "all reason, all experience, all Scripture unite
in this, that the divine work of teaching goes on behind, as well as before,
the veil." To teach that the mere fact of dying is the signal for a total
change from all that has gone before, is to contradict all that we know of
God's ways from analogy. Consider this, and say whether any view which
interposes so wide a gulf, as that commonly held does, between our present and
our future life can be true. In all God's dealings with us no sharp break
intervenes, between the successive stages of life: each condition of being is
developed out of a prior, and closely related stage. Now this being so, can I
believe that in another age all this is reversed, and that men, with capacities
for good still existing, are to be at one bound consigned to hopeless sin, to
endless torture? And the difficulty (surely an enormous one) of believing that
our Father will deliberately crush out all the lingering tendencies to good in
His own children, is increased by the following consideration, viz. :-that the
whole of our human life here is so manifestly incomplete, so momentary, that in
very many cases it has not afforded a satisfactory time of training, and in not
a few cases no training at all.
This thought may be pursued further thus: An old proverb says very
wisely, "the mills of God grind slowly," and this divine slowness, or
long suffering, is very conspicuous in God's ways. How very slowly has He
been fitting this earth for man's habitation, and by what a long continued
succession of stages, age succeeding age. At length man steps on the earth.
Now, is all the divine slowness to be at once changed - and why should it be?
Man is to live for ever and ever: we are apt to forget what this means, and how
altogether impossible it is to assign any proportion between the fleeting
moments of earthly life, and the life that stretches away for ever and ever. If
we compare a human life of average duration to one second of time, and compare
endless duration to the aggregate of all the seconds that have passed since
time was, and that shall pass while time endures, still we assign to human life
a proportionate duration infinitely too long. Am I then to believe that the
same God Who expends millions of years in slowly fitting this earth for man's
habitation, will only allow to man himself a few fleeting years, or months, or
hours, as it may be, as his sole preparation time for eternity? To settle
questions so unspeakably great in their issue - questions stretching away to a
horizon so far distant that no power of thought can follow them- in such hot
haste, does seem quite at variance with our heavenly Father's ways. Is God's
action outside man so slow, and within man so hurried? Is the husk of far more
value than the seed? Are millions of years allotted to fashioning man's earthly
home, while for man's spiritual training for eternity, but a few brief years
are given, and these so largely broken up by sleep, by work, by disease, by
ignorance? What should we say - to take a homely illustration - of an
arrangement allotting 10,000 years to fashioning a man's coat, or building his
house, while assigning to his whole education but a few hours?
Besides, if we look around, a mass of facts point to the same conclusion, -
that the present life is rather the initial stage of human training, than its
conclusion. The vast majority of men have not so much as heard of
Christ. In Christian countries very many die in infancy: some are
lunatic, or half witted; many wholly uneducated; very many grow up in virtual
heathenism, from no fault of their own; or are born in a state where evil
surroundings aggravate evil tendencies, inherited and innate. Are they - these
untold myriads of myriads of hapless creatures - first to hear of Christ at the
day of judgment? Perhaps I should speak soberly in asserting, that not one in a
thousand of the total mass of humanity is at this moment living in the true
fear and love of God.
Next let us pass to Holy Scripture for a moment only, reserving a full
examination of its testimony to later chapters. Here we are at once confronted
by a difficulty so grave, that I confess it seems to me quite decisive against
the popular view. This difficulty is, that you are thus forced absolutely to
suppress a very large part of the Bible - a very numerous class of passages
which clearly hold out a promise of universal restitution, or at least imply a
distinct hope for all men. The view generally held is, in short, one-sided, and
therefore wholly unfair; it is as though a judge should base a decision of the
most weighty importance on one set of witnesses merely, neglecting the others
who testify in a directly opposite sense. "Only imagine the book of nature
being studied in this way, with one class of facts systematically ignored; with
one law, say of gravitation, fully laid down, while the opposite law of
centrifugal motion was altogether overlooked, what results in science could
follow from such a method? Yet this is the way in which not a few yet read the
Scriptures, taking their first partial sense readings for the truth, and
shutting their eyes to all that the same Scripture testifies on the other
side," - a most weighty charge, made with absolute truth, as I believe. (see
ch. vii.-viiii) - JUKES.
An interesting illustration of the fact that the New Testament is full of
passages teaching the larger hope, is furnished by the undoubted, but often
unperceived, occurrence over and over again, in the works of those who hold the
popular creed, of language which, if fairly understood, involves the salvation
of all men. This no doubt arises from the fact that phrases are used freely,
while a traditional creed does, as so often, blind men to the real force of the
expressions they employ - blind them in fact to everything outside the line of
thought which they are taught to believe constitutes the truth. Perhaps the
best illustration that can be given of what I mean will be gained by quoting
from some collection of popular hymns. I take, then, the well-known Hymns,
Ancient and Modern, and quote a few passages as instances of my meaning.
Hymn 43 has this verse: ----
"Thou, sorrowing at the helpless cry,
Of all creation doomed to die,
Did'st save our lost and guilty race."
But this is universal salvation: the race of man saved, if words have any
meaning. And this thought - the race saved - finds frequent expression
elsewhere in these hymns; nor let any man who regards honesty of speech, and
common truthfulness, say that to offer salvation merely, is, or can be, the
same thing as to save.
See hymns 56, V. 3, 4, 5, 6; 57, V. 3; 8n, v. 3; 200, v. 6, &c. Again,
listen to these solemn words and tell me what they mean: hymn 97, part 2, V.
2
"Precious blood which all creation
From the stain of sin hath freed."
And again, v. 5: -
"That a shipwrecked race for ever
Might a port of refuge gain."
And hymn 103, V. 5 -
"So a ransomed world shall ever,
Praise Thee, its redeeming Lord."
Can it be right to talk of a ransomed world for ever praising its Redeemer,
and yet to mean that all the time the world is not actually ransomed, and
perhaps half, perhaps more, of its population are groaning in endless pain? Is
this consistent with truth? Again, other hymns call on all creation to sing
God's praise. Shall this praise then echo from hell? I might well quote, in
proof of this address to all creation to praise God, the familiar doxology, but
I will only notice here a well-known hymn: ----
"O day for which creation
And all its tribes were made;
O joy for all its former woes,
A thousand times repaid."
I will simply ask what these words mean: all creation is to have all its
woes a thousand times repaid: if this is not Universalism, what is
Universalism? The same lips, that assure us from the pulpit that half creation
goes to the devil, bid us sing that all creation has been freed from sin I
Again, over and over, Christ is said to have vanquished sin, death, and Satan
:-hymns 147, V. 2; 148, v, 2; 196, V. 3, &c. But how can this be true on
the traditional creed? To say that sin is vanquished, and death and Satan too,
while hell receives its myriads of the lost, is worse than absurd; e.g., take
this line from hymn No. 196: ---
"Death of death, and hell's destruction,"
and say if the Universalist's creed could be more distinctly stated: his
utmost hopes have never gone beyond a vision of death abolished, and hell
destroyed? To pursue this further is needless, though it would be easy, and
indeed full of interest to add quotation to quotation: but I may point out how
significant it is to find the very opponents of the larger hope forced,
unconsciously, to employ language directly teaching universal salvation. The
explanation is simply that they have been using the words and ideas of
Scripture, while the fair, honest meaning of their own words is obscured for
them by the spell of a narrow traditional creed.
Before passing on, let me remark once more on the injurious moral tendency
of the popular creed. Not merely has it fostered in man a spirit of cruelty (p.
41-4) - not alone does it promise a heaven which is one of utter selfishness
(p. 43) - not merely does it point to evil as finally triumphant (p. 36), but
it scatters broadcast lessons of equivocation and untruth. For if to say one
thing, while meaning something totally different, be falsehood, then with
falsehood is the popular religious literature honeycombed from end to end.
Everywhere it repeats that the race of man is saved, that Christ is the Savior
of mankind, while it really means that half mankind is damned. It tells us, I
quote the Record (Easter, 1885) - how "Satan is utterly subdued," "his empire
completely demolished," "his power for ever fallen." This teaching it repeats
in a thousand forms, in countless hymns, in sermons, tracts, books; but it
really means that Satan is triumphant, and his empire as enduring as God
Himself. Well may the skep tic exult, and the thoughtful Christian mourn at
this duplicity, which stains our religious literature: this terrible
perversion, in the holiest matters, of those words by which we shall be
judged.
Again, there are, apart from all direct promises, certain tendencies in the
Gospel, whose drift and character are impossible to mistake. That these
tendencies exist, I am far more certain than I can be of the meaning of any
number of highly figurative texts, alleged to prove endless evil. Now these
tendencies are too clear, too distinct, to be considered accidental. So far
from being a product of the age in which the New Testament was written, they
are in conflict with the spirit of that age, and in advance of it. They must
therefore represent something inherent in the Author of Christianity, and
something essential to His design. I put the case very moderately in saying,
how extremely difficult it is to reconcile the popular creed with these
undoubted tendencies of the New Testament. Can I reasonably believe that a
system which, beyond all other creeds, has been distinguished by promoting
mercy, goodness, love, tenderness for body and soul; a system of which these
qualities are the very essence, does indeed teach a doctrine of punishment so
shocking, so horrible, that if really believed, it would turn this earth into a
charnel-house, and spread over all nature lamentation, mourning, and woe? Who
can believe, that a creed which has banished every form of cruelty, so far as
its influence is felt, in the present life, yet contains a special revelation
of terrible cruelty in the life to come?
Let me next show that certain great principles of Revelation conflict
with the popular creed. "I am sure," says a thoughtful writer, "these are the
two fundamental features of the Christian Revelation, of which all its
utterances are the manifold expression, viz. : (1.) The parental love of the
Father. (2.) The solidarity of mankind to be conformed to the image of His
Son." - Letters from a Mystic.
(1.) -- No one can deny that the New Testament contains a special revelation
of the parental tie uniting us to God. When we pray and say, "our Father,"
these two words convey the spirit of the whole Gospel. Now, it is not too much
to assert that the view generally held is an absolute negation of all that the
parental tie implies. It robs the relation of all meaning. We have the very
spirit of popular Christianity conveyed in the well-known line which tells us
that we are ever in the great Taskmaster's eye." The great Taskmaster
--- note the term, for it reduces to mockery the divine Fatherhood, though that
is of the very essence of Christianity. What, for instance, shall we say of
such a Father's appeal to those who, as He knows, will never hear? To Him there
is no future - all is present ; the "lost" are lost, and yet He calls them;
they are, on the traditional creed, virtually damned; and He knows it, and yet
invites them to come and be saved. But all this difficulty comes from uniting
two things absolutely irreconcilable - endless love and power, and yet endless
evil. If we want to retain endless sin, let us return to the God of Calvin:
nowhere else shall we find solid footing. This God at least is Lord and Master.
He issues no invitations, knowing them to be in fact futile. He saves all whom
He wants to save. His will must prevail His Son sheds no drop of blood in vain,
All for whom He dies are in fact saved, while the rest go to the devil. All
this is hard - nay, cruel; but it is at least logical, intelligible. Contrast
with this system the flabby creed of our pseudo-orthodoxy. Long ago it was
shrewdly said by an old Calvinist, "universal salvation is credible, if
universal Redemption be true." For it shocks the reason to be told of an
universal Redemption, when all that is meant is an attempt at the redemption of
all the race, which fails; it shocks the reason no less to be told of an
unchanging love which wholly ceases the moment the last breath leaves the frail
body.
I repeat, the essence of Christianity perishes in the virtual denial of any
true Fatherhood of our race on God's part. Follow out this thought, for it is
of primary importance. We lose sight of the value of the individual soul, when
dealing with the countless millions who have peopled this earth and passed
away. What is one among so many? we are tempted to say, forgetting that the
value of each human being is not in the least thereby altered. Each soul is of
infinite value, as if it stood alone, in the eyes of God its Father. And more
than this, we are altogether apt to forget another vital point, to forget whose
the loss is, if any one soul perishes? it is the man's own loss, says our
popular creed. But is this all? No, a thousand times no. It is God's loss : it
is the Father Who loses His child. The straying sheep of the parable is the
Great Shepherd's loss: the missing coin is the Owner's loss. In this very fact
lies the pledge that He will seek on and on till He find it. For only think of
the value He sets on each soul. He has stamped each in His own image : has
conferred on each a share of His own immortality - of Himself: do but realize
these things; put them into plain words till you come thoroughly to believe
them; and you must see how impossible it becomes to credit that unworthy
theology, which tells you that such a Father can ever permit the work of His
own fingers, His own offspring, to perish finally. One step further to make
this clearer: how has He shown His sense of the value of the human spirit? The
Incarnation must say. It is human life taken into closest alliance with the
divine - man and God meeting in the God-man. And then follows the Atonement,
proof on proof of the same truth, when He tasted death for every man, He in
Whose death all died. Such is the chain, whose golden links I have been
endeavoring to follow and trace, whose links bind to the Father above every
human soul; EVERY human soul, be it distinctly
affirmed. Or stay, is there not yet wanting the final link to
complete this chain? That link is to be found in the great truth, which
completes what I have been saying, the truth of' the oneness of the human race,
its organic unity. Let us consider this.
(2.) - The principle of the organic unity of our race is that which
underlies the whole divine work, alike in Creation, and in the Incarnation. It
is the divine idea, so to speak, to regard humanity as one organic
whole, one body summed up in Adam, summed up anew in the second
Adam - a whole which must stand or fall together. All this, too, is very
legible in the divinely-given symbolism of the old law, and is reflected in the
Gospel with perfect clearness. What but this is the teaching of the "first
fruits," and the "firstborn" in Scripture? These imply and include, the one,
the whole harvest; the other, the whole family, and not less. Now Christ is the
"first fruits." - iCor. XV. 23, and Christ is the "firstborn." - Col. i. 18.
And what follows let S. Paul say, "If the 'first fruits' be holy, the 'lump' is
also holy," the whole race. Thus this principle is affirmed in the great
central doctrine of the Incarnation. For in Christ, Who is the "first fruits,"
mankind, i.e., the aggregate of humanity is ta ken into God. And so in His
death all died, as the New Testament assures us, and in His resurrection all
rise, nay, are risen. In other words, Christ's relation, as the last Adam, is
not to individuals but to the race. Further, it is an actual, not a possible or
a potential relation; an actual relation giving salvation to all, in a sense as
real as the first Adam gave death and ruin to all. "Once introduce the belief
in Christ's divine nature, and His death and resurrection are no longer of the
individual but of the race. It was on this belief the Church was founded and
built up. The belief was not indeed drawn Out with exact precision, yet it was
always implied in the relation, which the believer was supposed to hold toward
God. The formula of Baptism, which has never changed, is unintelligible without
it. The Eucharist is emptied of the blessing which every age has sought in that
holy Sacrament, if it be taken away. if Christ took our nature upon Him, as we
believe, by an act of love, it was not that of one, but of all. He was not one
man only among men, but in Him all humanity are gathered up: and
thus now as at all time, mankind are, so to speak, organically united with
Him." - WESTCOTT, Gospel of the Resurrection. And this union of
the race of man with Himself, it is that Jesus Christ would teach in one of His
many pregnant hints, by always speaking of Himself in His redeeming work as the
Son, not of the Jew, not of the Gentile, not of Mary, not of the carpenter, but
the Son of Man.
Yes, the organic unity of mankind is a principle that, from the Fall to the
story of the Incarnation, runs through the texture of Holy Scripture. Have you
ever quietly thought over the very strange fact of what is called original sin?
Have you asked yourself what it means, that you are suffering for something
done thousands of years before your birth? All the questions raised by this
inquiry we need not try to settle, but we may say that it means at least this,
that in the divine plan the race falls and rises together; that mankind is not
a collection of separate units, but an organized whole. Each individual is not,
so to speak, complete in himself, but is a living stone in the great building -
is so truly a member of one great body that, if withdrawn, there would ensue no
less than a mutilation of the body. And so Adam's sin sent a shock through the
whole race, exactly as when a hurt to any part sends a shock through our
present body. This is the painful side, but it is only one side; and
unfortunately the popular creed, as so often, persists in looking at one side
only, and that the dark side, and in looking away from the bright side; or at
least in so looking at it, as to miss its real aspect. But here the New
Testament comes to our rescue and assures us that "as in Adam all die, so in
the new and better Adam all shall be made alive." The race is fallen; true, but
the race is risen; quite as true. Both facts strictly correspond; but, if
so,
"Of two such lessons why forget
The nobler and the Christlier one?"
A partial salvation is thus in absolute conflict with this fundamental
principle which the Fall affirms, and to which the Incarnation testifies; the
organic indivisible unity of mankind. A partial salvation is no less in direct
opposition to the great truth put by S. Paul so clearly: "If through the
offense of one (the) many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift of
grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, has abounded unto (the) many *** as
by the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even so by
the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of
life." - Rom. v.. 15-8.
Observe, the offense is a thing actually imparted to, actually staining,
ruining all men. And Jesus Christ came to bring to every man, to humanity, a
salvation which shall be to mankind MUCH MORE than the Fall. But the popular
view reads MUCH LESS; and in millions of cases, as much less as hell is less
than heaven. I may in passing point out the tendency of modern scientific
thought towards the conception of an unity underlying all the various forms of
life. The facts of evolution and the facts of heredity confirm this. Individual
responsibility is not the less true, because it requires to be supplemented by
another fact, that of organic unity. Individuality does not contradict, but is
complementary to solidarity. The individual is a whole; but the race is a whole
as truly. The individual is truly free and responsible, and yet truly bound by
those myriad ties of inherited capacity and character that link each
inseparably to the whole. We are "members one of another" in the fullest sense,
i.e., parts of a whole from which no act of will can sever us. This far
reaching conception of an unity of the race is S. Paul's too. See a striking
passage, I Tim. ii. 4, 5, where he bases universal salvation not on God's love,
but on God's unity. The connection is worth tracing: "God wills all to be
saved. For He is ONE ;" such is the Apostle's assertion. The meaning is - As an
ultimate fact we have unity. It is the law of creation. The "All" run up into
and are bound together into unity by His will, Who is "ONE."
I may here briefly note how scientific researches illustrate human
solidarity. "The definite result of these researches - and the point is so
important, that it must be again and again repeated, - is that heredity is
identity as far as is possible: it is one being in many." - RIDOT, Heredity, p.
280. This law may be traced everywhere. Not a sentiment or a desire exists: not
an excellence or defect, bodily or mental, which is not capable of
transmission, and actually transmitted. Why is this? "The cause of this
heredity," says HECKEL, "is the partial identity of the materials which
constitute the organism of the parent and child." This shows how vast a part
heredity plays, and how close its relation to morality. We assert freely the
facts of individuality; we forget the less obvious, but no less true, facts of
heredity; we fail to see all that is involved in the Apostle's words, "we are
members one of another." But again, the traditional view conflicts with another
great principle, viz., the unchangeableness of God. "If God be unchangeable,
then what we see- of Him at any moment, must be true of Him at every moment of
time; true of Him also both before and after all the moments of time; always
and for ever true of Him. If His purpose be to save mankind, that purpose
stands firm for ever, unaffected by man's sin, unshaken by the fact of death,
unaltered and unalterable by men, by angels, by naught conceivable." - Salv.
Mundi. Redemption is no afterthought, it was planned in the full knowledge of
all the extent of man's sin : knowing all, God declared His purpose to be to
save the race. Redemption, then, is something indefeasible, except indeed God
can change, or the will of the created be stronger than the will of the
Creator. "The gifts and calling of God are without repentance." - Rom. xi. 29.
That is, what God wills must be done; those whom God calls must obey finally.
And this unchangeable purpose of God is stated afresh in the words that
describe Jesus Christ as "the same yesterday, today, and for ever" - words
deeply significant, and yet, whose true teaching so very often escapes
attention. And here let me illustrate this part of my argument by introducing a
story, for whose truth I vouch, to show how practical these considerations
really are:
In a certain quarter of London, one of the many
evangelists employed for that purpose, had gone forth to preach to the people.
When he had concluded an eloquent address, he was thus accosted by one of his
hearers: Sir," said the man, "may I ask you one or two questions ?" "Surely,"
said the preacher. "Your have told us that God's love for us is very great and
very strong." "Yes," "That He sent His Son on purpose to. save us, and that I
may be saved this moment, if I will." "Yes," "But, that if I go away without an
immediate acceptance of this offer, and if, a few minutes after I were to be by
any accident killed on my way home, I should find myself in hell for ever and
ever." "Yes." "Then," said the man, "if so, I don't want to have anything to
do with a Being Whose love for me can change so completely in five
minutes."
"God so loved the world," - dwell on these words. The world,
then, must have been in some real sense worthy of love. He cannot love - He may
pity - the unlovely. Has He ceased to love it? if so, when? I challenge a
reply. "Love is not love that alters, where it alteration finds ;"
even human love, if true, never changes. Yet this love is but a faint, far-off,
reflection of our Father's love. God is not love and justice, or love and
anger. He is Love, i.e., love essential. Therefore His wrath and vengeance,
while very real, are the ministers of His love. To say that God cannot change,
is to say that His love cannot change. Hence His love being changeless, pursues
the sinner to the outer darkness, and, being Almighty, draws him thence. An
earthly parent, who, being able to help, should sit unmoved, month after month,
year after year, watching, but never helping, the agonies of his own offspring,
is a picture more hideous than any the records of crime can furnish. What shall
we say to those who heighten enormously, infinitely, all that is shocking in
such a picture, until its blackest details become light itself; and then tell
us that the parent in this ghastly scene is one who is Love, love infinite,
almighty, and our Father?
And this brings us face to face with a blunder of our traditional creed,
which is radical. It talks of God's love as though that stood merely on a par
with His justice though it were something belonging to Him which He puts on or
off. It is hardly possible to open a religious book in which this fatal error
is not found; fatal, because it virtually strikes out of the Gospel its
fundamental truth, e.g., GOD IS LOVE. The terms are equivalent. They can be
interchanged. God is not anger though He can be angry, God is not vengeance
though He does avenge. These are attributes, love is essence. Therefore, God is
unchangeably love. Therefore, in judgment He is love, in wrath He is love, in
vengeance He is love-" love first, and last, and midst, and without end." But
in fact the traditional creed knows nothing of what love really is. For love is
simply the strongest thing in the universe, the most awful, the most
inexorable, while the most tender. Further, when love is thus seen in its true
colors, there is less than ever an excuse for the mistake still so common,
which virtually places at the center of our moral system sin and not grace.
This it is which the traditional dualism has for centuries been doing, and is
still doing. Doubtless retribution is a most vital truth. Universalists rejoice
to admit it; nay, largely to base on it their system; but there is a greater
truth - which controls, and dominates the whole, the truth of Love. We must
not, in common phrase, put the theological cart before the horse. Retribution
must not come first, while love brings up the rear; nor must we put the idea of
probation, before that of God's education of His human family. In a word, to
arrive at truth is hopeless, so long as men virtually believe in a
quasi-trinity - God and the Devil, and the Will of Man.
I desire in closing these chapters to point out that, in proportion to the
excellence of Christianity, are its corrupt ions especially vile - corruptio
optimi pessima. These flow mainly from the characteristic unwillingness of
theologians to accept as fundamental the dictates of the moral sense; a
reluctance which is the opprobrium of the noble science of theology. Those
versed in the great controversy (so imperfectly discussed in these pages) must
have noticed how constantly the advocates of endless evil evade the great moral
issues. They will not face the question of the utter injustice of visiting
finite guilt with an infinite penalty. They prefer to observe a discreet
silence. They practically ignore the clear evidence of experts, which shows
that moderate penalties are far more effective in repressing crime, and
reforming the sinner, than are excessive punishments. They will not meet the
arguments, which prove that the true conception of penalty is one, which,
recognizing the need of retribution, yet la ys the chief stress on its
reformatory character. They, in fact, substitute the "Great Taskmaster" for
"Our Father," thereby obscuring, nay, almost denying, the fundamental fact of
Christianity. They are strangely blind to the Vital question of the dualism
virtually involved in teaching eternal evil. They do not seem aware that so to
teach is to proclaim the defeat of Jesus Christ. They forget how indefensible
is a dogma which, in fact, divides God into two Beings, which represents the
unchanging One as changing from love here, to wrath hereafter. They have never
explained when God Who "so loved the world" has ceased to love it, or how such
a change is possible to Him, Who never can change. They attempt no answer when
the moral degradation is pointed out, which a heaven involves, where we are to
rejoice while our dear ones, or our fellowmen, for ever agonize. They are dumb,
when asked to explain how sympathy can expire at the very gate of heaven; or
how, if sympathy with the lost survive, the Blessed can kno w a moment's true
joy. They do not explain how a process of degradation in hell can be endless:
how moral rottenness can share the dignity of immortality: or how God can go on
punishing His own children for ever, when all hope of amendment is past. They
will not face the awful difficulty involved in God's free creation, in His own
image, of myriads whom such a doom as hell to His certain knowledge awaits,
They evade the difficulty, no less great, of conceiving a God, Who is Love, as
watching to all eternity, unmoved and unloving, the agonies of His own
children. They will not tell us why the savage is wrong, who mutilates his body
to please his God; and the Christian is right, who mutilates his moral sense,
his noblest part, by calling those acts good in God which he loathes in his
fellowman. This list, incomplete as it is, is sufficient to explain why those
who would gladly, yet dare not, remain silent. God's honor is at stake: God's
truth is at stake, when, in place of the Gospel, horrors are taught that
especially wound that which is best within us, horrors that contradict alike
man's conscience, primitive Christianity, and the express teaching of Holy
Scripture.
CHAPTER IV
WHAT THE CHURCH TEACHES
"Just as any teacher in Christianity towered aloft, so in proportion
did he the more hold and defend the termination of penalties at some time in
the future." - Dcederlin, Inst. Theol
"Indeed, beside ORIGEN, GREGORY of Nyssa also, GREGORY of Nazianzus, BASIL,
AMBROSE himself, and JEROME, taught everywhere the universal restitution of
things, asserting simultaneously with it, an end of eternal punishment."-C. B.
SCHLEUTER, pref. in. Erig, (Migne.)
PFAFF says, "The ultimate restoration of the lost was an opinion held by
very many Jewish teachers, and some of the Fathers." - Frag.anec.
REUSS says, "The doctrine of a general restoration of all rational creatures
has been recommended by very many of the greatest thinkers of the antient
church, and of modern times." - Hist. de la theol, Apost.
"From two theological schools there went forth an opposition to the doctrine
of everlasting punishment." - NEANDER, Church Hist. iv. p. 444., Lond.,
1853.
"The dogma of ORIGEN had many, and these the most celebrated defenders." -
PAGE, In. Bar. ann. A.D. 410, p. 103.
"The school of .Antioch had no hesitation in hoping for an end of the pains
of the other world." - MUNTER
"Universalism in the fourth century drove its roots down deeply, alike in
the East and West, and had very many defenders." - DlETELMAIER.- Comm.
fanat.
The learned and candid HUET names several Fathers as in sympathy with the
larger hope. - Origen. ii, pp. 159, 205: Co1egn, 1685.
GIESELER says, "The belief in the inalienable power of amendment in all
rational creatures, and the limited duration of future punishment was general,
even in the West." - Text Book i. p.212. Phil. . 1836.
I TRUST the candid reader will weigh the above testimonies with all care,
coming as they do, so far as I know, in almost every case from those who are
not friendly to Universalism. We shall see how they are supported by a vast
body of evidence, from all quarters, in the earliest centuries; and confirmed
by the express testimony (which I shall quote) of co-temporary witnesses so
famous as AUGUSTINE, JEROME, BASIL, (and DOMITIAN of Ancyra,) who attest the
very wide diffusion of the larger hope in their age. The following pages will,
I hope, show clearly how groundless is the widespread opinion which represents
Universalism as the outcome of modern sentimentality, and will establish
clearly (1} That it prevailed very widely in the primitive Church, especially
in the earliest centuries, often in a form embracing all fallen spirits. (2.)
That those who believed and taught it, more or less openly, or held kindred
views, were among the most eminent and the most holy of the Christian Fathers.
(3.) That it not only has never been condemned by the Church, but is, far more
than any other view, in harmony with the antient catholic Creeds. (4.) That in
our Prayer Book are some passages, which show a leaning towards Universalism.
Such an inquiry seems indispensable, not alone because this branch of the
question has been usually neglected, and the argument for Universalism thereby
weakened; nor because to many minds the Fath ers speak with special weight, as
a link connecting us with the Apostolic age, and preserving Apostolic
tradition; but on grounds common to every serious student. For all such will
surely admit that in dealing with a historic faith like Christianity, its
doctrines cannot be adequately treated, their growth and development rightly
comprehended, or studied with intelligence, except when viewed from the
standpoint of history, as well as of the moral sense, and of Holy Scripture.
Further, if this historical inquiry were not entered on, we should have no
sufficient answer to a very possible, and very fair objection, viz.: why, if
the larger hope be in the Bible, did not those great minds of old find it
there? And our faith in the larger hope will gain fresh vigor, as we see it
very widely taught by many of the wisest and best men in primitive times, and
taught (a) not alone on the direct authority of the Bible, but (b) by those
especially to whom Greek was a living tongue, was indeed their native tongue.
It is a striking fact that the weight of opposition to Universalism in
primitive times is found in the Latin Church, is found most vigorous where, as
in AUGUSTINE'S case, the Greek language was never really mastered.
The period into which I propose to inquire will fall naturally into three
divisions - (1.) Down to the opening years of the 4th century. (2.) Thence
during the Church's "Augustan era," to the year 430 or 440 A.D. (3.) From that
period to the 11th or 12th century. The two earlier divisions may be said to
include all that is of most value and originality in patristic literature.
These centuries are especially characterized by the preponderance of the
Eastern theologians, and their broad and hopeful teaching. All the early
influences that molded Christian thought are of the East, and not of the West.
The language hallowed by the New Testament, carried to the East by the tide of
conquest and colonization, and there naturalized, continued for several
centuries the language of theology. The earliest Christian writings, even in
the Church of Rome, are in Greek. The great councils that fixed the Creed of
the Church were all held in the East, and there, too, were the early schools of
theology - centers of Christian l ight and learning. At first the East was
active, while the West (North Africa excepted) slumbered: Italy, Spain, and Greece were sunk in
theological torpor, while Alexandria and Caesarea were vigorous and active. Not
only what is Roman, but in a wider sense what is Latin, counted at first as
almost nothing in the theological scale, till the fatal genius of an African
turned the balance, and the dark shadow of S. AUGUSTINE'S cruel and novel
theology fell as a blight on the whole Western Church.
Before we can hope to understand the Fathers, or rightly to estimate the
force of the testimony they bear to Universalism, we must try to place
ourselves mentally where they stood. The Church was born into a world of whose
moral rottenness few have, or can have, any idea. Even the sober historians of
the later Roman empire have their pages tainted with scenes impossible to
translate. Lusts the foulest, debauchery to us happily inconceivable, raged on
every side. To assert even faintly the final redemption of all this rottenness,
whose depths we dare not try to sound, required the firmest faith in the larger
hope, as an essential part of the Gospel. But this is not all: in a peculiar
sense the Church was militant in the early centuries. It was engaged in, at
times, and always liable to, a struggle, for life or death, with a relentless
persecution. Thus it must have seemed in that age almost an act of treason to
the Cross to teach that, though dying unrepentant, the bitter persecutor, or
the votary of abominab le lusts, should yet in the ages to come find salvation.
Such considerations help us to see tile extreme weight attaching
even to the very least expression in the Fathers, which involves sympathy with
the larger hope, - a fact to be kept in mind in reading these
pages. Especially so when we consider that the idea of mercy was then but
little known; (and that truth, as we conceive it, was not then esteemed a
duty.) As the vices of the early centuries were great, so were their
Punishments cruel. The early Fathers wrote when the wild beasts of the arena
tore alike the innocent and the guilty, limb from limb, amid the applause even
of gently nurtured women; they wrote when the cross, with its living burden of
agony, was a common sight, and evoked no protest. They wrote when every
minister of justice was a torturer, and almost every criminal court a petty
Inquisition: when every house. hold of the better class, even among Christians,
swarmed with slaves, liable to torture, to scourging, to mutilation, at the
caprice of a master or the frown of a mistress. Let all these facts be fully
weighed, and a Conviction arises irresistibly that, in such an age, no idea of
Universalism could have originated, unless inspired from above. If,
now, when criminals are shielded from suffering with an almost morbid care,
men, the best men, think with very little concern of the unutterable woe of the
lost, how, I ask, could Universalisrn have arisen of itself in an age like that
of the Fathers?
Consider further. The larger hope is not - we are informed - in the Bible;
it is not we know in the heart of man naturally: still less was it there in
days such as those we have described, when mercy was unknown, when the dearest
interest of the Church forbad its avowal. But it is found in many, in very
many, antient Fathers, and often in the very broadest form, embracing every
fallen spirit. Where, then, did they find it 7 Whence did they import this
idea, not taught in the Old Testament and forbidden by the New Testament, as we
are assured: totally out of harmony with every prevailing belief: totally at
variance with the obvious interests of the Gospel in such days? Whence, I
repeat the question, Whence did this idea come 7 Can we doubt that the Fathers
could only have drawn it, as their writings testify, from the Bible itself?
I am aware that it will be said that patristic teaching is often not
consistent on the question of the larger hope. This inconsistency, so far as it
exists, it may be confidently said in reply, (a) is precisely what we must
expect under the circumstances; (b) is very largely apparent only, and due to
the use of ambiguous phrases which are misunderstood; (c) and where it is real,
it is amply accounted for by the remarkable doctrine of Reserve. These
propositions I hope now to establish clearly, taking the last first. It is the
fashion to confine the doctrine of Reserve to the duty of suppressing a truth
deemed inexpedient to disclose. I am prepared to show by the Fathers' own words
that it went very much farther, e.g., to the advocacy of falsehood as a
distinct duty, when the supposed interests of piety were at stake, a limitation
to be carefully noted.
In considering this doctrine, we must remember that the principle of a
so-called fraus pia pervaded the whole legislation of antiquity. So great a
teacher as PLATO regarded falsehood as a kind of moral medicine. Thence this
teaching passed to Philo; thence in turn to Alexandria, the birthplace of
theology. The fruits of such teaching are only too apparent in the early
centuries. A swarm of apocryphal Gospels and forged writings appear; fraudulent
Oracles, Acts and Canons of Councils, Gospels, Legends abound. Writings were
interpolated, glossed, mutilated, even wholly forged. "For a good end," says an
eminent scholar (speaking of the innocent primitive times), "they made no great
scruple to forge whole books." - DALLAEUS, De usu Pat. The illustrious scholar
CASAUBON speaks very strongly. "This. vehemently moves me, that I see in the
first times of the Church how many there were, who thought it a palmary deed,
that heavenly truth should be aided by their own figments. These falsehoods
they call dutiful, excog itated with a good end; from which fountain, without
doubt, sprang 600 books, which that and the next age saw published, under the
name even of the Lord Jesus, and other saints." Exerc. i. N. x, Baroni App. in
Ann. Of the 4th century MOSHEIM says, an error, almost publicly adopted, was
"that. to deceive and lie is a virtue, when religion can be promoted by it." -
Eccles. Hist. i. p. 357, words that not unfairly describe the teaching
prevalent in the early centuries. Thus EPIPHANIUS tells us that Catholics
blotted out from S. LUKE'S Gospel a statement "that Jesus wept." - Ancor. xxxi.
I cite this story (which may not be true), as clear proof that Catholics were
thought capable of most fraudulent usage of Holy Scripture itself. At Carthage,
419 A.D., FAUSTINUS tendered the canons of Sardica as though genuine canons of
the Council of Nice. Only thirty years later LEO attempted the same fraud.
CASSIAN, a friend of CHRYSOSTOM, is author of a collection of spiritual
precepts; one of his chapters bears this striking heading: "Even the Apostles
teach us that falsehood is very often permissible, and the truth hurtful!"-
Call. xvii. 20. S. CHRYSOSTOM openly advocates deceit (apate) as a spiritual
medicine, - De sacer. lib. i. and ii., and having planned and carried out a
fraud, and thus entrapped his friend BASIL into ordination, he exults in his
success, and defends by Scripture his deceit. He also maintains that S. PETER
and S. PAUL were merely dissembling in the scene recorded in Galatians (ch.
ii.) And this was the common opinion since ORIGEN'S time, and is asserted by S.
JEROME very earnestly. He even says, writing to AUGUSTINE, "Tu veritatis tuae
saltem unum adstipulatorem proferre debebis," - Ep. lxxxix., words which any
comment would weaken. What is this but to attribute a lie to the Apostle, and,
in some sense, a partnership in lying to the Spirit of inspiration? Nor is this
strange, for several Fathers do not hesitate to attribute dissimulation to our
Lord Himself; e.g., the author of ninety-two sermons found in some editions of
S. AMBROSE (possibly MAXIMUS of Turin, 422, A.D.), says of Christ, "sitire se
simulat," - Ser. xxx. : this he repeats, adding that Christ circumvented the
devil by fraud .- ib. xxxv. Compare a striking passage in an old writer - De
sanc. Trih. (in S. CHRYSOSTOM'S works). S. GREGORY, of Nyssa, remarks that our
Lord used deceit for purposes of salvation. -Cat or. xxvi. S. HILARY asserts
that Christ in saying He was ignorant of that day, was not in fact ignorant of
it, .De Trin. 116. ix., and that Christ's fear, and sadness, and suffering in
His Passion were not real. - ib. lib. x .p. 235. S. AMBROSE. says, "Neque
faflitur Pater neque fallit Filius, verum ea est in Scripturis consuetudo ***
Ut Deus dissimulet se scire quod novit. Et in hoc ergo unitas divinitatis in
Patrer *** probatur et Filio, si quemadniodum Deus Pater cognita dissimulat,
ita Filius, etiam in hoc imago Dei, que sibi sunt nota dissimulet." - Defide
Zib. v. 8. The Son of God sefingit infantern. - S. ZENO. lib ii. tract viii. S.
BASIL teaches that Christ pretends ignorance. - Ep. cxli. ad Cesar. Adv. Eun.
hom. iv. and he expressly commends fraud employed for a good end. - Hom. in
prin. prov.
From this evidence (which might be easily increased) it plainly follows,
that such writers would have had no scruple whatever in employing threats,
which were not true, to terrify obstinate sinners. In fact the evidence seems
clearly to show that dissimulation was regarded as perfectly legitimate, and
even as a duty, when (as in the case of the larger hope), the good of others
seemed to require it. I am not for a moment charging the Fathers with a general
advocacy of lying. I am but stating, in their own words, the limits they set to
the duty of truth in one particular direction, and in that only.
Finally, let me place side by side the two following
views of this doctrine:
S. Hilary -- Commenting on Ps. xv. 2
"And speaketh the truth in his heart," this Father, after enforcing the
duty of truth, proceeds thus: "But this is difficult by reason of the sins and
vices of the age. For a lie is very often necessary. (Est enim neccessarium
plerumque mendacium), and sometimes falsehood is useful; as when we tell a lie
to an assassin lying in wait, or upset evidence on behalf of one who is in
danger, or deceive a sick man as to the difficulty of cure."
Dr. Pusy.
"The principle of accommodation was that of our Lord. 'I have many things to
say unto you,, but you cannot bear them now * * its limit was in not declaring
as yet all the truth on a given subject, never in saying what was untrue."-"
What is of faith as to everlasting punishment" - p. 250.
Dr. PUSEY'S book is so often quoted by those who do not read the Fathers,
that a striking instance of the way he has done his work will be useful. I
might add much more, but forbear, desiring no controversy with an honored name,
and letting facts speak for themselves.
I turn next to show the wholly inconclusive nature of the arguments drawn
from the patristic use of such epithets as aionios, &c., when applied to
future punishment. The least reflection will suffice to show that everything
depends upon the sense in which these terms are used. No early Universalist
hesitates to use aionios, which the Bible admittedly uses of future punishment.
So far is this from proving the traditional creed, that it is even asserted, by
both CAESARIUS (?) -Dial iii., and by LEONTIUS, that ORIGEN and his adherents
argued from the very term aionios, as being finite, that future punishments
were temporary. - HUET, Orig. ii. p. 161. In fact we should remember what our
own experience amply teaches. Almost every conversation we take part in, every
book we read, offers ample proof that such terms as "for "ever,"" eternal,"
"ceaseless," &c., are habitually used in a purely conventional sense,
without so much as a thought of absolute endlessness. And this is even more
true of the Fathers, whose training was largely rhetorical; whose whole habit
of mind was totally unscientific.
To come to definite proofs: just as the prophet calls that incurable, of
which in a moment after he asserts the cure- Jer. xxx., 12, 17, just so do the
Fathers often employ, in a limited sense, words that seem to assert the
opposite. Thus S. JEROME, commenting on Zephan. ii. g, explains the eternal
desolation of Amon as ending in their conversion. See, too, his comment to the
same effect on Ezek. xxv. 4. Of Jerusalem, he says on Ez. xxiv., that the city
was burnt with eternal fire by Hadrian. He says Israel is delivered over to
eternal woe. - In Amos viii. a flame is kindled against them which shall not he
quenched (in Jer. vii. 20); yet he asserts repeatedly the final salvation of
Israel - In Hos. xiii., in Zeph. iii., in Ezek. xxxix., xxi., xxxv., &c.
Again, he says that Edom is to be banished to eternal desolation .- In Ezek.
xxxv., that Edom and the host of Egypt are to lie (slain) in a perpetual sleep.
- In Ezek. xxxii. : And God is wroth with Esau (Edom) for ever, a fact S.
JEROME repeats three times over; yet Edom is to be finally converted. - In
Obad. i.: And Egypt is represented as restored and converted. - In Ezek. xxix.
To S. JEROME the "outer darkness" permits an escape; and after "the uttermost
farthing" is paid, salvation comes. - In Micah vii.-8. Nay, JONAH'S three days'
imprisonment in the whale is "eternal" night ! - In Jon. ii. And the very fire
of hell" (Gehenna) cleanses (and is, therefore, temporary).- In Nahum iii. In
S. JEROME'S works I have noted many cases in which eternus (&c.) means in
fact temporary. Nay, so wholly ambiguous and inconclusive are such terms that
we shall see ORIGEN asserting that obstinate sins are to be extinguished by the
" eternal fire." So, the antient author of the second Sybilline book tells us
(in words that recall the statement in Rev. xx. 54, about the second death),
that "hell" (Hades) and all things and persons are cast into "unquenchable
fire" for CLEANSING. The author of the sermons printed in S. AMBROSE'S works,
ed. Par. 1569, who bids his hearers consid er "the day of judgment" and the
"unquenchable" flames of hell, yet says that baptism extinguishes the flame of
hell, and opens Tartarus. - Ser. xxxi. So DOMITIANUS says those assigned to
eternal punishment are saved. - Fac, Pro def. tr. cap. iv. 4. Another old
writer, as we shall see, tells us that the worm "that dieth not" dies.
LEO (Augustus) says eternal prisoners were released from Hades by Christ .-
Or. vii. EUSEBIUS twice calls unquenchable the brief fire which consumes a
martyr.- Church Hist. vi. 41. ORIGEN calls, without hesitation, that fire
eternal which he believed to be finite. He even says that obstinate sins are to
be extinguished by the eternal fires. - Hom. xiv. in Lev: (So DE LA RUE, his
best editor, reads) a sentiment he repeats in Hom. viii. in Josh. Again, in the
rival school of Antioch, THEODORE of Mopsuestia (a strong opponent of ORIGEN)
agreed with him in calling "eternal" that future penalty which he taught would
be in all cases TEMPORARY. Or if we take other words we may find a similar
usage: thus to PAMPHILUS, "limitless" ages, and to RUFINUS, "infinite" ages
have an end. - Apol. pro. Orig.: as also to S. JEROME- In Jon. iii. S. GREGORY
of Nazianzus, calls ceaseless (apaustos) that which is terminable. - Adv. Jul.
or. ix. Next, let us take S. AMBROSE: He says - Christ freed the dead from
perpetual chains. - In Ps. xliv. ad fin., and says the rejection of the Jews is
their perpetual death .- In Ps. Cxix. 9, to. And he very strikingly teaches
deliverance from the eternal fire prepared for the Devil and his angels, for he
says that DIVES is to be set free. - In Ps. cxix: and teaches distinctly that
DIVES was in this very fire. - ib. V. 17. An old author in EPIPHANIUS' Works,
Paris, 5622, says that eternal bars, and eternal gates are shattered. - In.
sep. Christi. Patristic usage, again, is well illustrated by no less an
authority than S. ATHANASIUS, who calls the sin against the Holy Ghost
"unpardonable," and its punishment "eternal;" and yet asserts that this "
unpardonable " and "eternal" sin might, on repentance, be pardoned. - See Bingh
ii. p. 970. And let us carefully note that this eminent writer states, that
this was the ,general opinion of the Antients - a very suggestive fact. The
author of Christ's Patiens begs to be loosed from bonds which "cannot be
loosed." - v. 2540. A similar instance may be found in ATHANASIUS. - Rescrip.
ad. Lib. So CLEMENT of Alexandria calls that incurable which he goes on to show
may be cured .- Strom. i. THEODORET intimates that "eternal" death admits an
escape. - In Zach. ix., and that "eternal" disgrace may be only temporary. - In
Jer. xxiii. S. HILARY, like S. JEROME, says JONAH escaped from "eternal" bars.
- In Ps. lxix. And such teaching is common as to the meaning of "eternal" S.
GREGORY of Nyssa calls an interval limitless, and says it can be crossed over.
- In Ps. Tract ii. ch. xiv.; and he calls an interval which has an end, and a beginning
eternal. - ib. i. ch. vii. He describes even the "second death" as cleansing. - De
an. et. Res., and in two passages, in the same work, plainly treats "the
eternal fire" as purifying - ib. pp. 658, 691, en'. Par. 1615. S. BASIL teaches
that "sins unt o death" admit a cure. - In Is. iv. 4, and that God's vroth,
that "will not cease," ceases on repentance. - In Is. i. 24. He teaches also
that where it is said, Moab shall be shut out "eternally" (from God), this
"eternal" is not really more than temporal. - In Ps. lx. 8.
We have seen S. JEROME calling the flame of Gehenna, purifying, and S.
GREGORY of Nyssa teaching the same of "eternal" fire: and ORIGEN asserting that
these fires extinguished sin. So does S. CHRYSOSTOM term incurable what may be
cured in many passages, e.g., -In Ps. cxlv. 8-9 and cx.; In Gen. vi. Horn. xxii.
He calls perpetual (dienekes) what is temporary. - In Heb. ii. Hom. iv., and in
Eph. iv. Hom. xiii. He also calls the fire which destroyed Sodom (the eternal
fire of S. JUDE) beneficial. - In Ps. cxi. Similar phrases occur in the antient
homilies printed in most editions of this Father, e.g., the sleepless, i.e.,
undying worm is said to die. - In Trid. Res. An old commentator on the Psalter
(in S. JEROME'S works) calls the eternal blotting out of the wicked their
conversion. PRUDENTIUS calls the brief darkness at the Crucifixion eternal. -
Hymn. ix.: and the gloom of a martyr's prison eternal. - Hymn. ad Vincen. I
have not exhausted the instances I might adduce: but I have brought very ample
evidence to show, how absolutely groundless is the argument still commonly
urged in favor of endless penalty, from the mere use of terms like aionios,
&c., &c. If the "eternal" can be finite, if the "incurable" can be
cured, if the "undying" worm does in fact die, if hell (Gehenna) cleanses, how
vain to build on the mere use of such terms a proof in favor of a penalty
literally endless.
Canon FARRAR gives good reasons for thinking
that even the terrible threats of such writers as Dr. WATTS, the poet YOUNG and
JEREMY TAYLOR cannot be literally pressed. Mercy and Judg. pp. 275-6, 401. I
will give a stronger instance, viz. : Dr. BURNET in his De statu mort, p. 366,
after teaching the larger hope, uses these significant words: "Whatever your
opinion is within yourself, and in your own breast concerning these
punishments, whether they are eternal or not, yet always with the people, and
when you preach to the people, use the received doctrine, and the received
words in the sense in which the people receive them."
These considerations fully dispose of very many passages quoted as proof
that the Fathers teach endless penalty. They no less apply to any similar
expressions, that may be brought forward from those Fathers I am about to claim
as Universalists And if any passages remain, that seem too positive to admit of
this explanation, I point at once to the doctrine of Reserve, which quite
distinctly authorized dissimulation, and specially applied to such questions as
the larger hope. And this is to state the case moderately and to refrain from
pressing this doctrine, to its legitimate bounds. For plainly, any one holding
it may continuously deny Universalisrn, and yet secretly believe it. But I
merely apply it to cases of so-called inconsistency, i.e.., where the larger
hope is apparently at once held, and yet contradicted by the same Fathers. Such
I claim as Universalists, because no other view can possibly explain all the
facts. Therefore I feel obliged to lay down this simple rule as the fair test
of the Father's real meaning, viz., that no hypothesis other than
strong conviction of its truth can account far Universalistic teaching; while
the desire to terrify sinners, added to the ambiguous character of most or all
of the terms they employ; and lastly the doctrine of Reserve, easily account
for apparent, or even real, inconsistency which we find in certain of the
Fathers.
I may sum up by saying that the method usually employed in case of these
writers, seems to violate every ride of fair criticism. Practically it takes
account of but a single factor in their writings, and misunderstands that;
e.g., if aionios, or kindred terms, are applied to future punishment, such a
writer is at once labeled as teaching endless sin and pain. But (i.) this is
(very often) to neglect that most important indication, viz., a writer's tone
and general drift. Next (ii.) this is to assume that such terms are used in a
strict and extreme sense, which, as we have seen, is certainly not
(necessarily) the case, or even usually so. Professed Universalists have no
hesitation in using such terms. (iii.) It is to ignore the highly significant
doctrine of Reserve; (iv.) and it is no less to ignore the great mass of
evidence, direct and indirect, in so many Fathers, which admits of no
explanation other than sympathy with, or belief in the larger hope. This I
shall now adduce; premising that evidence abundant enough to fill a volume
must, I fear, suffer in cogency when compressed into a few pages. The
quotations I shall make will fall under these heads - (a), showing a drift and
tone of thought totally out of harmony with the perpetuity of evil; (b),
involving the larger hope by fair inference; (c), or by direct statement; (d),
at times teaching the restoration of every fallen spirit.
First, it is well to note a fact, which it seems to me vain to deny, viz.,
that some very early writers appear to have held the final annihilation of the
wicked. Thus CLEMENS (Romanus) seems to confine the Resurrection to the
righteous. "Can we think it strange," he asks, "if the Maker of all shall cause
a Resurrection of those who serve Him holily." .- ch. xxvi. Compare a passage
in ch. 1. The epistle of the Pseudo-Barnabas, 120 A.D., seems to teach
annihilation. Perhaps the most decisive passage is that in which he says, (ch.
xxi.), that "the wicked shall perish with the wicked one," meaning apparently
the cessation of existence. There are also passages in the Ignatian epistles -
Ad Smyr. ch. vii.: Ad Trall. ch. ix .- and in S. POLYCARP - Ad Phil. ch. ii.
and v. - that seem to indicate that they expected a resurrection of the just
only. The Didache ton Apostolon, while devoting a considerable space to
eschatology seems to speak of the resurrection of the righteous only. This is
perhaps the teaching of HERMAS - Lib. iii. .cimil. vi. v. II - 3 : simil. viii.
vv. 54, 59, 63, 68, 69, &c. - ed. Glasg., 1884. JUSTIN MARTYR also almost
certainly takes this view; for though his language is hardly consistent, yet
the terms applied by him to the lot of the wicked, seem to imply their final
extinction. God delays the destruction of the world, he says, "by which wicked
angels, and demons, and men shall cease to exist." - Second Apol. ch. vii.
"Some which have appeared worthy of God never die, others are punished so long
as God wills them to exist." - Dial. ch. v. "Souls both die, and are punished."
- ib. "The soul partakes of life since God wills it to live. Thus, then, it
will not even partake of life, when God does not will it to live." - ib. ch.
vi, A fragment (Ex Leont. Adv. Eut. ii.) seems to take the same view. IRENAEUS
also, I believe, teaches annihilation: it is true that he ascribes a natural
immortality to the human soul and spirit. - Adv. her. lib. v. ch. 4, 7, 13, -
perhaps as surviving the body. For elsewhere he argues in a way that involves
the final annihilation of the evil: e.g., souls and spirits endure "as long as
God wills," he who rejects life "deprives himself of continuance for ever." -
ib. lib. ii. ch. 34. See also the argument - Jib. iii. ch. 19, ad fin.: Jib. v.
ch. 2 ad fin.: and lb. cli. 27.
Further proof of the existence in very early times of a belief in
conditional immortality is afforded by ORIGEN's words, which are given by
EPIPHANIUS - Har. lxiv. so. To the early writers who teach the final extinction
of the wicked should be added HERMOGENES. - Neander, Eccles. Hist. ii. p. 350.
I may point out that THEODORET (referred to by NEANDER) adds that HERMOGENES
taught the final extinction of all evil spirits. - Haer. fab. com. i. 19. And I
believe THEOPHILUS of Antioch, s68 A.D., to have maintained the final
extinction of the wicked. - Ad. Autol. ii. ch. 26-7. The CLEMENTINE homilies,
though inconsistent, teach in one or two passages the annihilation of the
wicked, e.g., - Hom. iii. 6. ARNOBIUS, 303 A.D., is the latest writer whom I
can name as holding similar opinions. He speaks at length on this subject .-A
dv. gent. Jib. ii. 14, 19, 31-6, &c. The soul is, according to him, of
intermediate quality, i.e., not naturally immortal, yet capable of immortality
by God's grace, cut off from which it perishes absolutely. This phase of
opinion, though short-lived, and confined to but few writers, is of interest,
because appearing at such an early date: and because it affords fresh and
distinct evidence of the very slender claims, which the dogma of endless evil
has to being the genuine representative of primitive teaching. The annihilation
of the wicked was, it may be noted, the teaching of certain Jewish Rabbis, in
our Lord's day and later. If dogmatic considerations were not so certain to
warp the judgment, I believe no doubt would be thrown on the existence of this
remarkable phase of early teaching.
I now turn to the task of adducing a portion, and it can only be a portion
(on account of my limited space), of the mass of evidence which exists, both
direct and indirect, in favor of primitive Universalism. Our first class of
proofs shall be drawn from the very remarkable doctrine of Christ's descent
into Hades. The number of texts formerly alleged in proof of this was very
large, e.g., from the Old Testament were quoted Is. ix. 2; xlv. 2, 3; xlix. 9,
25, Zech. ix. 11- 2; Ps. lxviii. 18; lxix. 33; cvii. s6. From the New
Testament, not only S. Peter's famous statement, I Pet. iii. 21, but S. Matt.
xii. 29; Phil. ii. 9, 10; Col. ii. 15; Eph. iv. 8, 9, were alleged. Very
striking is the contrast between the universal acceptance of this doctrine in
primitive days, and its universal disregards in our days. Very instructive,
too, is this contrast; for, doubtless, the explanation is, that the Gospel
preached to the dead, and still more to those who were in life disobedient to
direct preaching (and who died so) was felt instinctively to strike a blow
fatal to the traditional creed. To us this doctrine is thus of the highest
interest; the more so when we regard the widespread belief of antiquity in the
liberation from Hades of ALL SOULS by Christ. It is surely impossible to deny
that this involves Universalism as a necessary conclusion. For if all the dead,
without any exception, were delivered by the preaching of Jesus Christ; then,
as an eminent writer has tersely put the case, "it argues absolute fatuity to
suppose that those who lived after the Incarnation can be worse off than if
they had lived before it." I do not mean that this view was everywhere held,
nor do I mean that all the writers holding it were themselves Universalists. It
is enough for our argument to show that the doctrine so held does logically
involve Universalism.
A very early statement of this doctrine is that of the Gospel of NICODEMUS
(perhaps of the second century). "Of course, to us, this fiction speaks with an
authority no greater than that of the Pilgrim's Progress. But just as from
BUNYAN'S great allegory we might very safely infer what the puritan conception
of the Christian life was in the seventeenth century, so from this Gospel of
NICODEMUS, we may very safely infer what conception the Christians of the
second century formed of Christ's descent into Hades." - Salv. Mundi.
* For although adopted by nearly all
commentators, it has never passed into the current theology of the day. + Both
Jews and early Christians seem to have taught that the spirits of the departed
were in one common abode (Sheol - Hades - apud inferos), though with separate
regions for the just and unjust. TERT, De anima lv.; ORIGEN. Hom. ii. in lib.
reg.; &c.
The story is told dramatically. A great voice echoes through Hades, crying,
"Lift up your heads, you gates, and the King of glory shall come in."
Immediately the brazen gates are shattered, and all those bound come out; and
Hades (personified) exclaims, "Not one of the dead has been left in me." Jesus
then turns to ADAM, extending His right hand and raising him. Then to the rest
He says, "Come all with me, as many as have died through the tree which he
(ADAM) touched, for behold I raise you all up through the tree of the Cross."
We may note also that the antient (so-called) Acts of the Apostle THOMAS
addressed Christ as the "Savior of every creature * * You Who went down even to
Hades. And did bring out thence those shut in for many ages." A statement,
perhaps even earlier, of the same fact is given by EUSEBIUS, as found by him at
Edessa, in the archives, to the effect that Christ had descended into Hades and
brought up the dead. ORIGEN, on Ps. lxviii. 18, says, that Christ drew up and
set free from the recesses of Hades, the souls that were held in captivity. I
quote next from an interesting homily, probably by EUSEBIUS of Alexandria, 289
A.D. He supposes that JOHN the Baptist announced in Hades the descent of
Christ. - Hom. xiii.
* See also ch. vi. vii., Latin version (and
a contradictory passage ch. ix. 2nd Latin vers). ed. Edin., 1870. ± This
opinion is almost peculiar to Greek Fathers. Some writers teach that the
Apostles also preached in Hades, e.g., CLEMENT- Strom. ii. p. 379; and vi. p.
637. Ccl. 1688: HERMAS, iii. ix. 156. Some say that the BLESSED VIRGIN did the
same. Some even say that SYMEON went before Christ to Hades. - PHOTIUS - fide
LEO. All. An old writer in EPIPHANIUS's works asserts the same of the
archangels GABRIEL and MICHAEL. - In sep. Christi. - this curious homily is
worth perusal.
Another homily says "Christ will descend that in order that all, both on
earth and in heaven and in Hades, may obtain salvation from Him." - Hom. xii.
EUSEBIUS of Caesarea, 315 A.D., writes as follows: "Christ, caring for the
salvation of ail * * and bursting the eternal gates, opened a way of return to
life for the dead bound in chains of death." - Dem. evan. iv. 12. To S.
ATHANASIUS is ascribed a treatise (certainly very antient) - De pass. et cruce
Darn. It says, "While the devil thought to kill one he is deprived of a11 *
cast out of Hades, and sitting by the gates, sees all the fettered beings led
forth by the courage of the SAVIOR." In a treatise, certainly genuine, this
Father tells how Christ broke the bonds of the souls detained in Hades. - De
Inc. Christi.
I quote next an antient homily - perhaps by BASIL of Seleucia. "That which
happened to the visible tomb (of Christ - i.e., its being emptied on His
rising), the same happened to Hades the invisible." - In sanc. Pascha. (apud
ATHANAS. ed. Ca?. s686) I take next S. HILARY, 354 A.D., who says, "Christ
ascending on high * * took (captured) those who had been captured by the
devil." - In Ps. lxviii. 18. M. F. VICTORINUS, 360 A.D., says, "The Savior
descends into Hades by that Passion of the Cross in order that He may set free.
every soul." - In Eph. ch. iv. In a translation, or paraphrase, of DIDYMUS, 370
A.D. - De Spir. .Sanc., by S. AMBROSE, are these words: "In the liberation of
all no one remains a captive; at the time of the Lord's Passion he alone (the
devil) was injured, who lost all the captives he was keeping." S. BASIL, 370
A.D., seems to teach this universal liberation, for he says the true Shepherd
brought out of the prison of Hades, and handed over to the holy angels, the
sheep for whom He died. - In Ps. xlix. 14 But Christ died for all. S. EPHREM
(Syrus), as will be seen in the note on him in this chapter, teaches the
liberation of all from Hades. From S. GREGORY of Nazianzus, 385 A.D., I take
the following: "Until Christ loosed by His blood all who groan under Tartarean
chains." - Carm. xxxv, v. 9, ed. Lyons, 1840. In this Father's works a
remarkable poem is usually printed, entitled CHRISTUS PATIENS; it is of
antient, but uncertain, authorship. Speaking of Christ's descent, it says: All
of whom (i.e., the dead) You shall bring forth as Your spoils from Hades." - v.
1391-2. So again: "I believe You wilt bring forth from Hades as many mortals as
it has imprisoned." - ib. V. 1934-5 From S. AMBROSE 375 A.D., I take the
following: "The Lord descends to the infernal world, in order that even those,
who were in the infernal abodes, should be set free from their perpetual
bonds." - Enar. in Ps. xliv. Here note that perpetual bonds are really
temporary. Elsewhere S. AMBROSE says, Christ, when amongst the dead, "gave
pardon to those in the infernal abodes, destroying the law of death." - De
Incarn. ch. v.
Quite as emphatic is the AMBROSIASTER in his teaching. "Christ descending to
the infernal abodes condemned death, taking from him those whom he was keeping.
"-In I Tim. ii. 6, 7. "Christ snatched from Hades all *** the devil, lost,
together with Christ, all whom he was keeping." - In Rom. iii. 2 2-4. My next
witness shall be an early treatise (wrongly ascribed to S. AMBROSE), which
says: "Christ went down to the depths of hell (Tartarus) and recalled (the)
souls, bound by sin, to life, out of the devil's jaws." The context seems to
imply the rescue of all sinners. - De myst. Pasch. Next I take the words of an
old writer (MAXIMUS of Turin?) whose sermons are bound in S. AMBROSE'S works. -
Ed. Paris, 1569. He says: "hell (Tartarus) yields up those it contains to the
upper world: the earth sends to heaven those whom it buries." - Serm. iii. S.
JEROME, 378 A.D., bears clear testimony to the same effect: "Our Lord descends
* * and was shut up in (the) eternal bars, in order that He might set free all
who had been shut up." - In Jon. ii. 6. "In the blood of Your Passion You did
set free those who were being kept bound in the prison of hell (inferni)." - In
Zech. ix. ii. We may note that, in the context, S. JEROME asserts that DIVES
was kept in this prison; the inference being, that in his opinion, the "great
gulf" may be crossed by Christ. Indeed, the words that I next give, seem to say
so quite plainly. "The Lord descended to the place of punishment and torment,
in which was the rich man, in order to liberate the prisoners." - In Is. xlv.
7. This liberation of all (as it seems) is taught in an old document, perhaps
by CAESURAS of Aries, printed in S. JEROME'S works. - Ed. Paris, 1623. "The
eternal night of hell (infernorum) is illuminated as Christ descends * * the
bonds of the damned, torn asunder, fell away every cry of the groaning is still
* * The captive souls loosed from bonds go forth from hell (Tartarus), and the
Apostle's words come true, i.e., in Jesus' name every knee bends of things in
heaven, and earth, and under the earth." - De Res. Born. Here note that the
eternal night is only temporary, - the whole is worth reading as a specimen of
early teaching. An old homily in EPIPHANIUS' works (Paris, 1622,) says,
"Christ, like a swift-winged hawk, snatched away all that He bad from the
beginning, from the devil and left him deserted." - In Assump. Christi. Another
homily affirms that "Christ arose, and the prison of Hades was emptied." - In
Res. Christi. I take next the testimony of S. CHRYSOSTOM, 398 A.D. (from whom
further evidence will be quoted in the next chapter). He writes: "While the
devil imagined that he had got hold of Christ (in Hades), he lost all in fact
whom he was keeping." - In Col. ii. In this Father's works are usually included
some homilies of antient, but uncertain, authorship. Anonymous writings of this
sort, of which I have already quoted a few, afford excellent proof of the
beliefs t hen current among Christians. "The wood of the Cross recalls from
Hades those who went down thither." - In sacr. Pascha. "I see the earth
trembling * * (the) dead preparing their escape ** Jesus Christ receives all."
- In sanc. et magn. Par. Another homily teaches that Christ puts forward
(pretends) fear to draw on the devil, so that, attacking Him as man, he should
be routed, and all be set free who were held captive by him. - De sanc. Trin.
This whole description is highly characteristic and suggestive. A passage
perhaps even more striking is the following: "The fire of hell (Gehenna) is
extinguished, the sleepless worm (evidently the 'worm that dies not') dies
those who were in Hades. are set free from the bonds of the Devil" - In trid.
Res. Another witness is S. ASTERIUS, Bishop of Amasea, 401 A.D., who writes:
"Death swallowed up life, and becoming sick, vomited forth even those it had
previously swallowed." - Hom. xix. Few Fathers have taught the deliverance of
all from Hades more clearly, (see esp ecially his Paschal homilies,) than CYRIL
of Alexandria, 412 A.D. He describes Christ as having spoiled Hades, and "left
the devil there solitary and deserted." - Hom. Pasch. vii. And again, "Christ,
wandering down even to Hades, has emptied the dark, hidden, unseen
treasuries."- Glaphy in Gen. lib ii. I understand MAXIMUS of Turin, 422 A.D.,
to teach the same. "Christ," he says, "carried off to heaven man (mankind)
whose cause He undertook, snatched from the jaws of Hades." - In Pent. Horn.
ii. From THEODORET, 430 A.D., I take the following: Christ says to the devil,
"I mean to open the prison of death for the rest, but will shut up you only You
were justly despoiled of all your subjects." - De prov. Or. x. My next
quotations are from S. PETER CHRYSOLOGUS, 433 A.D.: "The rule of hell perishes
* and all obtain pardon (?)" (constat de venia jam totum). - Ser. lxxiv.
PROCLUS, 434, A.D., Bishop of Constantinople, says: "Today Christ emptied the
entire treasury of death." - In Dom. Pass. Or. xi. "All the dea d, wondering at
His Passion, cry for joy, 'we are healed by His stripes.' "-In Dom. Res. Or.
xii.
My readers can now judge of the significance rightly attaching to such a
catena of authorities, (which I might increase,) comprising as it does almost
all the greatest names in the first four or five centuries. Fresh evidence
might very easily be given down to the tenth or eleventh century, did space
permit. I am wholly unable to perceive any reasonable grounds on which the
argument can be met, which regards Universalism as the logical outcome of such
teaching. If Christ delivered from Hades EVERY SOUL OF ADAM'S RACE up to the
time of His Incarnation; if, e.g., every murderer, if every blasphemer and
adulterer, though dying unrepentant, were at last evangelized and saved by
Christ, then on what grounds can it be fairly or reasonably asserted that less
mercy will be extended to that half of our race, who differ in this, that by no
fault of their own they were born after the Incarnation? Is salvation - the
final salvation or damnation of millions of immortal spirits - a question of
chronology?
Those who are students of this subject may be asked to draw their own
inference from the significant silence in which writers, on the traditional
side, e.g., Dr. PUSEY, have left this branch of the question. I have already
noticed the very striking fact of the disappearance, practically, in modern
days, of this truly primitive and scriptural doctrine; and will now sum up, in
the following beautiful lines of WHITTIER:
"Still Your Love, 0 Christ arisen,
Yearns to reach those souls in prison:
Through all depths of sin and loss,
Props the plummet of Your Cross;
Never yet abyss was found
Deeper than that Cross could sound."
Before dealing with the more direct evidence for early Universalism, I may
as well here notice a significant element in many Father's writings, i.e.,
their attitude towards the question of evil. Pressed by the Manichean
controversy, the Fathers were forced to consider this question. Their answers
to the difficulty are often very significant; they frequently prove their
point, either by asserting that all evil shall one day cease, or else that evil
is nothing. Even AUGUSTINE is forced to make admissions, which seem to involve
the final disappearance of evil. It is a strange sight to see the great
dialectician caught in the toils he has himself set. Any struggle seems to me
vain against the inevitable conclusion from his own premises, i.e., the final
extinction of evil. Evil, he maintains, tends to what is less, and what is less
tends to absolute nonexistence. His arguments may be seen, - Cont. Sec. ii.
xv., and in the context; and In De Mor. Manich. ii. 2, &c. AUGUSTINE no
doubt denies the extinction of evil. My point is that his denial seems vain on
his own theory. So in the dispute between ARCHELAUS and MANES, 275 A.D., which,
if not genuine, is antient, it is said on the catholic side, "that death, has
an end, as it had a beginning." - Ch. xxix. So an old commentator (in. S.
JOROME'S works), on .Rom. viii. 20, says: "Vanity is that which at some time
comes to an end." And so S. AMBROSE says: "For whatever is of the devil is
nothing, which cannot have any perpetuity nor substance." - De Jacob. ii. 5. S.
GREGORY of Nyssa, also often asserts the non-perpetuity of evil. From SERAPION,
the friend of ATHANASIUS, I shall quote a passage to the same effect a few
pages further on. TITUS of Bostra, quoted in this chapter, teaches the same.
The passages just given seem conclusive against any creed which teaches the
permanence of evil. I have ventured to call the traditional creed a dualism
thinly disguised. Thoughtful readers will note its marked affinity with tile
Manichean heresy, in so far as both agree in the essent ial fact of teaching
the perpetuity of evil.
To the arguments just stated, which are indirect, but, as it seems to me,
significant, may be added, as an indication of primitive teaching, the
undoubted fact - that in the very earliest representations of Christian
thought, in the Catacombs, everything is bright and joyous. Terrorism is
conspicuously absent. No figures appear indicating pain, or anxiety; not even
the Cross. Flowers, winged genii, and the play of children; such are the
prevailing ornaments.
I will now take the more direct testimony in favor of Universalism, which
abounds in the writings of the Fathers. The earliest of all Christian authors,
CLEMENS (Romanus) has left us an Epistle about as long as S. MARK'S Gospel. It
is significant that though he devotes three chapters to the Resurrection, not a
line can be quoted from him in favor of the traditional creed. This, though
important, is negative evidence only, but there is a passage in RUFINUS - Inv.
in Hier., lib. i., prop. fin. - from which we may, I think, infer, that
CLEMENT, with other Fathers, was a believer in the larger hope. We have already
noted that the antient Didache ton Apostolon is silent as to any endless
punishment. Again, if we turn to the striking epistle to DIOGNETtJS, which
probably dates from about the middle of the second century, we shall find the
author describing God as One Who always was, is, and will be, "wrathless," -
ch. viii.; he describes the "eternal" (aeonian) fire as chastising not "without
an end," but "up to a n end." (Mechri telous) - ch. x.
For many years after the apostolic days we possess but scanty records of
Christian thought, yet we are able to supply the blank indirectly. PAMPHILUS,
the martyr, 294 A.D., wrote, in conjunction with EUSEBIUS, an Apology for
ORIGEN, which has almost wholly perished; but we possess very valuable
information as to its contents. Two early writers, anonymous, it is true, but
whose testimony there seems no reason to doubt, agree in stating that this
Apology contained VERY MANY TESTIMONIES of Fathers earlier than ORIGEN, in
favor of restitution (and preexistence). - ROUTH, Rel. sac. iii. p. 498. Now,
as ORIGEN was born about ninety years after S. JOHN'S death, these very
numerous testimonies would carry back these doctrines very close, or altogether
up to, the apostolic age. Nor is this all: DOMITIANUS,. Bishop of Ancyra, whose
words are quoted farther on, writing in the sixth century, is very positive
indeed. He seems to assert the universality of such teaching before and after
ORIGEN'S days: a very significant statement. To-this evidence must be added
that of the passage respecting CLEMENT just referred to. Indeed, when the great
scantiness of early records, during the three first quarters of the second
century, is considered, it is cause for deep thankfulness that we possess such
strong evidence, as that just quoted, of the extreme antiquity of the doctrine
of Universalism.
We may be said to emerge into the full daylight of Christian history, with
the famous CLEMENT of Alexandria, 190 LD., head of the catechetical school
there, and who perhaps my be called the founder of a Christian philosophy. Of
'the great school of Alexandria I shall not attempt to speak at length, but we
should note (a) how early it was founded, (b) how widespread was its influence
in leavening Christian thought; existing as it did without a rival practically
for 150 years; and (c) how that influence was exercised in favor of the
doctrine of restoration. As to CLEMENT, I may say that his nearness to the
apostolic age (he speaks of having learned from a disciple of the Apostles -
Strom. lib. ii.) his wide and various learning, and his sympathetic spirit
combine to give special weight to his teaching. Few, if any, of the Fathers,
appeal so little to terrorism, or so uniformly dwell on God's mercy, even in
His punishments, as does CLEMENT. "It '5 manifest, " says the learned DALLAEUS,
"that CLEMENT thought all the punishments God inflicts upon men are salutary,
and executed only for reformation." - De usu Pat. So CLEMENT'S best editor,
POTTER; so GUERICKE - De schol. Alex. I proceed to quote:
"All men are Christ's, some by knowing Him,
the rest not yet." "He is the Savior, not of some (only) and of the rest not"
(i.e., He is actually Savior of all) "for how is He Lord and Savior if He is
not Lord and Savior of all ?" But He is indeed Savior of those who believe * *
while of those who do not believe He is Lord, until having become able to
confess Him, they obtain through Him the benefit appropriate and suitable (to
their case) He by the Father's will directs the salvation of all For all things
have been ordered, both universally and in part, by the Lord of the universe;
with a view to the salvation of the universe. ** But needful correction, by the
goodness of the great overseeing Judge, through (by means of) the attendant
angels, through various prior judgments, through the final (pantelous)
judgment, compels even those who have become still more callous to repent. -
Strom. lib. vii. pp. 702-6, Cologne, 1688. These words seem to teach that all
(even those who are callous) are finally restored (a) by correction, (b) or by
angelic ministries, (c) by previous judgments, (d) by the final judgment. Thus
he says that the evil, by chastisements far harder, shall be moved, though
unwilling, to repentance. "The universe has become ceaseless light
The Sun of righteousness who traverses the universe, pervades all humanity
alike. Giving us the inalienable inheritance of the Father *** Writing His laws
on our hearts. What laws are those He thus writes? That all shall know God from
small to great. It is always the purpose of God to save the human flock
(humanity)." - Adm. ad gent. p. 71. CLEMENT'S teaching as to the design of
penalty, is conceived in the spirit of the larger hope. God's "blame is censure
concealed in an artful mode of help, ministering salvation under a veil." -
Paed. lib. 1. ch. ix. p. 123. And again: "David very plainly states the
motives. of God's threats (by saying). 'when He slew them they sought Him and
turned to Him.' "-Th. p. 126. Commenting on Deut. xxxii. 23-5, where God uses
very bitter threats of destruction, CLEMENT says: "The divine nature is not
angry, but is at the very farthest from being so, for it is an excellent
artifice to affright, in order that we may not sin." - ib. ch. viii. p.116. The
drift of CLEMENT'S teaching may be thus stated. God is training the universe
with a resolve to save all. If men are disobedient to the message of salvation,
then by discipline and by punishments, He sooner or later brings all to
repentance. He says, "So Christ saves all men. Some He converts by penalties,
others who follow Him of their own will * * that every knee may be bent. to
Him, of those in heaven, on earth, and under the earth, i.e., angels, men, and
souls, who, before His coming. passed away from. this mortal life. " - In 1 S.
John. Before passing on I may point out. that CLEMENT, like many of the
Fathers, seems to regard death (not of the righteous merely), but death in
itself, as a provision designed in mercy for healing sin. He asserts that "when
any one falls. into incurable evil * * it will be for his good if lie is put to
death." - Strom. i. p. 353. Of Sodom, CLEMENT writes: "The just vengeance on
the Sodomites became an image of the salvation which is well calculated
for men." - Paed. iii. ch. viii.
There is much that is interesting in a writer earlier than CLEMENT,
ATHENAGORAS, 177 A.D.
He nowhere alludes to endless penalty,
though he speaks of future judgment His conception of the Resurrection seems to
be that it. is the crown and completion of man's rational nature. "If this
takes place (the Resurrection) an end befitting the nature of main follows
also." - ch. xxv. He speaks of the future body as not liable to suffering, -
ch. x., and of the Resurrection as a change for the better (apparently in every
case) ch. xii. ATHENAGORAS, though little known, writes with a grace and vigor
too often wanting in. more famous names.
Further evidence of early teaching is afforded by a fragment - assigned to
IRENAEUS by PFAFF, its discoverer, but certainly very antient. "Christ will
come at the end of the times in order to annul everything evil, and to
reconcile again all things, that there may be an end of all impurities." Frag.
iv. These words fairly express the larger hope.
Further proof of the prevalence of Universalist views at a very early date
in the Church may be drawn from the so-called SIBYLLINE books, which were
composed (except a certain portion, which is pre-Christian), at various dates,
and by various authors, in the second and following centuries. These books
furnish us with most valuable evidence as to the beliefs current in those days.
It will be seen how sharp is the contrast between them and our modern notions.
In one of them a very striking picture is drawn of the end of the world. All
things, even Hades, are to be melted down in the divine fire in order to be
purified. All, just and unjust, pass through unquenchable fire. The unjust are
further committed to hell (Gehenna); they are bound in fetters not to be
broken; they pray vainly to God; yet these men- apparently all the lost -are
finally to be saved at the request of the righteous. They are to be "removed
elsewhere to a life eternal for immortals." - Lib. ii., TV. 195-340. Another
passage - Lib. viii. 412, seems to teach an universal purification. These
verses belong perhaps to the second century; so far from exhibiting any
sentimentality, the picture drawn of the end of the world is awful :-even
infants at the breast wail in the unquenchable fire; how significant then is it
to find mercy finally triumphing. "The Sibyl asserts that the pains even of the
damned are to be terminated." FABRIC., Bibl. grec. i. p. 203. (So, too, say
OPSOPCEUS MUSARDUS, GALLAEUS, &c.) In passing, too, we may at any rate
note that the APOCALYPSE OF MOSES (in part, probably very antient,) represents
God as saying to Satan: "There shall not be granted to you ear, or wing, or one
limb of all which those have whom you have enticed by your wickedness." Even if
the primary reference be to Adam and Eve, still the drift and spirit of these
words is quite in harmony with the larger hope.
I give next a few quotations from the famous ORIGEN, 234 A.D., born at
Alexandria, and when only eighteen called to preside over its school of
theology.
Writing on 1 Cor. xv. 28, he says: "When the
Son is said to be subject to the Father, the perfect restoration of the whole
creation is signified." - De prin. iii. ch. v. 7. And again, speaking of the
end, "God will be all * * seeing evil nowhere exists, for God is all things."
"When death shall no longer exist, or the sting of death, nor any evil at all,
then, verily, God will be All in All.- lb. iii. ch. vi. 3.
"All things shall be reestablished in a state of unity all rational souls
restored." - ib. vi. 6. "We assert that the Word will subdue to Himself all
rational natures, and will change them into His own perfection." - Cont. Cels.
viii. 72. Such was the teaching that at first leavened all Christendom: the
fearless assertion of a restoration embracing not all men merely, but all
fallen spirits. Such was the teaching of one who stands perhaps foremost, since
the Apostle's day, in the union in one person, of genius, learning, industry,
holiness, "whose life was one continuous prayer." "Everyone with hardly an
exception adhered to ORIGEN." - HUET, Orig. p. 197. "Provided one had ORIGEN on
his side, he believed himself certain to have the truth." - DOUCIN, Hist. de
l'Origenisme. Three points may be briefly noted, (a) the wide diffusion at this
early date of the larger hope; (b) the stress ORIGEN frequently lays on the
guilt of sin, and the need of retribution ; (c) his use of aionios to express a
limited punishment.
Another antient Universalist, as I think we may conclude, is S. GREGORY
(Thaumaturgus), 254 A.D. Born of heathen parents, he was converted by ORIGEN,
whose friend and pupil he became.
As Bishop of Caesarea, he was distinguished
for orthodoxy and numerous (alleged) miracles. He there converted nearly the
whole population to Christianity. Bound as he was to ORIGEN by the closest
possible ties, he would naturally, in turn, teach the larger hope; and thus,
from so important a center as Caesarea, a vast district would in turn be
leavened. That S. GREGORY did, in fact, so teach, we can infer from a passage
in RUFINUS, Invec. in Hier. Lib. i. prope fin.. Of his writings hardly anything
has survived.
I have next to cite some extracts from METHODIUS, A.D. 293, Bishop of Tyre,
and a martyr (probably). Extracts of his work on the Resurrection have been
preserved in EPIPHANIUS, and PHOTIUS.
His teachings seem logically to involve
Universalism. Thus he asserts that death was given for the destruction of sin
in man: "God for this cause pronounced him mortal and clothed him with
mortality, that man might not be an undying evil (i.e., that evil in man might
not be endless) * * in order that, by the dissolution of the body, sin might be
destroyed root and branch from beneath, that there might not be left even the
smallest particle of root, from which new shoots of sins might break forth." He
goes on to employ the illustration of a fig tree growing in the walls of a
splendid temple, to preserve which the fig tree is torn away by the root and
dies. "In the same way also, God, the Builder, dissolved, slaying by the
seasonable application of death, man His own temple, when (man) had fostered
sin like a wild fig tree * * * in order that the flesh, after sin is withered
and dead, may, like a restored temple, be raised up immortal, while sin is
utterly destroyed from its foundations."- Apud. EPIPH, Haer. lxiv. 24-5. He
adds that if the Artist wishes that, that on which he has bestowed so much
pains, shall be quite free from injury, it must be broken up and recast, in
order that all disfigurements * * * may disappear while the image is restored
again. "For it is impossible for an image under the hands of ( Kata) the
original artist to be lost, even if it be melted down again."- ib. 27. He says
that, what the melting down is to a statue, that is death to man, and the
recasting in full beauty is man's resurrection. It is possible no doubt to
minimize and explain away all this, but such teaching as that quoted seems
clearly to imply in its natural meaning, that God's image cannot be lost, and
that death and resurrection (the common lot) involve the cure of sin. To the
African school death is simply a penalty. To the great Eastern theologians.
death is in fact a mode of cure - a striking difference. I may add that
METHODIUS says in one passage, "Death is good, if it be found like stripes to
children for correction;" not the death of sin (sinners?) - ib. 22. He adds
that, God sent death in order that all sin in man might perish.- ib. PHOTIUS
asserts, that METHODIUS maintains, that even the power of thinking evil
thoughts is eradicated by the presence of natural death. - Cod. ccxxiv. "Man,
after having been formed for God's worship * * cannot return to discord and
corruption." - Frag. i. from a Hom. on the Cross. "It is incredible that we,
who are the images of God, should be altogether destroyed as being without
honor." - .Frag. on Jonah. Christ was sacrificed and rose again, in order that
He might "be by all created things equally adored, for to Him 'every knee shall
bow, of things,'" &c.- Or. on the Palms. - This treatise is in one
manuscript assigned to S. CHRYSOSTOM.
We may now be said to have entered on the second of those periods into which
our inquiry is divided. The years stretching away from the present date to 430
or 440 A.D., are crowded more than any other with names illustrious in the
annals of the Church. And it is noteworthy that precisely in this period
Universalism finds some of its ablest, and most outspoken advocates, as we
shall see in the Course of these pages.
EUSEBIUS of Caesarea, 312 A.D., was a notorious Origenist. "He in the most
evident manner acquiesced in ORIGEN'S tenets," (except on the Trinity) says S.
JEROME. - Adv. Ruf lib. ii.
Commenting on Ps. ii., he says: "The Son's
'breaking in pieces' His enemies is for the sake of remolding them, as a potter
his own work; as Jer. xviii. 6, says: i.e., to restore them once more to their
former state." "Even the impious, when the day of the Lord arrives * * shall
cast forth and fling away every false opinion of their mind with regard to
idols. "- In .Ts. ii. 22. - words that are certainly suggestive when speaking
of the universal judgment, as here. "Christ will therefore subject to Himself
everything (the universe), and this saving subjection it is right to regard as
similar to that, according to which the Son Himself shall be subjected unto
Him, Who subjected to Himself all things * * But after the close of everything,
He will not dwell in a few, but in all those who are then worthy of the kingdom
of heaven. So then shall come to pass (God's being) all in all, when He
inhabits as His people all (absolutely, tous pantas). - De eccles. theol. iii.
16.
EUSEBIUS has preserved some fragments of the writings of MARCELLUS of
Ancyra, 315 A.D. I may quote one:
"For what else do the words mean, 'Until the
times of restitution' (Acts iii. 21) but that the Apostle designed to point out
that time, in which all things partake of that perfect restoration." - Cont.
Mar. ii. 4.
I take next a brief passage from SERAPION (ATHANASIUS' friend), 346 A.D..
His words seems certainly to involve the final extinction of evil. In his view,
evil, as consisting in choice merely, has no real existence, and easily passes
away, leaving no trace behind. "It is of itself nothing, nor can it of itself
exist or exist always; but is in process of vanishing, and by vanishing proved
to be unable to exist." - Adv. Mats. cli. iv.
I do not design to discuss S. ATHANASIUS' teaching at any length. It has
never been my intention to deny the existence of a school of thought adverse to
Universalism, in early times. But I do not feel certain, by any means, that
ATHANASIUS belonged to this school.
(a) There is undoubted evidence seeming to
paint the other way, e.g., the learned and candid BINGHAM shows that he teaches
the possibility of repentance, and pardon, for even the sin against the Holy
Ghost. (b) Of ORIGEN he speaks, more than once, with respect and even
admiration. (c) In his treatises, De Incarn. VD., and In illud, Om. mihi trad.,
there is much teaching as to Christ's work, &o., which seems in perfect
harmony with the larger hope. (d) His teaching as to the Descent into Hades is
significant. He says, that the whole population of the world, which existed in
the first ages, and was detained by death, bend the knee as being freed from
it. "For He spoke to those in bonds, 'Come forth' * * But that they who were
formerly disobedient and resisted God were set free, that Peter showed." - (l
Peter iii. 18.) - Fragm. in verb. Laud. Dom. dracones. "Christ captured over
again the souls captured by the devil, for that He promised in saying, 'I, if I
be lifted up, will draw all men unto Me.' "-In Ps. lxv iii. 18. (e) Let us note
the following: "'But when all things have been subjected unto Him, then shall
the Son also Himself be subject, that God may be All in All:' now this is so,
when, as he (PAUL) says, we all are made subject to the Son, and are found
members of Him." This seems to teach an universal subjection to Christ - a
subjection of obedience. - De hum. nat. suscepta. Again, elsewhere, after
remarking that all things are not yet subject to Christ, for that He is to the
Jews a scandal , and to the Gentiles folly, He proceeds, "when, then, the whole
creation shall meet the Son in the clouds, and shall be subject to Him, then,
too, shall the Son Himself be subject to the Father, as being a faithful
Apostle, and High Priest of all creation, that God may be All in All " - Serm.
maj. de fide. (f) Lastly, I may notice a remarkable comment on Ps. ix. 5. 'You
have rebuked the nations, You have destroyed the wicked, &e. '- the devil
is meant since rebuke (Epitimesis) signifirs emendation these words may also be
understood of the Last Judgment, for then sinners (ton hamartalon - all
sinners) being rebuked, the devil who is rightly the wicked one is destroyed."-
Frag, in Ps. ix.
We now turn to S. HILARY, 354 AD., Bishop of Poictiers, one of the most
distinguished champions of orthodoxy. His leaning to ORIGEN is evident, of whom
he translated, says JEROME, nearly 40,000 lines. - Adv. Ruf i.
Of S. Luc. xv. 4, he says, "This one sheep
is man, and by one man the entire race is to be understood * * the ninety and
nine are the heavenly angels * * and by us (mankind) who are all one, the
number of the heavenly church is to be filled up. And therefore it is that
every creature awaits the revelation of the sons of God."- In S. Matt. xviii.
This extract, in its obvious sense, teaches Universalism. The whole human race,
who are one, are the one lost sheep, which is destined to be found by the Good
Shepherd. Again, S. HILARY has a long and interesting comment on Pg. ii. 8-9,
pervaded by the spirit of the larger hope. In giving to Christ the ends of the
earth as His possession is meant, he says, a dominion, absolutely universal,
one to be summed up in S. PAUL'S words, which teach: "That every knee of things
in heaven, and earth, and under the earth, are to bend in Jesus' name." And as
to the nature of this supremacy over all, S. HILARY proceeds to say that by
Christ's "ruling the nations with a rod of iron" is indeed meant the care of
the Good Shepherd; and by "breaking them in pieces like a potter's vessel is
really signified the vessel's restoration. "In this way God will bruise and
break the nations of His inheritance, so as to reform them." And the breaking
of the vessel, he says, takes place "when the body, being dissolved by death,
and thus broken up, the restoration shall be effected by the artificer's will."
This surely is the same' process as that in Rev. xix. 15, where Christ smites
the nations and rules them with His rod of iron, "treading the winepress of the
fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God." But if all this means salvation, do
we not arrive at the larger hope? By God's slaying sinners, he says that their
conversion is meant. " 'Wilt You not slay the sinner,' can He Who came to save
that which was lost, and to redeem the sinner, (really) pray that the sinner
may be slain ? Far be it from Him to desire that he should be slain. But the
sinner is slain when he dies to the world * * In this way is the sinner slain,
when the birth of spiritual life is renewed, by the death of all vices and
sins." - Its l's. cxxxix. 19. This Father is not easy of quotation, being often
diffuse, involved, and at times inconsistent; (this latter a fact in perfect
harmony with his explicit advocacy of dissimulation), yet his writings convey
to me a distinct impression' of an inner belief in the larger hope ; as, e.g.,
when writing on Ps cxix. 159, he says that the Psalmist knows a life of immortal
glory to have been promised to him by the fact of his being formed in Gods
image - "an arrangement of unalterable truth," he adds, (and true of every
man.) Or again, take the following comment on Christ's words: "'As You have
given Him power over all flesh in, order that He should give eternal life to
all that You have given Him,' * so the Father gave all things and the Son
accepted all things and honored by the Father, was (in turn) to honor the
Father, and to employ the power received in giving eternal life to all flesh
now this is life eternal that they may know You," &c. - De Trin. lib. ix.,
p. 206-7, Paris, 1652. "When the poor in spirit shall have been set in the
heavenly kingdom, then every creature, together groaning and mourning, is to be
set free from the bondage of corruption." - In Ps. lxix. 32-3 "Even the abode
of hell " - inferni - is to praise God, he says. - ib. v. 34.
Our next witness shall be F. M. VICT0RINUS, 360 A.D, a distinguished
rhetorician at Rome (where he was converted to Christianity). Though of African
birth, this writer's sympathies are wholly with the Neo-Platonic school and its
liberal theology. Such a system whose essence is the outflow of all rational
beings from God, and their return to God through Christ, Who is the Universal
Word and Savior, (and Who is also the final center of unity to all creation,)
leads without doubt to the larger hope. VICTORINUS' rugged Latinity has
prevented due recognition of his merits as a thinker and theologian.
"And because Christ is the life, He is that
by 'Whom all things have been made, and for Whom (in quem into Whom) all things
have been made, for all things cleansed by Him return into eternal life." -
Adv. Ar. lib. iii. 3. "In assuming our flesh Christ assumed (the position of)
universal word (logos) of flesh * * and therefore succored all flesh; as is
said in Isaiah, 'All flesh shall see You the salvation of God ;' and in the
Psalms, 'To You shall all flesh come' * * for in Him were all things
universally - the universal soul and the universal flesh - and these were
lifted up on the Cross and cleansed by the life-giving God the Word, by (Him
Who is) universally (the Word) of the entire universe. For by Him all things
were made." - ib. VICTORINUS' periods are harsh and involved, but his meaning
seems clear. Christ is, he says, universally, i.e., to the entire universe at
once, and actually Creator, Word (logos), and Savior - actually the Savior; for
the whole train of thought, excludes any such idea as that of a merely
potential salvation. And so, he adds, "He is Jesus Christ. because He will save
all things unto life." - ib. iii. 8. "Christ fulfilled the mystery in order
that all life with the flesh (i.e., after the resurrection,) filled with
eternal light, should return free from all corruption into the heavens."- ib.
1. 57. "All things shall be rendered spiritual at the consummation of the
world." (1 Cor. xv. 28) - lb. i. 36. "At the consummation all things shall be
one." - ib. 37. "Therefore all things converted to Him, shall become one, i.e.,
spiritual * * through the Son all things shall be made one, for all things are
by Him ** for all things that exist are ONE, though they be different. For the
body of the entire universe is not like a mere heap, which becomes a body only
by the contact of its particles; but it is a body chiefly in that - its several
parts being closely and mutually bound together - it forms a continuous chain.
For the chain is this - God : Jesus Christ: the Spirit: the Intellect (noes):
the Soul: the Angelic host' and lastly, all subordinate bodily existences." -
ib. i. 25. To VICTORINUS, the universe is one organic whole: a living chain
clasped and bound together to the very throne of God. "The logos was made 'all
in all,' He begot all things and saved them." - ib. i. 26. Again commenting on
Eph i. iv., he says: "Thus the mystery was completed by the Savior in order
that, perfection having been completed throughout all things and in all things
by Christ all universally should be made one through Christ and in.
Christ.
VICTORINUS' system shows clearly, what I have elsewhere maintained (p. 54),
the natural connection between the dogma of Christ's Deity, and the larger
hope.
The next witness I shall call is TITUS, Bishop of Bostra. 364 A.D., in whose
writings we see the larger hope taught in Arabia by one whom his editor,
CAILLOU, describes as "the most learned among the learned bishops of his age,
and a most famous champion of the truth." S. JEROME reckons him as one of
those, in whom you are at a loss whether to admire most, their learning or
their knowledge of Holy Scripture. On TITUS' Origenism HUET - Origen ii. p.
199. From EUSEBIUS we learn that ORIGEN thrice visited Arabia, and taught
there, once certainly at Bostra. - Eccles. Hist. lib vi, 19, 33, 37.
I transcribe a striking passage, in which
TITUS is speaking of evil spirits. "The very pit itself is a place of torments
and of chastisement, but is not eternal It was made that it might be a medicine
and help to those who sin. Sacred are the stripes which are medicine to those
who have sinned. 'Therefore we do not complain of the pits (of hell) - abyssis
- but rather know that they are places of torment, and chastisement, being for
the correction (amendment of those who have sinned.' "- Adv. Man. lib. i. 32.
Such words are very significant, as seeming to teach the salvation of all evil
spirits. Again his view of death is significant, and quite inconsistent with
the doctrine of never-ending punishment, or of annihilation. He teaches that
death is universally, and from its very nature a blessing. Indeed, TITUS
maintains significantly that "if death were an evil, blame would rightly fall
on Him Who appointed it," (God) -lb. ii. 27. He goes on to say that it comes
"not as an injury to the just, nor as a vengeance to the unjust, for that which
is natural cannot be a vengeance, but as an example, or for the chastisement of
evils (otherwise) incurable." - ib. This, I believe, from the context, and his
whole tone, to be TITUS' meaning. Thus he teaches that "Death, which is
assigned by law to nature, is not evil in what way soever it come." * * to
those who are killed (in war) it brings an end of sin * * for as to the
unrighteous, death is an end unrighteousness, so also to the righteous * * it
is a beginning of their crown." - ib. ii. 12. "Death is not appointed by' God
to cause men hurt, but is appointed for the greatest benefit both to the
righteous and the unrighteous." - ib. ii. 16. He goes on to say that death if
inflicted on a great number is just the same natural event as in the case of
individuals, and even indicates more clearly the divine care: for it" by the
show of indignation," - te kata to phainomenon aganaktesei - (which the death
of many causes) " benefits, as explained, those who die, and converts the
living." - ib. Thus, as he remarks elsewhere, war is permitted by God to raise
a surmise, that it is for the punishment of sin, "while in fact it is to put an
end to sin. "-ib. 12. And thus he teaches that evil has a beginning and an
end." - ib. lib. i. 35. I need hardly pause to point out the significance of
all this.
I give next a few sentences of a little known author, MACARIUS MAGNES, who
flourished about this time.
Death was sent to our first parents "in
order that, by the dissolution of the body, even all the sin arising from the
bond (of body and spirit) should be totally destroyed." - .Not. et. frag.
xix.
Of S. EPHREM (Syrus), 370 A.D., it is enough to say that however strong his
language may be as to future penalty, yet he teaches very clearly the
liberation of all souls from Hades. "Christ burst open the most voracious belly
of Hades * seeing that Death trembled * and sent forth all whom from the first
man up to that time he had kept in bonds."- Serm. xviii. De sanc. Cruce. - Ed.
Caillou.
Another very great name there is whose testimony must be given here, S.
GREGORY of Nazianzus, 370 A.D., president of the second great Ecumenical
Council, "the most learned bishop in one of the most learned ages of the
Church." With S. GREGORY we come to the first of the very celebrated group of
teachers, who, in the fourth century, throw luster on the Cappadocian
school.
(a) Let us take a few examples of the way in
which S. GREGORY hints, to say the least, his belief in the final salvation of
all men. Speaking of the dead, he tells us that God brings them to life as
partakers either of fire, or of illuminating light. "But whether even all shall
hereafter partake of God, let it be elsewhere discussed." - Carm. i. v. 548.
This striking statement is concealed in the Latin version. -ed. Col. 1690. S.
GREGORY says elsewhere-" I know also a fire not cleansing but penal * * which,
more to be dreaded than all, is conjoined with the undying worm, which is not
quenched * * unless anyone pleases, even in this instance, to understand this
more humanely and worthily of Him Who punishes." - Orat. xl. "IC is manifest."
says PETAVIUS, "that in this place, GREGORY doubted about the pains of the
damned, whether they would be endless, or whether they are to be estimated
rather in accordance with the mercy of God, so as at some time to be brought to
an end." It is no less manifest that he, GREGORY, who was perhaps the foremost
man in all Christendom, evidently knew of no ecclesiastical objection to
teaching the widest hope: nay, there is strong reason to think that he himself
believed it. (b) He teaches that when Christ descended into Hades, He liberated
not some, but all the souls there in prison. This view, as already shown,
logically implies Universalism. "Until He loosed by His blood all who groan
under Tartarean chains."- Carm. xxxv. (ed. Lyons, 1840.) "Today salvation has
been brought to the universe to whatsoever' is visible and whatsoever is
invisible * * (today) the gates of Hades are thrown open."- Or. xlii. (c)
Again, it is significant that S. GREGORY speaks of death as a gain to man,
because it puts an end to sin, and of penalty as a mercy. "ADAM receives death
as a gain, and (thereby) the cutting off of sin; that evil should not be
immortal: and so the vengeance turns out a kindness, for thus I am of opinion
it is that God punishes." - Orat. xlii. "When you read in Scripture of God's
being angry or threatening a sword against the wicked * * understand this
rightly and not wrongly. * * How, then, are these metaphors used? Figuratively.
In what way? With a view to terrifying the minds of the simpler sort." Carm.
iamb. xxi. vv. 370-85. These words recall at once a striking passage of S.
GREGORY (of Nyssa), elsewhere quoted: God's judgment uses threats to the lazy
and vain, "but by those who are more intelligent, it (the judgment) is believed
to be a medicine, a cure from God." - Cat. orat. viii. I believe such teaching
to be most highly significant S. Basin, too, uses very similar words: "Fear
edifies the simpler ones," speaking of God's slaying sinners. - Quod Dens non
est curt. meal. (d) Again, S. GREGORY seems to treat the human race as made one
organic whole by Christ's death, "A few drops of blood renew the whole world,
and become for all men that, which rennet is for milk, uniting and drawing us
into one." - Or. xlii. Again: "Christ, stretching His sacred body to the ends
(of the earth, brought thence that which is mortal, and bound it into one man."
- (arm. ii. v. 167. Christ is man that He may be "like leaven for the entire
mass (of mankind), and having made that which was condemned (or 'damned '), one
with Himself, frees the whole from condemnation (damnation)."- Or. xxxvi. (e)
In a brief iambic poem, lie uses language recalling the Neo-Platonic view,
saying among other things that God is "en of all things." - Ad Deum. (f) Again,
having used language that seems to favor the ordinary view, S. GREGORY goes on
to say 'that everything (ta panta) shall be subdued to Christ, and they shall
be subdued by a full knowledge (epignosis) of Him, and by a remodeling * * Now
God will be All in All at the time of restitution. "- Or. xxxvi. (g) It is
certainly noteworthy again, that this Father speaks of the Novatians (who die
in heresy, and in a way not that of Christ), as follows "Perhaps there (in the
other world), they shall be baptized with the fire, the last and more
laborious, and more protracted baptism, which devours the substance like hay,
and consumes the lightness of all evil" - Or. xxxix. These words are abundantly
suggestive. On this "It is clear," says PETAVIUS, " that pains by no means
endless, though very long, are appointed for the lost * * and, those dying in
heresy." - De Ang. iii. 7, §13. The passages just quoted, if read
together, can leave little doubt indeed as to S. GREGORY'S views, but there
remain two pieces of evidence to complete our proof: (i) It is certain that S.
GREGORY'S authority as teaching " restoration" was appealed to by the monks of
the New Laura early in the sixth century. - Vit. S. Cyril, c. 10. (ii) We have,
finally, a passage of RUFINUS, a contemporary, from which the same may be
inferred. - Invec. i, prop. fin.
Next in the list of Cappadocian teachers are two illustrious names -
(brothers) BASIL and GREGORY, Bishops of Caesarea and Nyssa respectively, to
whom should be added a sister, S. MACRINA the younger. BASIL'S teacher in
childhood had been another S. MACRINA, his grandmother, herself a disciple of
that GREGORY who was ORIGEN'S bosom friend and pupil, and almost without a
doubt an Universalist. - p. 110. In such a family the larger hope might be
expected to find a congenial home. Certain it is that S. MACRINA (the younger),
to whose holy counsels BASIL largely owed his choice of a religious life, was
an ardent, nay, an extreme Universalist. And no less certain is it that GREGORY
of Nyssa taught openly and strongly the same creed. I know what may be alleged
from BASIL'S works to prove that he did not share these views; but I also know
that one who scruples not expressly to approve pious frauds, and to attribute
dissimulation, for a good end, even to our Blessed Lord, may be supposed very
likely in his own person to copy such a pattern. And I feel also quite unable
to reconcile with the doctrine of endless evil such passages as I shall here
quote from S. BASIL.
Take, e.g., these words: "The peace (coming)
from the Lord is coextensive with all time (eternity). For all things shall be
subject to Him, and all things shall acknowledge His empire; and. when God
shall be All in All, those who now excite discords by revolts, having been
quite pacified, (all things) shall praise God in peaceful .concord" - In Is.
ix. 6. Such a prospect is in absolute harmony with the larger hope, and with it
only. "Therefore, since all are to be made subject to Christ's rule according
to the saying, 'He must reign till He put His enemies under His feet,' (the
prophet) said His throne shall be restored, (for) the things made subject to
His rule are to obtain restoration." - In Is. xvi. 4-5. That is, Christ's rule
is to be one day universal, and this rule involves the restoration of those who
come under it (including His enemies). Again, on Is. ii. 17 (reading thus):
"Every man shall be brought low," BASIL says it means that "every kind of
wickedness in man shall cease a very remarkable description of the result of
the Judgment Day, to which the passage refers: he adds on v. 18 the significant
words that "every rational nature shall bear witness that true loftiness and
greatness belongs to God alone." In another passage this Father teaches that
"sins * * unto' death * * require the fire of judgment" (for their cure). - In
Is. iv. 4, - a noteworthy statement. In the same spirit he explains the words:
"My fury shall not cease on My enemies," (reading ou pausetai mou ho thumos)
"consider the good issue of righteous judgment * * My anger will not cease, I
will burn them. And why is this? In order that I may purify. Thus it is that
God is angry in order to bestow benefits on. sinners" - In Is. i. 24. Here note
that ceaseless anger on God's part is said to mean mercy. On Is. ii. 9, he
says, reading, "' I will not forgive,' even, this the Good (Lord) works for
beneficence * * the not being forgiven is not a hurtful threat, but a saving
discipline." This passage refers to the final consummation, it must be
remembered, (see BASIL'S comment on v. 2). On Is. i. 28, he says, "'Therefore
the sinners and transgressors shall be destroyed (crushed) together,' in order
that they may cease to be disobedient and unruly; and 'they that forsake the
Lord shall be consumed,' i.e., the sin whereby they have offended against God
shall no more be committed." S. BASIL goes on to imply that the destruction of
the Man of sin, by Christ at His coming, is the removal of his sin, as JEROME
teaches - (In. Mic. v. 8) "For we have often observed that it is the sins which
are consumed, not the very persons to whom (the sins) have happened." - ib. S.
BASIL says on v.31, that we have once more their case referred to here: first
they are to be consumed, and here it is added they are to be burned. This
burning he refers to Gehenna (hell), and the whole context seems to render it
clear that he regards this as a healing and. purifying fire. Again, commenting
on Ps. xlix. i., this Father says that Zephaniah's words (ch. i. 8-18) about
God's wrath devouring the earth, at the Last Day. is in order that all men "may
call upon the name of the Lord, and serve Him under one yoke." With this, he
says, such Psalms as the present agree, pointing to a time when all things are
subdued by Christ, and every knee bends to Him (evidently in harmony). So on
Is. ix. 19, God's burning up the whole earth is, he declares, for the soul's
benefit, for its cleansing. Again, on it. xiii. 19, Babylon's destruction, like
that of Gomorrha, is, he says, for its healing. To see the significance of this
we must remember (a) that the context threatens Babylon with a final and
hopeless ruin, v. 20, and (b) that Sodom and Gomorrha suffer the vengeance of
eternal fire (S. Jude).
Before passing on we may relieve the tedium of quotations by noticing a
touching family picture, not unworthy to take its place side by side with the
famous scene of AUGUSTINE and his mother. - Confess. lib. ix. S. MACRINA (the
younger), of whom I have just spoken, is lying on her death bed, to which S.
GREGORY (of Nyssa) has come, that they may together mourn for S. BASIL, their
brother, just taken to his rest. The dying MACRINA, strong in faith and in
hope, cheers her surviving brother, by noble thoughts and assurances of the
true extent of Christ's Redemption - as destined to embrace savingly all
humanity, destined to blot from the universe every stain of sin. This most
remarkable conversation of two famous saints, in which "THE PURIFICATORY NATURE
OF THE FIRE OF HELL IS UNMISTAKABLY SET FORTH" - (Dict of Christ. Biog. iii. p.
780) has been recorded by S. GREGORY in a well-known book - De an. et Res. The
list of early female saints contains, I think, no name illustrious in so many
ways, as that of S. MACRINA; illustrious at once for wisdom and energy in
practical life; for the deepest devoutness; and for intellectual vigor.
Our next witness deserves special attention - the famous GREGORY of Nyssa,
380 LD., at once the very flower of orthodoxy, and, like his sister, the most
unflinching advocate of extreme Universalism, which he teaches in almost
Countless passages.
I proceed to quote in proof of this. S.
GREGORY, in a remarkable passage, speaks of Christ as "both freeing mankind
from their wickedness, and healing the very inventor of wickedness (the
devil)." - Cat. orat. ch. 26. In another treatise the same great Father writes,
"for it is needful that at some time, evil shall be removed utterly and
entirely from existence * * For since by its very nature evil cannot exist
apart from free choice, when free choice becomes in the power of God, shall not
evil advance to utter abolition, so that no receptacle for it shall be left ?"
- De an. et. Res., vol. ii. p. 659, Paris, 1615. Here it is quite clear that
the saint anticipates the utter extinction of evil at some future day, amid
bases its extinction largely on man's free will. Again, writing on Phil. ii.
10, S. GREGORY says that "in this passage is signified, that when evil has
been, obliterated in the long circuits of the ages, nothing shall be left
outside the limits of good; but even from them (the demons) shall be
unanimously uttered the confession of the Lordship of Christ." - ib. p.644.
"The word seems to lay down the doctrine of the perfect obliteration, of
wickedness, for if God shall be in all things that exist, obviously wickedness
shall not be in existence." - ib. 661. In another treatise, the Orat. in 1 Cor.
xv. 28, vol. i. p. 844, there is the widest possible assertion of Universalism,
viz., "At some time the nature of evil shall pass to extinction, being fully
and completely removed from existence; and divine unmixed goodness shall
embrace in itself every rational nature nothing that has been made by God
falling away from the Kingdom of God: when, all the evil that is blended with
existence being consumed by the melting action of the cleansing fire,
everything that has had its being from God. shall become such as it was at
first, when as yet untainted by evil." In this strain S. GREGORY continues all
through this treatise. Every form of evil is to lie swept away; every rational
creature, without exceptio n, shall bow the knee in love and peace to Jesus
Christ. ''For it is evident that God will, in truth, be 'in all ' then when
there shall be no evil seen in existence." And again, "when every created being
is at harmony with itself * * and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ
is Lord; when every creature shall have been made one body (then shall the body
of Christ be subject to the Father) * * Now the body of Christ, as I have often
said, is the whole of humanity." (pasa he anthropine phusis) - ib. p. 849.
Again, in the clearest manner S. GREGORY maintains that subjection to God is
reconciliation to God. Where it is said that God's enemies shall be subjected
to God, "this is meant that the power of evil shall be taken away, and they
who, on account of their disobedience, were called God's enemies, shall by
subjection be made God's friends. When, then, all who once were God's enemies,
shall have been made His footstool, because they shall receive in themselves
the divine imprint, when death shall have been destroyed * * in the subjection
of all, which is not servile humility, but immortality and blessedness, Christ
is said, by S. PAUL, to be made subject to God." A favorite doctrine of this
Father's is that the Resurrection involves restoration - as undoing of all the
work of the Fall. It brings immortality and incorruption - things, says S.
GREGORY, peculiar to the divine nature, and in themselves a blessing. There is
a long and striking passage to this effect in the De an. et Res. p. 689. The
apostle's words seem to me to imply "what our definition contains, i.e., that
(the) Resurrection is nothing else than the restoration of our nature to its
antient state (of blessedness) * * This corruptible must put on incorruption.
But incorruption and honor and glory are confessed to be peculiar to the divine
nature. * * So we, too, severally divested of mortality literally - stripped of the
form which is like the ear of corn and blended with the
earth, are born again in the Resurrection after the fashion of our pristine
beauty." Doubtless, he adds, the evil are to look for great severity from the
Judge; but after due curative treatment, and when the fire shall have destroyed
all foreign matter, then the nature, even of these, shall improve by the
copious nurture they receive, and at length they too shall regain the divine
impress. In this and in a former passage (vol. ii. p. 650), this Father
expressly attributes cleansing properties to the "eternal" fire, - a fact
concealed in the Latin version.
Let us here note the length to which S. GREGORY goes. Universalism, not in
isolated sentences, but as the center of his teaching, and in a form embracing
all fallen spirits, characterizes this great Father. And this Universalism is
as fearless as it is clear. With the Dean of Wells, I say, "That S. GREGORY
claims to be taking his stand on the doctrines of the Church in this teaching,
with as much confidence as when he is expounding the mysteries of the divine
nature, as set forth in the Creed of Nicaea." Let me proceed to quote: --
"By which God shows that neither is sin from
eternity, nor will it last to eternity. For that which did not always exist
shall not last for ever * * (The Lord) will * * in His just judgment, destroy
the wickedness of sinners, not the nature wickedness being thus destroyed and
its imprint being left in none all shall be fashioned after Christ, and in all
that one character shall shine, which originally was imprinted on our nature."
- In Ps. Tract ii., ch. viii. On the words, "Arise. O Lord, in Your wrath, and
be exalted over the end of Your enemies" (so the words run in S. GREGORY'S
text). "The term 'wrath,'" he says, "shows the retributive power of the just
judge, and that which follows (shows) the extinction of sin: for that alone is
contrary to nature which is seen to be opposed to good, which is sin, whose end
is extinction and a change to nothingness." He then goes onto explain that to
put an end to the enemies of God, means not to allow to human life any power of
turning to evil; for as the end of disease is health "so here the Psalmist
calls the change of the nature of mankind, from evil to a state of blessedness.
the end of (God's) enemies." - ib. ch. x. Here let us notice the stress laid on
wrath, justice, and retribution amid the conclusion so strictly drawn, that
these involve the termination of sin. Again, S. GREGORY writes on Ps. lvii. 1:
"For the nature of sin is unstable and transitory * * nor lasting for ever in
the universe * * it is like a plant on a house top, not , rooted, not sown, not
ploughed in, and though for the present it may cause trouble with its
unsubstantial shoot, yet in the time to come, in the restoration to goodness of
all things, it passes away and vanishes. So not even a trace of the evil, which
now abounds in us, shall remain in the life that is promised as an object of
our hope. - ib. ch. xiv. So, too, writing on Ps. cvii. 42: "And all iniquity
shall stop her month," this Father says : "How blessed is that life in which
the mouths of iniquity shall be for ever stopped * This is the crown of all
blessings, the head of all hope * that nature shall no longer be troubled by
wickedness, but that He shall put a stop to all iniquity, that is to say (to)
the very inventor of iniquity" (the Devil). - In Ps. 'I'ract i. ch. viii.
Again, on Ps. cl. 5: "Praise Him upon the high-sounding cymbals," there is a
very striking comment. "These cymbals," he says, "joined with cymbals, show the
(future) harmony between the human and the angelic natures, when human nature
shall have attained its end. One cymbal is the heavenly nature of the angels.
The other is the rational creation of mankind ; but sin separated the one from
the other; when, then, the goodness of God shall have united once more one with
the other, then shall both, brought together, chant forth that hymn, as the
great Apostle says, 'Every tongue, of things in heaven, and on earth, and under
the earth, shall confess that Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.'
Which done, the voice of these cymbals shall chant their song of victory, which
arises * * for the extinction of war: which being wholly extinguished and
reduced to nothingness, ceaselessly shall there be, with like honor, fully
rendered by every spirit alike praise to God for ever: for since praise is not
comely in the mouth of a sinner, but then there shall be no sinner, (sin no
more existing, ) every spirit shall by all means praise God for ever. S.
GREGORY sums up: Such is the meaning of this final Psalm "in which after the
complete abolition of sin, praise shall be sung to God; which praise contain
(implies) our being incapable of turning to sin * * when every created being
shall be harmonized into one choir * * and when, like a cymbal, the reasonable
creation, and that which is now severed by sin * * shall pour forth a pleasing
strain, due to mutual harmony Then comes the praise of every spirit for ever
abounding with increase unto eternity." -- ib. chap. ix. It may be questioned
whether a nobler exposition of the true spirit of the Psalter, and the true
hope of the Gospel, can be anywhere found than the above.
As some readers may not grasp the full significance of this evidence, let me
point out that, even if it stood alone, it should dispose of the pleasing
fiction, for such it is, that the Church of the fourth or fifth centuries, was
unfriendly to Universalism. What are the facts? Very few of his day were so
prominent, or so famous, as S. GREGORY: none more thoroughly orthodox; a
Confessor and most able champion of the Nicene faith; next to GREGORY of
Nazianzus, the most famous member of the General Council of Constantinople;
chosen to draw up that Creed, which we to this day recite; appealed to by
subsequent Councils as a very bulwark of the catholic Church. Such was GREGORY,
this fearless advocate of Universalism; nay, of an Universalism wide enough to
embrace every rational being.
With the celebrated DIDYMUS, 380 A.D., we return to the school of
Alexandria, of which he was the last distinguished head. "DIDYMUS," says S.
JEROME, a scholar of his, "surpassed all of his day in knowledge of the
Scriptures." The same Father styles him "a most avowed advocate of ORIGEN." But
a small portion has survived of his numerous writings, and little, if any, in a
perfect condition, mostly in translations, or as fragments in Catena.
He argues "that as by the Son all things
endowed with reason received their being, so by Him the salvation of all of
them has been wrought out. * * For Christ brought peace to all things through
the blood of His Cross, whether in heaven or on earth * * For as men, by giving
up their sins, are made subject to Him, so, too, the higher intelligences,
freed by correction from their willful sins (correcta epontaneis cu/pis) are
made subject to Him, on the completion of the dispensation ordered for the
salvation of all" - In 1 & Pet. iii. 22. These words seem to involve the
salvation of the fallen angels. DIDYMUS, elsewhere, speaks of a time when all
are to come to the knowledge of the fulness of Christ, i.e., of God made All in
All - In 1 S. John iii. 2. Another passage (the text is unfortunately corrupt)
on 1 Pet. i. 12, evidently contains a hint as to the salvability of evil
spirits. With many Fathers, DIDYMUS, from the fact that sin resides in the
will, argues its final abolition ; and holds that beings who sin voluntarily,
are from that very fact not essentially evil. Therefore, even the devils
themselves are not radically evil; their will has been deflected, but not their
substance, not their essential being. Hence all evil spirits are capable of
salvation. On Pa. x. 15, we have a striking comment-" Break You the arm of the
wicked," &c. This wicked one, DIDYMUS says, is Satan, whose arm is broken,
and his sin is not found, "receiving its end in its very completion, for evil
is no substance, but a quality. And so shall come that end for all things, for
the sake of which all things came into being ;" evidently these words intimate
the final extinction of evil And so he says, "God desires to destroy evil,
therefore evil is (one) of those things liable to destruction. Now that which
is of those things liable to destruction will be destroyed." - Cont. Man. ii.
So we find DIDYMUS earnest in teaching that the destruction of God's enemies is
practically their conversion. Thus, when it is said that God burns up His
enemies (Ps. xcvii 3), DIDYMUS explains this of the removal of their sins. And
so again in Ps. lviii. 8, the melting away of God's enemies is explained by him
of life absorbing death. On Ps. xviii. 43, where God is said to beat His
enemies "small as the dust before the wind," DIDYMUS explains this of their
conversion. And, he says, God "destroys liars, so far as they are liars. "- In
Ps. v. 6. On Ps. ix. 5, a comment to the same effect will be found, and other
passages might readily be quoted from this Father to the same effect. I may
next point to DIDYMUS' teaching on penalty; he argues that divine correction
(even vengeance), and promise, have the same object in view. - Adv. Man. ch.
xviii. I should like to add that he teaches the liberation from Hades of every
soul by Christ, for he says that Christ "descends to Hades and brings back the
souls, there detained on account of their sins. "-In Ps. lxxi. 20. See, too, De
Trin. lib. iii 21, &c.
I can hardly feel any doubt that DIDYMUS held the final conversion of all
evil beings So, too, think BASNAGE (Migne Tom. 39, p. 176): LUCKE, ib. p. 1740:
GUERICKE, .De schol. Alex. pp. 359, 368, 390; cfr. HUET - Orig. p. 199.
CHAPTER V
WHAT THE CHURCH TEACHES (continued)
"The Eastern Church of that time (fourth and fifth centuries) was
permeated, from GREGORY Of Nyssa downwards, with the wider Hope. (See spirits
in Prison, ch. iv., the Eschatology of the Early Church; and GIESELER, Church
Hist. Per. ii. ch. ii. 85)." - The Dean of Wells.
"Of course I was aware that several of the Fathers are in favor of a
restoration of all things." - Cardinal NEWMAN. (Spirits in Prison. p. 351.)
WE have already noticed (p. 82) the dominant influence exercised over early
Christian thought, not by Greeks (for Greece itself was singularly barren
theologically), but by Eastern theology, couched in the language of the New
Testament. Even at Rome the Church continued, down to the end of the second
century, or later, a Greek speaking body - reared under Oriental influences -
and whose earliest teachers, like CLEMENT and HERMAS, wrote in Greek, as S.
PAUL had written to them, and not in Latin: indeed the very name Pope is Greek.
This influence is very marked in the "'writings of the Latin Fathers, excluding
North Africa, of the first four centuries. AMBROSE and the AMBROSIASTER,
HILARY, VVICTORINUS, JEROME, alike bear evident traces of the more liberal
theology of the East. Doubtless to Alexandria, with its cosmopolitan culture,
its varied learning, and its school of theology, at once the most antient and
most famous in the world, is due the largest share in thus molding Christian
thought to a broader and truer catholicity. Its influence may be traced far and
near. Thus when PAMPHILUS, the martyr, founded towards the end of the third
century a library and school at Cesarea, (or, perhaps, restored the school
founded there by ORIGEN in his exile from Alexandria,) we find him giving the
place of honor to the works of ORIGEN, transcribing the greater part of them
with his own hand - inspired by the influence of Alexandria, where he had
studied. When, again, about the same epoch, the presbyters, DOROTHEUS and
LUCIAN, laid the foundation of the celebrated school of Antioch, it is very
significant that, though representing a healthy reaction against the
allegorizing interpretations of ORIGEN, the new school retained the dogma of
restoration. The same advocacy of the larger hope may be found in the famous
teachers of Cappadocia, whose spiritual ancestry is to be traced to the first
GREGORY, ORIGEN's bosom friend and pupil, and so to Alexandria finally. - (p.
110.)
There is this to be noted and frankly admitted, that if Africa gave birth to
a theology broad and truly catholic in its sympathies, so it furnished what to
some may seem the antidote. North Africa was in a special sense the home of a
theology cruel and remorseless in its eschatology. Let us hear TERTULLIAN
gloating and reveling over the future torments of the heathen. He is to
"LAUGH," "REJOICE," "EXULT." He tells us why "when I behold so many kings
• groaning in the lowest darkness; so many magistrates liquefying in
fiercer flames than they ever kindled against Christians sapient philosophers
blushing as they burn with their disciples: then shall we see the tragedians
more tuneful under the fire • the charioteer ALL RED in his burning car."
- De Spectac. XXX .- TERTULLIAN rejoices because the condemned are for ever
burning; we are to rejoice while they are burning, even though our nearest and
dearest are in those flames ! Is the moral difference very great ? When,
exhausted by faction and strife, this Church fell hopelessly before the advance
of ISLAM, the teachings of its greatest bishop not only survived, but gained a
wider sphere. Extinct in their birthplace, the cruel doctrines of AUGUSTINE
flourished as a graft on the Roman stock, thence leavening by slow degrees the
whole of Latin Christendom, with an element novel and uncatholic. The moment
was auspicious for their success, for now the churches of Italy were fast
rising to power. The great Greek Fathers had spoken and passed away: their very
language rapidly becoming unknown in the West. Thus no obstacle was left to
stem the fast rising tide of Augustinianism, naturally triumphant in an age
cruel, corrupt, and superstitious. And so by degrees no less than a doctrinal
revolution was accomplished, and the whole framework of Western theology, to
its infinite loss, bears to this day the imprint of Africa, and its pitiless
creed, which slanders at once God and Man, true sign of an ignoble and false
theology. The medieval school man and the modern puritan, alike wear with
complacency the spiritual fetters forged at Hippo, by one who, despite his
genius, never so much as fully mastered the language of the New Testament, - a
fact I commend to those who claim the authority of Scripture for the
traditional creed.
Let us now turn to some Latin Fathers, whose works attest plainly this
widespread influence of Greek theology. I take first a very distinguished name,
S. AMBROSE of Milan, 390 A.D. We shall see what his teaching is on the question
of the divine punishment of the wicked. Their very destruction is, in his view,
a mode of cure.
Many ask an important question here,
whether Holy Scripture asserts the perishing of our nature, especially because
it elsewhere says: 'I will beat them small as the dust before the wind. I will
destroy them as the mire of the streets.' - Ps. xviii. 42. * * What, then,
hinders our believing that he who is beaten small as the dust is not
annihilated, but is changed for the better; so that, instead of an earthly man,
he is made a spiritual man, and our believing that he who is destroyed, is so
destroyed that all taint is removed, and there remains but what is pure and
clean. And in God's saying to the adversaries of Jerusalem, 'they shall be as
though they were not,' * * you are to understand they shall exist substantially
and as converted (to God), but shall not exist as (God's) enemies. - In Ps. i.
On the words: "I have set You over nations and kingdoms to root up, to destroy,
to ruin, to build, and to plant." S. AMBROSE says this means Christ's
"destroying every vestige of sin * * this it is to destroy and to plant, viz.,
that what is sinful should be rooted out, and what is better planted in." - In
Ps. xliv. p. 1370. ed. Par. 1569. In harmony with this, but in hopeless
contradiction to the traditional creed, stands S. AMBROSE'S teaching as to
death, which to him is not a penalty but a mode of cure. "Why, then, do we
blame death," asks S. AMBROSE, * * if life is a burden, death is freedom; if
life is a punishment, death is a remedy. In every way, then, death is good
because it does not change one a state for the worse. We shall find death to be
the end of sin. The Lord suffered death to enter in order that guilt might
cease." - De lon. mort. ch. iv. "Death is a passage to better things, for if
the guilty, who will not recall their steps from sin, die even against their
will, yet they receive not an end of nature, but of their guilt." - De Cain et
Ab. ii. 10. "God gave death, not as a penalty, but as a remedy; death was given
for a remedy as the end of evils * God did not appoint death from the
beginning, but gave it as a remedy." - Defide Res. p. 471.
In the next chapter we shall discuss the true meaning of the Resurrection,
and shall quote S. AMBROSE (and many other Fathers) as teaching that it
involves restoration, as being a gift of life in Christ to all. (See e.g., .De
fide Res.) Next we see S. AMBROSE asserting that from its very nature sin
cannot last for ever.
"That which is of the devil is nothing, and
can have no perpetuity and substance." - De Jacob ii. 5. "How shall the sinner
exist in the future, seeing the place of sin cannot be of long continuance?" -
In Ps. xxxvii. p. 1302. Again (writing of the wickedness of evil spirits):
"They will not always remain, nor can their wickedness be perpetual" - In S.
Luc. viii.
The next class of quotations consists of those, in which S. AMBROSE argues
from the divine image in man.
"That image may indeed be obscured, but
cannot be destroyed by reason of its nature" (per naturam). - De fide Res.
(frag.) p. 487. For as S. AMBROSE asks; "Shall He Who has not permitted those
thing. to perish, which belong to man's needs, permit man to perish, whom He
made after His own image ?" - De fide Res. p. 473. "Because God's image is that
of the one God, it like Him starts from one, and is diffused to infinity. And,
once again, from an infinite number all tidings return into one as into their
end, because God is both beginning and end of all things." - Epis. lib. i.
1.
The closing words of the last passage recall that NeoPlatonism, which we
have noticed in VICTORINUS, and shall see fully elaborated by the so-called
DIONYSIUS (the Areopagite), and his imitators. We shall next quote S. AMBROSE'S
teaching as to the subjection of all things to Christ, which breathes the very
spirit of Universalism.
"How, then, shall (all things) be subject to
Christ? In this very way in which the Lord Himself said: 'Take any yoke upon
you. For it is not the untamed who bear the yoke, but the humble and gentle * *
so that in Jesus' name every knee shall bend." * * S. AMBROSE asserts that
subjection to Christ is loving submission, and that in this sense all must
become Christ's subjects. He proceeds to discuss Christ's subjection to the
Father. "is this subjection of Christ now completed? Not at all. Because the
subjection of Christ consists not in few, but in all (becoming obedient). * *
Christ will be subject to God in us by means of the obedience of all * * (then)
when vices having been cast away, and sin reduced to submission, one spirit of
alt people, in one sentiment, shall with one accord begin to cleave to God,
then God will be All in All ; * * when all, then, shall have believed and done
the will of God, Christ will be All and in All; and when Christ shall be All in
All, (then) God will be All in All ." - De fid. lib. v. 7. Again, on Ps. cxix.
91: "For all things serve You ;" he says, "At present we do not all serve God.
But, when Christ shall have delivered His kingdom over to God, then shall all
things be subject to Him, Who has subjected the universe to Himself; acquiring
the faith of all, through the Passion of His only begotten Son; * * when,
therefore, all shall have believed in the Lord, then shall the universe serve
God, so that He may be All and in All." "By a profound design the Apostle
declares that Christ shall be subject to. the Father in us, when there shall
exist in all the fullness of faith. * * At present He is over all by His power,
but it is necessary that He be in all by their free will." - In Ps. lxii.
1.
S. AMBROSE, I may add, teaches that the sin against the Holy Ghost may be
forgiven. - De paenit. ii. 4-a chapter worth reading. Lastly, the following
passages show clearly the tone of his theology.
"The mystery of the Incarnation is the
salvation of the entire creation * * as it is elsewhere said, 'the whole
creation shall be set free from the bondage of corruption.' " - De fide lib. v.
7. "The Father has committed all judgment to Christ; shall then He be able to
condemn you for whom He gave Himself? * * ' Will not He say, what use is there
in My blood if I condemn him whom I have saved ?"-De Jacob i. 6. "All nations
shall come and worship before You * * 'for all flesh shall come to You, no
longer subject to the world, but united to the spirit." - De fide Res. p. 486.
"The mercy of the Lord is to all flesh, in order that all flesh * * may ascend
to the Lord." - In Ps. cxix. 156. "So the Son of Man came to save that which
was lost, i.e., all, for as in Adam all die, so, too, in Christ shall all be
made alive." - In S. Luc. xv. 3.
In S. AMBROSE'S teaching "death is altogether to be desired, the terrors of
the future state almost entirely disappear * he affirms that, even to the
wicked, death is a gain." - Dict. of Chris. Biog. (Smith and Wace). Thus, while
S. JEROME with perfect truth asserts that, nearly all of S. AMBROSE'S books are
full of Origenism, - Adv. Ruf. i., and the learned HUET confirms this. - Orig.
ii. pp. 159, 199. we must note that even ORIGEN lays more stress on sin and
future penalty than does S. AMBROSE.
I next proceed to quote an early and able writer (not certainly identified),
whose works are usually bound With those of S. AMBROSE, and who wrote during
the Popedom of DAMASUS, 366-384 A.D. (see his words on I Tim. iii. 14-5.) He
teaches clearly the liberation of all souls by Christ from Hades (p. 100). I
quote some further specimens of his teaching.
"This seemed good to God * * to manifest in
Christ the mystery of His will * * namely, that He should be merciful to all
who had strayed, whether in heaven or in earth * * Every being. then, in the
heavens and on earth, while it learns the knowledge of Christ, is being
restored to that which it was created." - In Eph. i. 9-10. On the two last
verses of the same chapter may be found a striking comment - tracing the
salvation of all through Christ to His creation of all. Since all were made by
Christ He is to be Head and Lord of all. "In speaking of the whole Church
(reading omnem ecclesiam), the Apostle summarily comprehends the totality of
that which. exists in heaven and on earth * * for when they shall have returned
to the confession of one God, bending the knee to Christ, He is fulfilled in
all, so as to be all, for all comes from Him." Again, we find the same argument
for universal salvation. " Christ rose that He might create anew once more
those things which He had first made; * * that He should restore all those
things which He (God) made through Him * * and all things that have been made
by Him should live in Him as in their Author" - (compare VICTORINUS' teaching
already quoted). - In Col. i. 20. A striking passage is the following,
recalling VICTORINUS, and the NeoPlatonic school: "The creation was formed by
God through Christ, so that * * it should be as it. were a chain linked
together (concatenatio), descending in ordered arrangement to the firmament, so
as to form an united whole * * This, then, is the point aimed at, that the
creation (creatura) may be brought back to one mind * * so that it may be
harmonious in love of the Creator * * For it is rebuilding itself into a temple
of the Lord." - In Eph. iv. On 1 Cor. xv. 27, this writer says: "When every
creature learns that Christ is its head, and that Christ's head is God the
Father, then God is All in All; that is to say, that ever?, creature should
believe alike, that with one voice every tongue of things in heaven and earth
and under the earth, should confess that there is one God from Whom are all
things." The following is interesting on Christ's enemies being made His
footstool : "They are made to bow under His feet who * * return to the Lord,
and as a footstool to the feet so are bent to His preaching. Without doubt this
is said of those enemies who, having been corrected, are set on His right
hand." - In Heb. i. 13. "The Father has granted to the Son that, after the
Crucifixion, all things should be saved in the name of the Son." - In Phil. ii.
10.
In S. AAMBROSE'S works is generally printed a treatise- De Sacramentis,
assigned by most critics to a contemporary, or it may be, a later author. It is
of interest as further tending to show the tone of the current beliefs of
Christian antiquity.
"God," it teaches, "desiring to undo
everything hurtful * * sentenced man to death * * It was assigned as a remedy
that man should die and rise again: * * death interposing puts a stop to sin. *
* Christ brought in the Resurrection * * We have on our side both (i.e., death
and resurrection), because death ends sin, and resurrection is a remolding of
our nature." - lib. ii. cli. 6. "What, then, is the Resurrection except our
rising from death to life." - ib. iii. 1. These words are in harmony with a
very large body of primitive teaching (as my readers can see), and are in
hopeless antagonism to the views now general, which regard death as essentially
penal.
Our next witness shall he one who is, with the exception of AUGUSTINE, the
most striking figure among the Latin Fathers; one to whom in learning and in
critical acumen even AUGUSTINE cannot be compared - I mean S. JEROME. It is
impossible not to pause as we survey these two great contemporaries, who
corresponded, indeed, but never met. In Jerome are represented the tendencies,
broad and sympathetic, of Eastern theology (already beginning to wane.) In
AUGUSTINE are summed up the cruel and uncatholic dogmas of the rising school of
North Africa. In a true sense S. JEROME is the last of a long line of Latin
Fathers, drawing their inspiration from Eastern sources. - AUGUSTINE is the
founder of a new theological dynasty. The lengths to which S. JEROME went in
teaching Universalism may be seen from what follows.
"Christ will, in the ages to come, show, not
to one, but to the whole number of rational creatures, His glory, and the
riches (of His grace)." He adds that the saints are to reign over the fallen
angels, and the prince of this world, Lucifer even to them bringing blessing. *
* - In Eph. ii. 7. This remarkable passage is followed by one even more
explicit and outspoken. Both should be read in the original rather than in my
brief summary, especially that which follows.-" In the end of (all) things * *
the whole body which had been dissipated and torn into divers parts shall be
restored. * * Let us understand the whole number of rational creatures under
the figure of a single rational animal * * let us imagine this animal to be
torn * * so that no bone adheres to bone, nor nerve to nerve." S. JEROME
proceeds, And then suppose some wonderful physician to come and restore to its
place every part. * * "So in the restitution of all things, when the true
physician, Jesus Christ, shall have come to heal the body of the whole Church,
every one * * shall receive his proper place * * What I mean is, the fallen
angel will begin to be that which he was created, and man, who has been
expelled from Paradise, will be once more restored to the tilling of Paradise.
These things, then, will take place universally." - In .Eph. iv. 16. What an
idea may not unprejudiced readers gain of the breadth of early teaching from
these words. If, he says, we see one falling into sin we indeed are sorry, and
hasten to rescue him, but we cannot be saddened, knowing that "with God no
rational creature perishes eternally." - In Gal. v. 22. "Death shall come as a
visitor to the impious; it will not be perpetual; it will not annihilate them;
but will prolong its visit, till the impiety which is in them shall be
consumed." - In Mic. v. 8. Again, speaking of the consummation of all things,
S. JEROME says, on Zeph. iii. 10: The prophet, here aware of the extent of
God's mercy, is like the Psalmist communing with his heart and asking, "'will
the Lord cast off for ever? of which the meaning is - I did think God would
abandon sinners for ever * * but now I perceive that it was done for this end *
* to change everything, and that He might show mercy on those whom He had
before cast away." "In the Cross and Passion of the Lord, all things have been
summed up." He goes on to show what this means. It is, he says, as though one
were to lend 100 pence in various sums and get all back in one sum. In other
words, Christ is to get back all things. - In Eph. i. 10. To this idea he
returns: * * The Cross of Christ has benefited not earth only but heaven * *
and every creature has been cleansed by the blood of its Lord."- ib. ii. 16.
And on ch. iii. 14, he teaches clearly that "by every knee bending in Jesus'
name is meant 'the obedience of the heart."' "Christ is subject to the Father
in those who are faithful, for all who believe, nay, all the race of man is
counted as His members. But in those who are unbelievers, Jews, heathen, and
heretics, Christ is said not to be subject, because a part of His members is
not subject to the faith. But in the end of the world, when all His members
shall have seen Christ, i.e., their own body, reigning, they, too, shall be
subject to Christ, i.e., to their own body, so that the whole body of Christ
may be subject to God and the Father, that God may be All in All." - Ep. ad
Aman. This involves the final obedience of all, and teaches that Jews, heathen,
and heretics are Christ's members.
Nor are these isolated instances: I have found nearly 100 passages in his
works (and there are doubtless others) indicating S. JEROME'S sympathy with
Universalism. Further; we should note that when towards the year 400 A.D., S.
JEROME took part with EPIPHANIUS and the disreputable THEOPHILUS, against
ORIGEN (whom he had hitherto extravagantly praised), he, as HUET points out -
Orig. ii. p. 159 - kept a significant silence on the question of human
restoration. "Though you adduce," says HUET, "six hundred testimonies, you
thereby only prove that he changed his opinion." But did he ever change his
opinion? and if so, how far? Thus, in his Epis. ad Avit., where he goes at
length into ORIGEN'S errors, he says nothing of the larger hope; and when
charged with Origenism, he refers, twice over, to his commentaries on
Ephesians, which teach the most outspoken Universalism. - Epis. lxv. ad Pam.:
lxxv. adv. Vigil As a specimen of his praise of ORIGEN, he says, in a letter to
PAULA, that ORIGEN was blamed, "not on account of the novelty of his doctrines,
not on account of heresy, as now MAD DOGS pretend," but from jealousy. So that
to call ORIGEN a heretic is the part of a MAD DOG ! Note this. from the most
orthodox JEROME.
Certain it is, that his works abound in universalistic teaching: I proceed
to quote.
On Amos ix. 2. we have this vivid (and
significant) description of the fate of the sinful soul after death: "If
despairing of safety, it shall try to avoid the eye of the Lord, and to fly to
the utmost limits, * * even there shall the Lord command the old and crooked.
serpent, the enemy and avenger, and he shall bite it; * * it shall also be
smitten by the sword of the Lord, * * in order that, by means of tortures and
punishment, it may return to the Lord." On Nahum ii. 2, this striking comment
occurs: At the end of the world Satan and his hosts shall fly in terror. * *
"Now while they (the devil and his hosts) are thinking over this, every thing
that they have captured shall be brought forward ('i.e., rescued). * * Further,
all the substance of the world, and all its servants after they have submitted
themselves to Christ, * * shall be led. along in joy and gladness * * And then
shall be fulfilled that which is spoken (Ps. lxviii. IS) of the Savior's
victory, when ascending on high, 'He led captivity captive.'" Here there seems
to be taught the final liberation from Satan of all his captives. In this
spirit this Father says that Christ's final coming is "to destroy sins" (not
Sinners) and so, "at the consummation of the world every creature shall have
been set free." - Iim I-Jab. iii. 2, 11.
S. JEROME'S teaching as to God's vengeance and destruction of His enemies is
very significant.
What shall I do to you, Ephraim ? * * I will
destroy you unto dust and ashes. And when the harsh, nay, cruel sentence has
been passed * * he appeases the austerity of the Judge by the love of the
Father * * for I do not strike in order to destroy for ever, but in order to
amend." - In Hos. xi. 8. "The Jews think the original word may be translated,
not only 'judgment' but 'gold,' meaning that in the valley of judgment, which
they believe to be Gehenna, the taint of sins being purged away, you (the
sinner) may remain pure gold. - In Joel iii. 14 - suggestive words. Again he
says, commenting on Zech. xii. 9: "He will destroy, not for their ruin, but for
their amendment * * for if He created all things out of nothing, lie did not do
so in order to destroy that which He had created, but in order that by His
mercy the things created should be saved;" - words that recall VICTORINUS'
teaching as to creation.
From an early writer (not certainly identified), whose commentary on the
Psalms is bound with S. JEROME'S' works, ed. Paris 1624, I quote some passages,
wholly breathing the larger hope.
Thus, on the destruction of God's enemies,
he writes: "When the Psalmist says, 'Your enemies, 0 God, shall perish,' * *
every mow who has been Your enemy shall hereafter be made Your friend; the man
shall not perish, the enemy shall perish." - In Ps. xcii. 9. No less striking
is the comment on Ps. ix. 5 : "You have blotted out their name for ever and
ever." This Father says, in effect, that, it means blotting out their sins and
their turning to Gad. Here as eternal blotting out is amending. So again : "The
devil is, as it were, God's executioner. They who walk not rightly are handed
over to the devil. Wherefore? That they may perish eternally? And where then is
the mercy of God? Where is the tender Father ? * * What the Apostle says is
this, 'I have handed over sinners to the devil, that, tormented by him, they
may be converted to Me.' " - In Ps. cviii. 9. On the words. " His wrath will
soon be kindled", - Ps. ii. 12 - this Father (reading in brevi), says: "This
mean at the death of every one, or, with a brief wrath at the Day of Judgment,
as that (verse means) 'sudden destruction shall come on them.'" This involves
the opinion that the sudden destruction of the wicked. to which S. PAUL refers,
would be satisfied by a brief wrath at the Day of Judgment. A significant
passage holds out hope of pardon even to Satan. "You who were first a dragon *
* Look you what the Psalmist says * * Do you not then despair, repent and
straightway you art converted." - In Ps.. cxlviii. 12.
Nor should the name of DIODORUS, 37S A.D., Bishop of Tarsus, be absent from
the roll of early Universalists. He was one of the greatest ornaments of the
famous school of Antioch, with whose teaching we are now to make acquaintance.
In his lifetime he was noted for untiring zeal in defense of the Nicene Faith,
and was praised by men like BASIL, THEODORET, CHRYSOSTOM, and CYRIL, and died
in universal honor; having, says THEODORET, saved the bark of the Church from
being submerged under the waves of unbelief. Of his numerous writings but mere
fragments have survived. The following is from his book De Econ .- ASSEM. Bibl.
Or. iii. p. 324.
For the wicked there are punishments not
perpetual, * * but they are to be tormented for a certain brief period,
according to the amount of malice in their works. They shall therefore suffer
punishment for a short space, but immortal blessedness, having no end awaits
them; * the penalties to be inflicted for their many and grave crimes are very
far surpassed by the magnitude of the mercy to be showed them. The
Resurrection, therefore, is regarded as a blessing not only to the good but
also to the evil"
We may next note that RUFINUS, 390 A.D., certainly taught that the future
punishment of the wicked would be temporary, in his exposition of the Creed. He
plainly so teaches, says HUET, Orig. ii. p. 160. He contrasts the perpetuity of
glory of the just, with a (merely) lengthy punishment of the wicked. There
remain two other facts by which we may ascertain RUFINUS' views. In his preface
to ORIGEN - De prin., he states, in effect, that he had removed what was
"discordant with our belief" from that book. But he certainly left there very
distinct assertions of Universalism. Again, it seems hardly possible to doubt
that in his work on the Creed, he taught the liberation from Hades of all souls
by Christ.
I quote next from S. PAULINUS, Bishop of Nola, 393 AD. (not attempting to
decide what he at heart believed).
PAULINUS' brother DELPHINUS, seems to have
died in sin: so far from abandoning his case as quite hopeless, PAULINUS begs
S. AMANDUS to pray for him, because "doubtless the dew of God's indulgence will
penetrate hell (inferna), so that those burning there * * may be refreshed." -
Epis. ed Aman. He, too, teaches that the destruction of the heathen by Christ
is really their cure. His iron rod "breaks their hearts as though vessels
formed of clay, in order to remake them (for the) better." How far this
principle logically goes - for Christ is to have possession of the whole earth
- any one can judge - Par. of Ps. ii. A common disobedience shut up all, in
order that faith might heal the whole; so that all the world may be made God's
servant." - Carm. Ad Cyth. p. 494, ed. Antwerp, 1622
I take next S. CHRYSOSTOM; trained in the school of Antioch, a pupil of
DIODORUS of Tarsus, his education can hardly have been otherwise than decidedly
universalistic in character. When all the evidence is fairly weighed, I think
that but little doubt can remain, as to his very strong sympathy with, or,
indeed, adoption of the larger hope; notwithstanding his apparent teaching of
the ordinary creed. For, on the theory of his really holding that creed, I can
find no explanation of such passages as I shall quote; while his threats of
future punishment, however terrible, may be easily explained (I.) as coming
from a great preacher in cities stained with horrible vices, like Antioch or
Constantinople - (e.g., see Hom. ix. on Rom. v., where he speaks of lusts worse
than those of Sodom: perhaps civilization has nowhere assumed so base a form as
in the Byzantine empire.) (II) By the rhetorical and ambiguous character of the
terms used. (III) By the notorious advocacy of deceit - apate - as a spiritual
medicine, which we find in his works. (a) We may note, too, the fact that he
was charged with a leaning to Origenism in the controversy between JEROME (and
EPIPHANIUS), and JOHN of Jerusalem. (b) Again, he sanctions prayers and
almsgiving on behalf of those who have died in sin (i.e., unrepentant). - In S.
Jno. Ser. lxi. In I Cor., Serm. xli. (c) Nor should his enthusiastic praise of
the Universalists, DIODORUS, and THEODORUS of Mopsuestia, be forgotten. - FAC.
Pro def tr. cap. iv. 2; vii. 7. These facts raise a strong suspicion, at least,
of his sympathy with the larger hope. Let us therefore try to gather his views
from his own words. Writing on Rom. v. 16 (Ser. x.), he uses language
inconsistent with the perpetuation of evil in hell. S. PAUL is speaking of the
result of Christ's work; on this CHRYSOSTOM comments as follows:
By this is inevitably shown that death is
plucked up root and branch; * * not only was the sin (of Adam) abolished, but
also all other sins whatsoever." * * Of death "not a trace remains, nor can its
shadow be discerned, as it is utterly destroyed." Again, on the words, God
shall be "All in All" he says: "Some maintain that the Apostle asserts here the
abolition of evil, so that all shall henceforth willingly yield (to God), and
not one resist or be under the power of evil, for when sin shall no longer
exist, it is evident that God will be All in All" He closes his comment with
these words: "For when evil has been taken away, much more shall death cease."
The abolition of sin is surely a synonym for the larger hope. And so, on Col. 1
(Hom. iii.), where the Apostle is speaking of Christ as first creating all
things, and then reconciling all things, CHRYSOSTOM says that it was needful
that He should reconcile them "perfectly, so that they should never again
become His enemies :" and on v. 18 says that the Church stands for the whole
race. I cannot see any escape from the conclusion that these words involve
Universalism, in their natural meaning. Again, on Eph. i, Horn. i., this Father
says that all, angels and men are to be brought under one head. Thus, then,
shall there be an unity * * when all things (the universe) shall have been
brought under one head, having a necessary bond of connection from above." On
S. Jno. xii. 32: "'I will draw all men unto me.' Had Christ said, 'I will
rise,' it is not clear that (He would have implied that) they (all) would
believe, but in saying that they shall believe, He combines both."
The following extracts again teach a view of "vengeance" and "penalty" and
"death" which seems to point clearly in the direction of the larger hope.
"Tell me on what account do you mourn for
him that is departed? Is it because he was wicked? But for that very reason you
ought to give thanks, because his evil works are put a stop to." - De dorm.
Serm. xxx. "Death has been ordered for our benefit by the Lord * * for such a
Master is ours that in His vengeance (timoria) no less than in His benefits, He
shows His care of us. Had He known that sinning without vengeance i.e. (with
impunity) would make us no worse, He never would have inflicted vengeance on
us. * * To extirpate our wickedness * * He kindly inflicts vengeance. "-in Gen.
iii. Hom. xviii. "If punishment were an evil to those who sin, God never would
have added evils to evils. * * it is, then, no evil to the offender to be
punished, but that one so acting should not be punished (is an evil), just as
for a sick man not to be cured." - In Rom. ch v. Hom. ix. "God is equally to be
praised when He chastises, and when He frees from chastisement. For both spring
from goodness. * * It is right, then, to praise Him equally both for placing
ADAM in Paradise, and for expelling him, and to give thanks, not alone for the
kingdom (of God), but for hell as well (Gehenna)." - In Ps. cxlviii. 10. Note,
too. the following: "What great goodness did it not show to restrain from sin
those who, at the time of the Deluge, were incurably diseased * * and to
employ, as a medicine, the common debt of nature, and to bring on them the
easiest death by water." - In Ps. clxv. 8. "God does all things through love,
as, e.g., to benefit man He set him in Paradise, and to benefit him He turned
him out of Paradise. * * To benefit him He sent that fire on Sodom," - in Ps.
cxi. 3, - the "eternal" fire of S. JUDE.
The drift of S. CHRYSOSTOM'S teaching is further shown by his attitude
toward the so-called unpardonable sin, as quite capable of pardon. Many, though
guilty of it, were, he tells us, pardoned subsequently on their repentance - In
S. Matt. xii. Hom. xlii.. I commend to the thoughtful and. unprejudiced to
consider the light thrown by this teaching on the patristic use of such terms
as "never," "for ever," "eternal" (see pp.. 88-92).
Again, I may appeal to CHRYSOSTOM'S very clear assertion of the liberation
of every soul whatsoever from Hades by Christ, and of the subversion of Hades
itself in consequence. I give a summary of his striking words:
Christ, he asserts, not merely opened, but
broke in pieces the gates of brass, in order to make the prison useless ; where
there is neither door, nor bar, whosoever enters is not detained. What God
destroys, who can set up again? Earthly kings indeed set free prisoners, yet
leave untouched the prison gates; but Christ broke in pieces the gates of
brass. Christ went to the utterly black and joyless portion of Hades, and
turned it into heaven, transferring all its wealth, the race of man, into His
royal treasury. In this, too, Christ surpasses kings, for they send messengers,
but He went in person to set the captives free. - De cam. et cruce. Ser. xxxiv.
So again, he says: "Our Lord, when He was in Hades, set free all who were kept
prisoners by death." - In magn. hebdom.
We now come to the famous THEODORE of Mopsuestia, 407 A.D., who enjoyed
during his lifetime an extraordinary renown as a teacher of the catholic faith.
"He was," says DORNER, Pers. of Christ, i. 50, "the crown and climax of the
school of Antioch, and was called the Master of the East from his theological
eminence."
THEODORE and (perhaps) DIODORUS, after they
had rested for a century and a quarter in their honored graves, were condemned
as Nestorians in the Fifth Council, an assembly unrecognized by the English
Church. No question of Universalism was thereby raised, for the very promoters
of this Council were Origenists, and intrigued against THEODORE on the very
ground of his hostility to ORIGEN. That DIODORUS was condemned is uncertain,
for though PHOTIUS states that he was, his name does not occur in the Acts of
the Council. Certain it is that (1) THEODORE towered above almost all his
contemporaries, and lived and died in honor. See a striking letter full of
praise from CHRYSOSTOM, addressed to THEODORE. - Epist. cxix. Certainly, too
(2), such posthumous attacks by Councils of very doubtful authority are most
often rooted in paltry jealousy and intrigue. (3) And it is a painful
reflection to compare the impunity enjoyed by those who blacken the divine
character (e.g., S. AUGUSTINE) with the sharp measure meted, too often, to
those great men, who, (as in THEODORE'S case,) before the Church has defined
the point at issue, write, perhaps, incautiously, (but moved with zeal for the
truth,) about the divine nature. (4) HUET has the candor to confess that, if
the mere teaching, or originating heresy, unconsciously, and with a readiness
to abjure it, (as distinguished from persisting in it when the Church has once
spoken,) make a heretic, then very many orthodox Fathers, e.g., CYPRIAN,
IRENAEUS, &c., may be called heretics - Orig. ii. ch. iii. p. 195. And it
is (5) certain, too, that, as his best editor says, "Every accession to our
knowledge of THEODORE adds strength to the conviction, that he was entirely
unconscious of deviating from the catholic Church." (6) And to talk of heretics
is ground most unsafe for the advocates of endless sin. That dogma bears a
deeply tarnished escutcheon. Who was its first distinguished advocate?- the
heretic TERTULLIAN. What were the authors of the Pseudo-Clementines ? -
heretics, and forgers, and teachers of unending pain? What was TATIAN, another
very early champion of this doctrine ? - a Gnostic heretic. What was LACTANTIUS
? -- an ill-taught layman, "hovering ever on the verge of heresy." And who is
the true fountain and source of the cruel heresy of CALVIN? - no less a name
than AUGUSTINE himself. And what was PELAGIUS ? - at once a heretic, and a
champion of misery without end. (7) But did THEODORE and DIODORUS really teach
what is known as Nestorianism ? "The Syrian teachers, and NESTORIUS himself, in
the opinion of every one who understands the case, are guilty of no error; and
the dogmas which are known as Nestorianism have been neither taught by
NESTORIUS, nor approved by the Syrian church." - MUNTER - Staud. u. Tzsch.
Archiv. i. "THEODORE," says NEANDER, "sincerely adopted the doctrine of the
Church respecting the divine Incarnation." - Church Hist. iv. p. 110. "Of all
that the Church declared to be of the faith, he was the staunch defender," says
his editor SWETE. (8) Certain it is that, practically, the Anglican Church has
abandoned the term (theotokos), so strenuously contended for. (9) And it is
also certain that the condemnation of NESTORIUS brought its Nemesis, it helped
to pave the way for the cult of the Blessed Virgin, and its terrible abuses,
and for the heresy of EUTYCHES.
Certainly THEODORE'S immense influence must have spread very widely the
larger hope, which lay at the root of his doctrinal system. Nor did his enemies
charge him with this as a fault, so far as I have read, a fact to be noted; as
is also this, that he calls those penalties "eternal" - as being out of time,
which he yet taught to be finite (so little does the use of such terms prove).
He lays great stress - with the school of Antioch - on the Resurrection as in
itself, and to all, a blessing.
"Who ís so great a fool as to think,
that so great a blessing can be to those that arise, the occasion of endless
torment ?" - Frag. Ex. lib. cont. pecc. orig. "All have the hope of rising with
Christ, so that the body having obtained immortality, thenceforward the
proclivity to evil should be removed." - In Rom. vi. 6. Speaking of the
Resurrection he says, "then, too, shall we be freed from sin, for being
rendered immutable by the grace of the Spirit, we shall be set free from sin."
- ib. viii. 2. God "recapitulated all things in Christ * * as though making a
compendious renewal, and restoration of the whole creation, through Him, * *
Now this will take place in a future age, when all mankind and ALL POWERS
(virtutes) POSSESSED OF REASON, look up to Him, as is right, and obtain mutual
concord and firm peace.' - In Eph. i. 10.
CYRIL of Alexandria, 412 A.D., frequently teaches the liberation of every
soul from Hades by Christ.
"The devil was deprived of all power of
being able to do any thing for the future. * * The souls of men who had been
caught in his toils to their ruin, came out of the underground gates, and,
leaving the hiding places of the pit, escape" - Hom. pasch. vi. "Traversing the
lowest recesses of the infernal regions, after that He had preached to the
spirits there, He led forth the captives in His strength. - ib. xx. For when
death devoured Him who was the Lamb on behalf of all, it vomited forth all men
in Him and with Him. * * Now when sin has been destroyed, how should it be but
that death, too, should wholly perish ?" - In S. Jno. i. 29. Speaking of the
cities of Refuge are these words: "It is, perhaps, not improbable to think,
that those who have been entangled in sins, are, as it were, homicides of their
own souls; * * So, then, the wretched soul of man is punished by exile from the
world and the body, and residing in the recesses of death as in a city of
Refuge, was spending these long ages but was with difficulty set free when
Christ, the High Priest died, * * and went down to Hades and loosed their
bonds. " - De adorat. lib. viii. ad fin. This picture is suggestive. (All)
sinners who die before Christ's visit to Hades go thither, As TO A CITY OF
REFUGE, and are by Him set free: because, though sinners, yet they have been as
it were forced to sin by a nature prone to evil (so he says). But if so, how
can you fairly suppose Christ's work less efficacious after His death? On the
death of Christ, "all iniquity stopped its mouth, and the rule of death was
destroyed, all sin (tes hamartias, sin generally) having been taken away, * *
so, then, the sin of all having been taken away, we can justly say, 'O death
where is your sting?' " - In Hos. xiii. 14. "Through Christ has been saved the
holy crowd of the Fathers, nay, the whole human race altogether which was
earlier in time (than Christ's death) for He died for all, and the death of all
was done away in Him." - Glaph. in Ex. ii. ad fin.
CYRIL'S teaching as to the final salvation of all men before Christ is
fairly clear. I fail to see how this can be logically held apart from the
larger hope. I close with the following quotation. "The force of sin has been
dissolved -- the evil that has grown out of it, i.e., death has been plucked up
from the very root." - Hom. pasch. xxiv.
In S. AMBROSE'S works (Paris, 1569), there are included ninety-two sermons,
which may be by MAXIMUS of Turin, 422 A D. The author seems to teach (I.) the
liberation of every soul from Hades, and (II.) to take the significant view of
God's inflicting death to amend the sinner.
"By the Resurrection of Christ, hell -
Tartarus - is opened * * hell yields up those it contains ; * * so DAVID
invites everything created to the festivity of this day." - Ser. lii. It
illuminates, he adds, heaven, earth and hell. Christ "destroyed the sins of all
believers. He must of necessity have destroyed the sins of all, Who bore the
sins of all, as says the Evangelist : 'The Lamb of God Who takes away the sins
of the world.' " - ib. xxi. "We read in the Scripture, that the salvation of
the entire human race, was won by the Redemption of the Savior * * the
everlasting safety of the entire world." - ib. li.
I take next THEODORET, the Blessed, 423 A.D. This great Father was, I cannot
doubt, an Universalist. He became Bishop of Cyrus, or Cyrrhus, in Syria, and is
the last representative, that we shall quote, of the school of Antioch.
THEODORET was perhaps the most famous, and certainly the most learned teacher
of his age; uniting to a noble intellect a character and accomplishments
equally noble. We notice in his writings great prominence given to the view
which regards the Resurrection as being of itself restoration; as essentially a
spiritual force, bringing to man's whole nature immortality and glory, and,
therefore, immunity from sufferings; a view supported by very many Fathers, but
surely fatal to all forms of the traditional creed.
S. PAUL, asserting that "the last enemy to
be destroyed is death," and that "He has put all things under Christ's feet,"
adds finally, "in order that God may be All-In-All" * * In the present life God
is in all, for His nature is without limits, but is not All in All. * * But in
the future, when (by the Resurrection) mortality is at an end and immortality
granted, and (consequently) sin has no longer any place, God will be All in
All" - In Eph. i. 23. "For Christ has wholly destroyed the power of sin by His
promise of immortality; for it (sin) cannot trouble immortal bodies." - In Heb.
ix. 26. "In the future life, the body, when it has been made incorruptible,
cannot admit the filth of sin." - In Col. ii. 11. On 1 Cor. xv. 20, he writes:
"Now the mass shall certainly follow the 'firstfruits."' This refers to the
entire mass of humanity. For, says THEODORET, as all men became mortal through
Adam, "so shall the whole nature of mankind (all men) follow the Lord Christ,
and be made partaker of the Resurrection." The meaning of this is stated in a
lengthy comment, of which I can only give a brief summary. No doubt there shall
be a difference between good and bad, and so the Apostle writes: "Every one in
his own order" (meaning probably a delayed Resurrection till Judgment has done
its cleansing work). Then comes the end, i.e., the General Resurrection, when
Christ delivers up His kingdom, causing all to know God, for He must altogether
subdue all men. In what sense? In that indicated by the Apostle- Phil. iii. 21,
"Who shall change our vile body after the fashion of His glorious body." But
how is the Son to be Himself subjected to God? The apostle shows by adding,
"that God may be ALL IN ALL." So the Son is subject in the subjection of
mankind (when that is complete). At present God is indeed in All, for in Him we
live, "But He is not by obedience in All: for He is by obedience in those
fearing Him even in those He is not All; for nobody is sinless: * But in the
future life when corruption is at an end, and immortality granted, there is no
place for suffering (pathe) but it (suffering) being totally removed, no form
of sin remains at work. So shall God be All in All, all being out of danger of
falling, and converted to Him, and not admitting an inclination to what is
worse." So on Phil. iii. 21 he says, Christ "puts an end to corruption and
death * * causing all to look up to Himself." In the same spirit THEODORET
writes: "Christ being taken as 'firstfruits,' the whole nature of man (all
humanity) shall know the true God, and chant praises for His loving kindness."
- In Ps. lxxx. 18. "Afterwards the Psalmist speaks more plainly: 'All the kings
of the earth shall adore Him.' Some, indeed, in the present life willingly, but
all the rest after the Resurrection; for not yet do we see all things subject
to Him, but then every knee shall bow to Him. " - In Ps. lxxii. 11. Here the
context shows "all kings" to be used for "all peoples," and the subjection of
all to Christ, is in THEODORET'S view their submission and ad
oration.
Finally, on two other points, let us note his teaching. (I.) He explicitly
asserts the liberation from Hades of every soul. I shall shut up you only * *
"You," says Christ to Satan, "art justly despoiled of all your subjects ' * *
You shall vomit forth all that you have already swallowed. * * I shall free all
from death * * for I paid the debt for the race.' * * As the debt has been
paid, it is right that those confined on account of it should be set free from
their prison." - De Prov. Or. x. (II.) He teaches that death is a medicine, not
a penalty. - Ques. in Gen. xl., and even goes a great deal farther, for he
says, that to imagine that God, in anger at a little eating, inflicted death as
a penalty, is to copy the abominable (heretic) MARCION. This statement I
commend to my readers' attention. Those who fancy God to have acted from wrath,
show, says THEODORET, their ignorance of the mystery of the dispensation. Can
this teaching be reconciled with any modification of the traditional creed?
Take, finally, the following: "After His anger, God will bring to an end His
judgment; for He will. not be angry unto the end, nor keep His wrath to
eternity."' - In Is. xiii.
From S. PETER CHRYSOLOGUS, 433 A.D. (so called from his eloquence), Bishop
of Ravenna, I take the following, which refers to the great gulf separating
LAZARUS and DIVES.
"Those assigned to penal custody in Hades
cannot be transferred to the repose of the saints, unless, having been redeemed
by the' grace of Christ, they be freed from this hopelessness by the
intercession of the holy Church: so that what the sentence denies them, the
Church may gain for them and grace bestow." - Ser. cxxiii.- suggestive words,
coming from one who uses elsewhere such strong language as to the fate of the
lost. Again, explaining the words, "Your kingdom come," he says: "We thus pray
for the coming of that time when the author of so great evil (Satan) perishing,
the-whole world, the whole creation. may reign and triumph for the' whole glory
of Christ only." - Ser. lxxi. "We pray that the devil may perish, that sin may
cease, death may die. * * This is the kingdom of God, * * when in all men God
lives, God acts, God reigns, God is everything." - Ser. lxvii. This seems to
involve an anticipation that all evil shall in the future wholly cease. So he
says on the parable of the leaven: "In order that, as a woman had corrupted the
whole mass of the human race in Adam, by the leaven of death, so (a woman)
should, by the leaven of the Resurrection, restore in Christ the whole mass of
our flesh" (all humanity ? - Ser. xcix. On the parable of the hundred sheep he
says, that the one lost sheep represents "the whole human race lost in Adam,"
and so the Good Shepherd "follows the one, seeks the one, in order that in the
one He may find all, in the one He may restore all." - Ser. clxviii. I may
finally cite a striking passage on the raising of' LAZARUS. Hades, personified,
is represented as addressing God, to this effect: "If I permit LAZARUS to
escape, You lose all whom I have been keeping." Christ answers: "I, O Father,
will pay ADAM'S debt, in order that those who, through ADAM, are perishing in
Hades, may. through Me, live to You." On this the whole Trinity consent. And
LAZARUS is ordered to leave the tomb. and "hell (Tartarus) was ordered to obey,
and give up to Christ all the dead." - Ser. lxv. Surely these teachings involve
Universalism, if taken logically: at least they may be set over against any
passages that seem to teach the ordinary view.
I will now ask my readers to consider another very important piece of
evidence. Within the first five centuries, the two great Creeds - the Apostles'
and the Niceno - Constantinopolitan, received their present form, and the first
four General Councils were held at Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, and
Chalcedon. Now it is a highly significant fact, that though Universalist views
were then widely prevalent, no syllable of condemnation was breathed against
them at any of these councils. Nobody ever thought of including amongst the
articles of the faith a belief in endless punishment; and this, be it
remembered, though the very question of the life to come was distinctly raised
at Constantinople, in the clauses then added to the creed. I say, without fear
of contradiction, that this silence would of itself be an argument of
irresistible weight in proving that Universalism was, as an opinion, perfectly
tenable in those days.
* Whatever we may think of the Athanasian
Creed - its want of conciliar authority - its comparatively late date - its
uncertain origin - its doubtful acceptance in the East - when it speaks of
"everlasting," that term can mean no more than the Scriptural aionios, which it
represents: and as it is clear that everlasting is not the necessary or even
the usual meaning of aionios, this Creed is really quite consistent with the
larger hope.
This is a very small part of the evidence.
If the silence of these councils is significant, so are the following facts
still more significant. We have the faith of the Church defined in two
documents, of an authority in its kind quite unique and fundamental - the two
Creeds * * the Apostles', and that we call the Nicene. Rightly to estimate the
weight of the testimony they bear, let us remember that in the second Great
Ecumenical Council, where the Nicene Creed received its present shape, S.
GREGORY of Nazianzus, (whose opinions are discussed p. 117-9) presided: while
the chief agent in the task of adding to the Nicene Creed the new clauses then
adopted, and ending with the significant words, "I believe in the 'life of the
world to come," (in the life, be it remembered, and in nothing more), was,
probably, S. GREGORY of Nyssa; whose words -see pp.. 121-5, show him to have
been an unhesitating advocate of universal salvation. What can be more
significant of the belief of the Church in those primitive days? Look at the
facts. To a known and outspoken believer in universal salvation is entrusted
principally, by the Church in her Great Council, the duty of defining the
faith; and that definition runs thus, "I believe in the life of the world to
come." What but the larger hope could such words, under such circumstances,
have conveyed to the Council? And mark the position these words occupy in the
Creed (as does the corresponding clause in the APOSTLES Creed). They close, and
as it were, sum up the whole. The Creed opens with a statement of belief in the
Great Creator; it speaks of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: of the work of
salvation: of the Incarnation, &c. But the great procession of the
Christian verities ends, in both Creeds, in the expressive assertion of faith
in everlasting life. It is as though both Creeds proclaimed - that to this all
Christian truth led, in this all Christian hope culminated; in life, and not in
death everlasting.
We have now reached the close of the second,
and most important of the three periods embraced in our inquiry (p. 82), a
point from which it is well to look back over the ground we have traversed. We
have seen the tide of Universalism, (so far from being censured,) rising,
swelling, and broadening; till in that famous age of the Church's story, the
period embracing the fourth and the earlier years of the fifth century.
Universalism seems to have been the creed of the majority of Christians in East
and West alike; perhaps even of a large majority. It had gained a footing in
the most famous schools of theology : it had leavened Alexandria and its
school; had leavened Palestine; had leavened Cappadocia; had even leavened
Antioch - where ORIGEN'S teaching was directly opposed; it had leavened the
early Latin Fathers - (p. 127) - and in the roll of its teachers (or those, at
least, in sympathy with it), were, as we have seen, most of the greatest names
of the greatest age of primitive Christianity. A crowd of witnesses, from
almost every quarter to which the Gospel had reached, assure us of their belief
that Christ liberated from Hades every soul, without exception. And we have
heard teachings that openly assert, or, by fair inference, involve the larger
hope, from both East and West, from Gaul as well as from Alexandria; from Rome;
from Milan; from Arabia; from Palestine; from Antioch ; from Cappadocia ; from
Cilicia; from Constantinople; from the distant Euphrates. And this teaching, be
it noted, is strongest where the language of the New Testament was a living
tongue, i.e., in the great Greek Fathers: it is strongest in the Church's
greatest era, and declines as knowledge and purity decline. On the other hand
endless penalty is most strongly taught precisely in those quarters where the
New Testament was less read in the original, and also in the most corrupt ages
of the Church.
Note carefully - the point is significant - that this Universalism was
essentially and first of all based on Scripture; on those promises of a
"restitution of all things," taught "by all Cod's holy prophets," repeated so
often by the Psalmists; and echoed clearly and distinctly in the New Testament.
Another point there is, whose importance in view of some modern teaching, seems
to me very great; it is the teaching of so many, and such illustrious Fathers,
that death is no penalty, but is, indeed, A CURE, that it is, in fact, the
great Potter remolding His own handiwork to restore it to its pristine beauty,
and that the sinner's destruction means but the destruction of the sin, (the
sinner perishes, the man lives). Such teaching would be significant even in a
solitary instance; but here we have witness upon witness, to whom Greek was a
familiar and a living tongue, repeating the same striking idea; teaching death
to be no penalty, but the remolding of our nature by the heavenly artist, and
designed to cure sin; teaching, too, that the sinner's destruction by God is
not loss but gain, is not annihilation, but conversion and reformation. To this
point I shall return, and adduce fresh evidence from early writers, in the next
chapter.
I have said enough, amply to prove the wide diffusion of Universalism in the
early centuries, alike in East and West, taught as it was, as in perfect
harmony with the catholic faith. But it may be well to call three witnesses
(whose testimony it is quite hopeless to gainsay). From S. BASIL I quote "The
MASS OF MEN (i.e., of Christians) say that there is to BE AN END OF PUNISHMENT
to those who are punished." (quoting S. Luke xii. 47-8) - Conc. xiv. De fut.
judic. This opinion the writer disputes: but his words prove, that a terminable
penalty was the ordinary view, and he does not even hint that this view was
opposed to the Faith. The passage is from the Ascetica, a work interpolated,
and I do not claim it as certainly BASIL's: its value as antient testimony is,
however, not altered.
Again, S. JEROME (and no more competent witness can exist), writing towards
the end of the fourth century, says- I know that MOST PERSONS understand by the
story of Nineveh and its king, THE ULTIMATE FORGIVENESS OF THE DEVIL AND ALL
RATIONAL CREATURES. - In Jon. iii. Now, if most believed the ultimate salvation
of every evil spirit, ought we not to say that all, or nearly all, believed in
the more moderate dogma of universal human salvation in S. JEROME'S day?
There is another witness of slightly later date, and of equal weight. S.
AUGUSTINE tells us that, in his days, there were not only some, but "VERY MANY
* * or "THE MAJORITY" - quam plurimi, "who compassionated the eternal
punishment of the damned, and believed that it would not take place." -
Enchir., 112.
In addition we have the testimony of DOMITIAN to be presently quoted, which,
if indirect, is perhaps even stronger. The significance of such testimonies is
very great indeed. They state precisely the all important fact that
Universalism was the belief of half, or more than half, of Christendom, even in
the West, during the fourth and part of the fifth century. S: AUGUSTINE speaks
for the West, S. BASIL for the East, and DOMITIAN for the same, while S.
JEROME, from his peculiar position, may represent both. How, indeed, shall any
fact be attested satisfactorily, if such testimony, backed by the very words of
so many Fathers (as quoted) be not decisive? And how hopeless and inveterate
must be the prejudice which rejects such testimony because unwelcome. In the
succeeding ages as ignorance spread, and superstitions of every kind
multiplied, with a wholly corrupt and licentious people, and a clergy venal and
grossly ignorant, there is no reason to wonder that, by slow degrees, the
earlier and nobler faith decayed everywhere (declining in almost exact
proportion as knowledge declined and corruption flourished); a process aided
largely in the West by the preponderance of the cruel and uncatholic
Augustinian theology, and by the consequent development of the doctrine of
Purgatory. It would be difficult, and want of space forbids the attempt, to
convey to general readers, an adequate idea of the degraded state of learning
and morals, when. in the tenth century, the climax of darkness was reached in
the West. Yet the creed even then current was mercy itself compared with our
modern traditions, leaving as it did a door of hope widely open, beyond the
grave, to all but a few exceptionally great sinners.
I now resume my task of quoting; from what has been said all can understand
why in the period, into which we now proceed to inquire, our quotations are
neither so numerous nor so striking as before. This period (the third of the
divisions already made, p. 82) extends from about the middle of the fifth
century to the eleventh or twelfth. I may begin by an extract from FACUNDUS,
who was a man of considerable eminence, Bishop of Hermiane. "To all this is to
be added the confession of DOMITIAN of Galatia, formerly Bishop of Ancyra; for
in the book which he wrote to VIGILIUS * he says, 'they have hastily run out to
anathematize most holy and glorious teachers, on account of those doctrines
which have been advanced concerning preexistence and restitution; and this,
indeed, under pretext of ORIGEN, hut thereby anathematizing all those Saints,
who were before and have been after him.'" - Pro. def trium cap. iv. 4. It is
clear from the context, that DOMITIAN believed in the salvation of all evil
spirits - a noteworthy fact - indeed, we shall see this belief existing at a
still later period.
There are also three branches of evidence to which I desire here briefly to
refer. (a) First, we know on excellent authority that many of the followers of
NESTORIUS, who were very widely diffused over the East, taught Universalism. -
See ASSEMANNI, Bibloitheque Oeientale. Nor has their Nestorianism the very
least connection with this particular opinion, which they drew, not from
Nestorius, but from the general current of Church teaching in that age, and to
which they thus become witnesses. "It is obvious," says the Dean of Wells,
"that the special point on which NESTORIUS was condemned had no connection with
this or that form of eschatology; and that it was derived by them from those
whose orthodoxy, like GREGORY of Nyssa, was unquestioned." - Spirits in prison.
(b) But next, it is also certain that in the sixth century, in the monasteries,
erected in the wilds lying between Jerusalem and the Dead Sea, there was a
strong party, of which DOMITIAN (just quoted) was a leader, teaching (with
other tenets of ORIGEN) the restitution of all souls. (c) Further, several
testimonies might be quoted from writers of the period now under discussion,
teaching the liberation from Hades, by Christ, of every soul whatsoever.
I proceed to quote GENNADIUS, Patriarch of Constantinople, 458 A.D.
The first fruits shall obtain the totality
and the rest of the body shall follow the head. * * For, said He, when lifted
up, I will draw all men unto Myself." - Rom. ch. viii. 34. GENNADIUS also seems
to hold the opinion shared by many Fathers - see next chapter - which regards
the Resurrection, as in itself involving immunity from sin and suffering.
"Thank God who has given us immortality, incorruptibility, and impassability."
- ib. vii. 24. Finally, as I understand his comments on Rom. viii. 19, there
will be one day an universal regeneration. Other passages might be given; but I
pass on to quote from ANDREW, Bishop of Caesarea (500 A.D.). He is describing
the great (future) Apocalyptic song of praise, thus: "By all things
intelligible or sensible (i.e., visible or invisible), both living and simply
existing, God is glorified as author of all, in the modes of speech natural (to
them)." - In Rev. v. 13. neither GENNADIUS nor ANDREW are consistent writers;
and they probably do not design to teach Universalisrn, but such extracts seem
noteworthy, and very hard to reconcile with the dogma of endless misery and
sin.
We now approach a striking incident in the history of religious thought. In
the sixth century were published the (so-called) works of DIONYSIUS, the
Areopagite. The influence exerted by these writings, and their profoundly
mystical tone, was extremely great, and has lasted, in a true sense, even to
our day. As the worship of the Church became more and more material, so
contemplative minds gladly turned for relief to a theology which spiritualised,
without rejecting, the external symbols. The system these writings embrace
recalls the earlier teaching of Alexandria, and its Platonism; and asserting,
as they do, that all things come out of God, and return to, (or into) Him,
cleansed from all stain, they form a storehouse of Universalism. Although
challenged when first produced in 533 A.D., at Constantinople, yet, in an
uncritical age, a belief in their authenticity prevailed. Thus viewed as
belonging to the Apostolic era, their influence was widely felt, especially in
the case of two remarkable men. Of these, one was MAXIMUS, head of a monastery
near Constantinople, 645 A.D., the ablest theologian of his day. The other was
J. S. ERIGENA - perhaps the acutest of the Schulman - if he be not rather their
forerunner - who, two centuries later, taught at the Court of CHARLES the Bald.
We thus find the East once more communicating an impulse, vital and fertile, to
the colder West, warming with a diviner hope her narrow creed, now touched with
a stern Africanism.
I append the following brief extracts to show the tone of the writings of
the so-called DIONYSIUS.
"Out of Him and through Him is every being
and life * * every power, every energy * * and (all) are being turned into the
good and beautiful. All things - whatsoever exist and are formed - exist and
are formed for the sake of beauty and goodness; and He is beginning and end of
all things for (out) 'of Him and through Him, and unto Him are all things.' " -
(Rom. x. 36) - De div. nom iv. 10. "He makes all things, makes perfect all
things. He holds together and converts all things (to Himself)." - ib. "With
God are the causes of evils, they are beneficent powers." - ib. 30. "Even of
all evils, the beginning and END is the good, because for the sake of good
exist all things, both those which are good, and those which are opposed to
it." - ib. 31. "What is good is the beginning and end of all things." - ib. 35.
"Even to the demons that they exist both comes of good and is good." - ib. 34.
God converts and holds together all things, as being the all powerful abode of
all, safe guarding all things, * nor permitting them to fall away from Himself,
and perish by departing from the all perfect home.- ib. x. 1. "The good (or
beautiful) is the beginning and end of all things." - ib. iv. 7. All this leads
logically and naturally to the larger hope.
At this point I must ask attention to two names, as teaching the larger
hope, whose personality has almost faded away in the mists of time.
The first is HIEROTHEUS, who is known only by a few brief extracts, which
DIONYSIUS quotes, as from the writings of his master. HIEROTHEUS belongs,
probably, to the school of Edessa, sometime in the fifth century. I give two
brief specimens. "Towards the supreme love tends the total love flowing from
all existences " - quoted - De div. nom. iv. 16. "There is one simple force,
self moved, towards a blending together in unity (flowing) from what is good
unto the last of those things that exist." - ib. 17. Inadequate as are these
brief extracts to represent the man, yet his teaching is evidently in harmony
with the PSEUDO-DIONYSIUS
The other name is that of an Abbot of Edessa, BARSUDAILI, who, towards the
end of the fifth century, taught (under the name of HIEROTHEUS) the broadest
Universalism. He asserts the termination of all penalties of the future world,
and their purifying character. Even the fallen spirits are to receive mercy,
and all things are to be restored, so that God may be All in All. - ASSEM.
Bibl. Orient. ii. p. 291.
I now quote briefly from MAXIMUS, Saint and Confessor, 645 A.D., to whom I
have alluded, p. 153. Having spoken somewhat unfavorably of GREGORY of Nyssa's
teaching, be proceeds:
"For it is necessary that as all nature is
to receive at the Resurrection immortality of the flesh, * * so, too, the
fallen powers of the soul must, in the process of the ages, cast off the
memories of sin implanted in them, and having passed all the ages, * * come to
God; and so by the knowledge. not the fruition of good, receive strength and be
restored to their original state." - Qucest. et Dub. xiii. Again, in his
Aphorisms, sec. xx., 'the reunion of all rational essences with God is
established as the final end.'" - NEANDER, Eccles. Hist. v. p. 242.
This writer adds that the fundamental ideas of MAXIMUS seem to lead to the
doctrine of a final universal restoration - a proposition which is, in my
judgment, beyond question true, not only of MAXIMUS, but of the
PSEUDO-DIONYSIUS and of ERIGENA: while we may admit that an absolutely
consistent enunciation of this was rendered difficult by the theology current
in their days, (the language of which MAXIMUS indeed sometimes uses.)
In his Scholia on DIONYSIUS, we find him
teaching that "God is end and measure of all things." - In De div. nom. iv. 20.
"God moves, for He transforms and changes for the better all things * * as says
DIONYSIUS, "He is beginning and end of all things.'" - ib. v. ad fin. And
again, "God is made All in All, embracing all things." - Ambig. ii. p. 1210
(Migne), (from ERIGENA'S version). "All things made by God are gathered into
God perpetually and unchangeably." - ib. p. 1200. "The rest - the Sabbath - of
God is the full bringing back into Himself of the things that are created." -
Capit. theol. i. 47. Again, with so many Fathers, MAXIMUS teaches that the
passing away of the wicked, is the passing away of their wickedness. Thus on
Ps. xxxvii. 36, he says the meaning is that evil will pass away and leave no
trace. - Schol. De div. nom. iv. 18. MAXIMUS, as noted above, connects with the
Resurrection the idea of restoration. I take one more passage: "At the
Resurrection, through the grace of the Incarnate Son, the flesh will be
absorbed by the soul." - Quoted by ERIG. - De div. nat. lib. v. 8.
Our next witness shall be ERIGENA, of whom I have spoken, whose remarkable
writings may be heartily commended to every student of theology. Profound
thinking - conveyed in clear and vivid style - lends to them an unusual
charm.
"It belongs in common to all things that
have been made to return - as though by a perishing - into those causes which
subsist in God." - De div nat. lib. v. 21. In another very characteristic
passage (to which I have unfortunately mislaid the reference), he argues that
as Christ is maker and cause of all things. so '' the universal end of the
whole creation is the Word of God. * * Last of all, the universal creation
shall be united with the Creator, and shall be one in Him, and with Him. And
this is the end of all things visible and invisible" Again he says, there is to
be a return and a gathering together "into that unity of all things which is in
God and is God: so that both all things may be God, and God be all things." -
Pref in Max. Ambig., Migne, p. 1195. This passage gives the substance of
MAXIMUS' version of the teaching of the PSEUDO-DIONYSIUS, and involves
ERIGENA'S agreement with both. "'the whole human race has been both redeemed in
Christ, and will return into the heavenly Jerusalem." - De div. nat. v. 38.
"Nothing contrary to the divine goodness, and life, and blessedness can he
coeternal with it. Because the divine goodness will destroy evil, eternal life
will absorb death, blessedness absorb sin." - ib. 27. ''Sins and iniquities * *
shall be completely brought to nothingness, so that they shall have no
existence." - De div. nat. iv. 4. "Further, if the entire world, and the entire
creation UNIVERSALLY, which has been made by God, is not destined to return
into the eternal causes in which it subsists, then the whole of our reasoning
so far, will fall away, as vain, and completely gone to pieces. - ib. v.
28.
* ERIGENA guards against Pantheism, by
repudiating any blending in the future life of the human and divine." - De div.
nat. v. 8.
* It is true that ERIGENA, writing in the Latin Church of the ninth century,
naturally professes a belief in endless punishment. But this stands in hopeless
contradiction to his entire theological system; and the extraordinary process
of jugglery with words, by which he attempts to teach that a thing can exist,
and not exist, at the same time, may be read in the fifth book. - De div. nat.
A curious and striking passage intimates that perhaps the ETERNAL PUNISHMENT of
the devils will be the universal abolition of their wickedness and impiety. -
lb. v. 27.
There are still writers who (even at dates later than the present) teach the
liberation from Hades of all souls, but any direct evidence for Universalism is
now very rare. The following from ECUMENIUS, 990 A.D., shows evident traces of
primitive teaching. He writes on the famous words: "That God may be All in
All," "The abolition of evil (all evil tes kakias) is shown by these words, for
when sin (he hamartia - all sin) has been taken away, it is evident that God
will be All in All, when we are no longer divided between God and passions.
Others have so interpreted it, that all things will be brought back to the
Father as source." - In 1 Cor. XV. 28.
THEOPHYLACT, Archbishop of Achrida, in Bulgaria, 1071 A.D., shall be our
nest witness. By the parable of the ninety-nine, and the one lost, sheep, he
understands the just and sinners. But as the lost sheep of the parable is
found, then, if this represent the sinners of mankind, the passage seems
logically to involve Universalism. But there is more than this:
Some, he goes on to say, understand by the
100 sheep all rational creatures, and by the one lost sheep man (i.e.,
mankind), * * and by the lost coin, the lost image of God. "The whole world is
cleansed over again from sin, and plainly the lost coin (the royal image) is
found." Both interpretations seem to involve the larger hope. On 1 Cor. xv. 28,
he says: "some understand by this the removal of wickedness, for when sin is no
more, plainly God will be All in All." This seems to show that the larger hope
survived up to nearly the end of the 11th century: it is also noteworthy that
THEOPHYLACT says nothing against it here. On Eph. i. 10: "Things in heaven were
cut off from things on earth, and had not one head. For though by creation all
had one God, yet by friendship (oikeiosis domesticity) they had not yet (one
God): and so it was that the Father planned to bring back to one head the
things in heaven and on earth, i.e., to set Christ as head over all." On Col.
i. 18-20, he says: "Paul by the Church intends the whole human race. * *
Christ, as first fruits, has even (all) the rest following him (kai tous
loipous). * * One sheaf being offered, the whole harvest is sanctified * * and
one body rising, the whole nature (mankind) is deemed worthy of the
Resurrection * * Christ is first begotten (from the dead) as first fruits of
the Resurrection, because that is regeneration." The train of thought in these
passages is hard to reconcile with the perpetuity of evil, whatever the
writer's views may have been.
Nor are later instances wanting. "Both S. THOMAS AQUINAS, and DURANDUS show
us that, even in their day, absolute Universalism was not unknown. It was the
opinion of the school of GILBERT of Poictiers - S. THOMAS AQUINAS, Sent. iv. 45
- and 'aliquorum juristarum' - DURANDUS," - (Mercy and Judgment,) and,
probably, of some mystics. Again, a great name, S. ANSELM, in the twelfth
century, writes. thus: "It is quite foreign to God's nature to suffer any
reasonable creature wholly to perish." - Cur Deus Homo, ii. 4 (a striking proof
of the survival of the earlier hope) "nor," adds the saint, "is it possible for
the reasonable mind to' think otherwise." To these testimonies may be added a
highly interesting prayer, quoted by the Dean of Wells from an old English
manual, The Fifteen O's, published by CAXTON; and illustrating the dominant
tone of religious. feeling in England, in the age immediately preceding the
Reformation: - "Be merciful to those souls for whom there is no hope * * in
their torment, save that they were made in your image * * Put forth your right
hand and free them from the interminable pains and anguish of hell, and lead
them to the fellowship of the citizens on high."
The three periods of the Church's history, embraced in the inquiry we have
just made, may be said to correspond to early Spring time; to Summer, brief and
bright; to Autumn, followed by wintry gloom. After some centuries of conflict
and growth, the freedom won for the Gospel by CONSTANTINE was followed by an
outburst of activity, theological and intellectual (such were the Church's
Spring and Summertide). But in the very success lay unperceived the seeds of
disaster. Elements of evil, repressed in adversity, soon revived; and the
crowds who now flocked to Christian teaching brought with them, too often, the
superstition, the ignorance, the vices of heathenism. Bitter intestine strife,
scandalous intrigues, virulent controversies, began more than ever to exhaust
the energies of the Church, or to direct them into barren channels. And so the
Autumn and its decay followed. To the Fathers succeeded - after a period of
barrenness - the Schoolmen in the West; while, in the East, no successor
appeared to the great names of earlier days Other features of this period I can
barely notice, e.g., the break up of the Roman empire; the growth of the
Papacy; the successive inroads of barbarians into Italy; the spread of
Monasticism; the steady advance of superstition; the decay of learning; the
ever-widening divisions between the East and West. Who can pretend to wonder
that amid all this "hurly burly," the larger hope, - taught so freely in the
Church's Spring and Summer time, - gained ever fewer adherents in its Autumnal
decay, and well nigh died out in its dark Winter?
Any sketch of Universalism would be incomplete without a discussion of the
assertion still repeated, though often refuted, that the dogma of the final
salvation of all men was condemned, in the person of ORIGEN, at the Fifth
Council. This assertion is, as will be distinctly shown, untrue. An attempt was
indeed made to procure a condemnation of this doctrine - an attempt which
wholly failed; and which was made, not at the Fifth council, but at the Home
Synod of Constantinople (i.e., a committee of Bishops from a small number of
sees near Constantinople, who, with some officers of the Metropolitan Church,
formed a standing Council for the Patriarch). For a clearer understanding of
the facts, which are very generally misunderstood, it must be premised that the
larger hope was but a very inconsiderable part of what was known as
"Origenism," and quite independent of it, e.g., so that it was strongly held by
ORIGEN'S determined antagonists in the school of Antioch. Origenism meant a
widely spreading system, embracing amongst many other points: (a) certain
highly speculative tenets, e.g., preexistence, and also (b) certain views,
e.g., on the Trinity, capable at least of easy misrepresentation, (c) and a
doctrine of the Resurrection, in which this great writer was too far in advance
of his day. These it was, the two latter especially, that led ORIGEN into grave
disrepute; and not his belief in the final salvation of all men. The proofs of
this are abundant and decisive. (I.) Those who taught simple Universalism
perhaps more fully than ORIGEN, e.g., CLEMENT, of Alexandria, and GREGORY, of Nyssa, and many others, were held in universal honor, or if some were
condemned, like THEODORE of Mopsuestia, (see pp. 141-2) no condemnation, direct
or indirect, was made of their Universalism. (II.) The larger hope was, in
fact, widely held by those who opposed ORIGEN in nearly everything else (e.g.,
the school of Antioch). Indeed, the intrigue against THEODORE was promoted by
Origenists. (III.) We have several lists, more or less complete, of the alleged
errors of ORIGEN, from 300 down to 404 A.D., in none of them is any mention of
the larger hope. I may instance the lists of METHODIUS, 300 A.D., that given by
PAMPHILUS and EUSEBIUS, in their Apology, 310 A.D.;
of EPIPHANIUS, 376 and 394 A.D.; of THEOPHILUS, in a circular letter, and
in three Paschal letters of 400, 402, and 404 A.D. and more than one of S.
JEROME, 400 A.D. I beg that this most significant fact may be noted, JEROME,
THEOPHILUS, and EPIPHANIUS literally scrape together every possible charge
against ORIGEN, but never allude to his teaching of the larger hope as
heretical.
* Some other early writers against ORIGEN
are known, e.g., EUSTATHIUS of Antioch, 330 A.D., MARCELLUS of Ancyra, 320 A.D.
But none of these touch on the doctrine of restoration. LEO the Great, in a
letter - Ep. xxxv. - alludes to ORIGEN as condemned for teaching
preexistence.
How can any fair mind refuse the inevitable conclusion, that this was, at
least, a perfectly open question? Again I ask how these facts can be reconciled
with the common prejudice, which asserts that ORIGEN'S teaching of all men's
final salvation, was that which brought him into disrepute? Indeed, so far from
the larger hope, as we understand it, being something peculiar to ORIGEN, there
is reason to believe that - while he certainly taught restoration and the
limited duration of all future punishment (and thus give a great impulse to
these opinions) - he himself held them in a peculiar form. I do not mean so
much that he taught the final salvation of all evil spirits - a view held by
several Fathers, but that he seems to have taught (I.) that all human beings
would return to exactly the same level, so that a prostitute, as S. JEROME
says, would finally be the same as the Blessed Virgin; (II.) that, thereafter,
fresh cycles would ensue, in which even the good angels might fall away, and so
on for long periods, or, possibly, even for ever. These views naturally invited
opposition on all sides, from the friends of the larger hope, as well as from
its enemies.
Thus, from what has been stated, it is absolutely certain that to condemn
"ORIGEN" or "ORIGENISM" in general terms, does not involve disapproval of
restoration, even as he taught it; still less of the restoration of all human
beings; (a tenet quite compatible with very strong hostility to Origenism - as
in the school of Antioch). I repeat that all the evidence goes to prove that it
was speculative tenets - at least tenets wholly unconnected with the larger
hope - that brought ORIGEN into disrepute, aided, doubtless, by the jealousies
of rivals. Equally misunderstood are the facts connected with the alleged
condemnation of ORIGEN at the Fifth Council, so that it is needful to state
briefly the salient points, which are these - In 541 A.D., (the exact year is
not certain, ) the Emperor JUSTINIAN caused the Patriarch MENNAS to convene at
Constantinople the Home Synod, expressly to condemn the larger hope, and
certain other opinions attributed to ORIGEN. This is noteworthy, as being the
first attempt to procure a distinct condemnation of the larger hope. Mark the
result. "This Synod passed fifteen Canons, in which various theories of ORIGEN
were condemned, but deliberately omitted" that concerning the larger hope,
i.e., deliberately refused to condemn it. Twelve years later was convened the
Fifth Council (born in intrigue and unrecognized by the English Church). It is
said, but the fact is disputed by able and impartial writers, to have condemned
ORIGEN by name in the eleventh canon, but only in general terms, which, as I
have shewn above, proves nothing at all as to the condemnation of the larger
hope. Further, special reasons exist which render any intention to condemn
Universalism, on the part of the Fifth Council, in the highest degree unlikely.
(I.) The promoters were themselves Origenists. (II.) The object of the Council
was to condemn certain Nestorian tenets, quite distinct from Universalism.
(III.) The Council expressly referred to S. GREGORY of Nyssa, as a prop of the
faith, who was the most outspoken Universalist of all the Fathers! Such is the
true story of the so-called condemnation of Universalism. 'The Home Synod
distinctly refused to condemn it, even at the Emperor's bidding; while if, as
is doubtful, the Fifth Council did condemn ORIGEN, it did so in general terms
only, and it did not thereby condemn the larger hope; nor am I aware that this
special point was ever so much as submitted to any antient general council for
decision. In short, "we have no evidence that the belief in 'restitution,'
which prevailed in the fourth and fifth centuries, was EVER definitely
condemned by ANY COUNCIL OF THE CHURCH" - Spirits in Prison, p. 141. A fact
which I must ask my readers to impress most clearly on their minds; a fact
further attested by a witness of most strict orthodoxy, in these words:
"Whatever the amount, and quality of authority arrayed against ORIGEN'S view
may be, conciliar decisions make no part of it" - Church Times, Feb. I, 1884.
No doubt some will ask, Does not the very fact that this belief in an endless
hell was permitted to spread so widely, as to have become practically
universal, prove its truth?
If so, I reply, why not then carry out your
theory? Infant Communion was universal for centuries; slavery was universally
defended from the earliest age of the Church. Are we, therefore, to adopt them?
The duty of persecution for errors of faith was universally held - shall we
adopt it? Shall we invoke saints and angels because the practice was once
universal, or burn witches for the same cogent reason? It has pleased God to
permit in numberless cases error to prevail, and obscure in this present age
His truth. This very fact is but a louder call to us to work against all that
hides or distorts that truth. Nay, it points not uncertainly to a conclusion in
perfect agreement with the larger hope, this namely, that the present is but an
initial stage of being; one of many ages, during which God is slowly, very
slowly, working out a vast plan, and permits for a moment, as it were, an
apparent triumph to error and to evil.
Let us now pass on and see what our own Church teaches on this point. We
shall, I think, find, if we examine it carefully, in our Book of Common Prayer
- molded as it is on primitive lines, and on Scripture - not a few testimonies
in favor of the larger hope. Not that I mean to represent the compilers as
themselves Universalists, far from it. But it is interesting to note the
indications of a wider hope that emerge, even where indirect and
unintentional.
Take, for instance, the service of Holy
Baptism - what is the profession of faith required? "Do you believe in
everlasting life after death," and not a word or hint further. Again, in our
Litany, do we not pray God to have mercy, not on some men, but on all men? If
this were in fact impossible, would it not be very like a sham to address such
a prayer to God - just as the Inquisition used to hand over prisoners to the
secular courts with a request that they would be merciful? Do we not also
address, in the same Litany, Jesus Christ as the "Lamb of God that takes away
the sins of the world," and that twice over? Do we not, in Holy Communion,
repeat, three times in one prayer, this truly catholic address to Christ, as
"taking away the sins of the world ?" And here it is right to ask, are words a
mere pretense, and that in our holiest moments? How does Christ take away the
sins of the world, if to all eternity in hell the sins of any men remain not
taken away? On this point our Book of Common Prayer is specially emphatic, for
in the proper preface for Easter Day we are bidden to remember how Christ "has
taken away the sins of the world? and has by His death destroyed death." But to
abolish death in its Scriptural meaning is surely to abolish all that the Fall
brought on man. Take next one of the Ember Collects: "To those who shall be
ordained. grant Your grace, that they may set forward the salvation of all
men." Does the salvation of all men mean the damnation of most men, of any man?
And so, too, when the Church bids us render thanks for a world Redeemed, and
for our Creation, no less than for our Redemption, how can this be if Creation
be not a certain promise of good? If Creation does, as a matter of fact, imply
an awful, unutterable risk of hell's torment, why bid a man give thanks for
that, which may be to him an occasion of endless pains? I will next ask your
attention to a fact perhaps not always remembered, that our Church deliberately
expunged that article which (adopted in 1552) condemned the belief in the final
salvation of all men. "The 42nd article was withdrawn" (says the Bishop of
Manchester), "because the Church, knowing that men like ORIGEN, CLEMENT, and
GREGORY of Nyssa, were Universalists, refused to dogmatise on such questions."
Nor are other indications wanting of the hopeful teaching of our Prayer Book.
Let us not fail to note the hope expressed for all in the Burial Service; the
stress laid on the wide extent of the Atonement in the Catechism, and in the
General Confession; the true force of all this is best seen when our
formularies are compared with those of other reformed communions (a comparison
for which I have not space). In a word, the tone of the Book of Common Prayer
is frequently that indicated in the Collect for the Sunday before Easter -
where the object of Christ's death is described as this - "that all mankind
should follow the example of His great humility," and in that other prayer,
which addresses God as one, "whose property is always to have mercy ;" words
which, if taken in their full meaning, certainly seem to teach the larger
hope.
There is further important evidence of our Church's teaching. Of Christ's
descent into Hades I have already spoken, and pointed out that to teach the
liberation of all souls thence, is logically at least to teach Universalism. -
p. 103.
And this liberation of all, it can, I think,
be shown that our Church teaches: For the Church has intimated her belief in
the fact of Christ's descent into Hades, and preaching there, by the selection
of S. Peter iii. 19, as the Epistle for Easter Eve, and of Zech. ix., as the
first lesson (see v. 11, and its striking allusion to the "prisoners of hope.")
Further, in the Homily (Of the Resurrection) appointed for Easter Day, we have
the result of Christ's preaching in Hades stated in the following words: - "He
destroyed the devil and all his tyranny, and took from him all his captives,
and both raised and set them with Himself among the heavenly citizens above.
His death destroyed hell and all the damnation thereof" These words, as I
think, teach the liberation of all souls, without exception, from
Hades.
Nor has the larger hope wanted able defenders in English theology since the
days of the Prayer Book. It is interesting to note, that amid the tumults of
the Rebellion and the gross profligacy of the Restoration, there rose and
flourished .a school of devout men (trained, most of them, at Cambridge);
partly Anglican, partly Nonconformists, who held, or sympathized with, the
larger hope.
One of the earliest was GERALD WINSTANLEY,
who taught a complete restoration of the whole creation in the Mystery of God,
&c., printed 1669. To nearly the same epoch belong two very remarkable
names, RALPH CUDWORTH and HENRY MORE, of the school of Cambridge Platonists,
whose sympathies were distinctly in favor of the larger hope. More outspoken in
his teaching was PETER STERRY, Fellow of Emmanuel College, Cambridge - one of
CROMWELL'S chaplains - whose works published (after his death) in 1683 and
1710, evidence a strong leaning to mysticism, often stated with much beauty of
imagery. I may note next, as of the same school of thought, SADLER, author of
Olbia, and WHICHCOTE, a friend of CUDWORTH, and MORE, a Fellow of Emmanuel
College, a contemporary of MILTON and JEREMY TAYLOR and two less known authors,
B. COPPIN, 1649, and W. ERBURY. At this time there also appeared not a few
anonymous books, advocating the wider hope, which deserve mention, as
illustrating the course of theological inquiry in the seventeen th century,
e.g., Enochian Walks with God, and The Revelation of the Everlasting Gospel
Message, by the same author; and God's Light, 1653; also Of the Torments of
Hell, the Foundation and Pillars thereof Shaken, 1658, by S. RICHARDSON. A more
distinguished advocate of the larger hope was Bishop RUST, successor of JEREMY
TAYLOR, author of De Veritate, and A Letter concerning the Opinions of Origen.
Another name almost equally eminent is that of JEREMY WHITE, Fellow of Trinity,
Cambridge, chaplain to CROMWELL., and author of The Restoration of all Things,
published (after his death) in 1712; a book, I may add, eloquent, devout, and
breathing the deepest reverence for Holy Scripture. Towards the close of the
seventeenth century, came R. STAFFORD and JANE LEADE, the latter a mystic,
whose works are rare and valuable. To these I may add TILLOTSON, who seems to
have held that God was not bound to execute his threatenings pronounced against
sinners; a view in which he was followed more decisively by Bishop
STILLINGFLEET; and by Dr. BURNET, Master of the Charter House, a pupil of his
at Cambridge, who, in his De Statu Mortuorum, teaches Universalism openly. The
movement in favor of the larger hope was continued during the eighteenth
century by WILLIAM WHISTON, in his Sermons and Essays, London, 1707, and by
many others. I may name Dr. CHEYNE, in his Discourses, published 1742, and
(probably) Bishop WARBURTON. - (See ch. viii. note on Rev. xx. 14), Bishop
NEWTON, 1750, in a sermon on the Final state of man; and WILLIAM LAW, 1766, in
his Letters and Way to Divine Knowledge. To the latter may probably be due,
ultimately, the whole revival movement in England. To this era belong also two
books, little known, De Vita Functorum Statu, by J. WINDET, and Glad Tidings to
Jews and Gentiles, by R. CLARKE, both published in 1763, and both advocating
the larger hope. Other names of authors, favorable to Universalisrn, in this
century, are - J. COOKE, London, 1752; J. RELLY, 1759; Sir G. STONEHOUSE, 1768;
W. DUDGEON 1765; Rev. C. BERROW, 1772; C. CHARNAY, 1784; F. LEICESTER, 1786; J.
WEAVER, 1792; J. BROWNE, 1798. About this time ELHANAN WINCHESTER, a follower
of JOHN WESLEY, advocated the larger hope in his Dialogues; and, indeed, WESLEY
himself seems to have finally shared this view, for he published, in 1787, as
"one of tile most sensible tracts he had ever read," a translation from
BONNET'S Palingenesie Philosophique, which seems to advocate Universalism,
e.g., it teaches: "There will be a perpetual advance of all the individuals of
humanity towards perfection" (in the other life). There is also a considerable
American literature advocating Universalism.
In the present century the same steady movement continues, with
ever-increasing force, in the direction of the larger hope. The name of
ERSKINE, of Linlathen, will be familiar to many. Again, the late Bishop
WILBERFORCE is stated on high authority to have finally "leaned to the larger
hope," which his son now preaches. Other well known names may be given as
openly teaching, or sympathizing with Universalism, e.g., TENNYSON, WHITTIER,
BRYANT, BROWNING and Mrs. BROWNING, WHITMAN, EDNA LYALL, GEORGE MACDONALD, O.
W. HOLMES, Mrs. OLIPHANT, JAMES HINT0N, C. BRONTE and her sister EMILY, Gen.
GORDON, Miss MULOCK, FREDERICKA BREMER, ELLICE HOPKINS, HESBA STRETTON,
FLORENCE NIGHTINGALE, F. SCHLEGEL, DR QUINCEY, EMERSON, LONGFELLOW, Mrs.
BEECHER STOWE. A remarkable fact is the consensus of all the leading poets as
well in America as in England in favor of the larger hope, a fact noteworthy if
true poetic inspiration be a reality. In theology, not a few names may be
added, as adopting, or at least in sympathy with, the larger hope, e.g., the
late Bishop EWING of Argyll, Canon KINGSLEY, F. D. MAURICE, Dr. COX, BALDWIN
BROWN, Bishop WESTCOTT, Dr. LITTLEDALE, the Bishop of Manchester, F. W.
ROBERTSON, Sir G. W. COX, A. JUKES, ARCHER GURNEY, PHILLIPS BROOKS, Professor
MAYOR, Canon FARRAR, Principal CAIRD, the Bishop of Meath, Dean CHURCH,
NEANDER, MARTENSEN, THOLUCK, REUSS, SCHLEIERMACHER, BENGEL, EBERHARD, LAVATER,
J. MACLEOD CAMPBELL, the Dean of Wells, Canon WILBERFORCE, Pastor OBERLIN,
Bishop KEN, &c.
I do not represent this list as at all exhaustive, yet it is enough to prove
that this movement is deep-seated, long continued, and extending itself widely
amongst men of the most varied schools of thought. Besides this, we must not
forget the very numerous cases in which the traditional creed has been wholly
abandoned, for the "conditional immortality" theory, and those cases, also very
numerous, in which the larger hope is (practically) held in silence. How vast
has been the change in men's minds may be seen in this fact, that in the Church
Congress of this year (1890), at least two Bishops - one of them the President,
and the most eminent living Anglican theologian - advocate the larger hope.
I do not write these chapters with a view to magnify Patristic authority. My
aim is historical. Place, for argument's sake, the Fathers in the lowest rank.
They are, at the least, our only possible witnesses to the teaching of
Christianity in those ages when the language of the New Testament was a living
tongue. It is certainly a most important fact in this controversy to find that
in an age so little merciful, and when the inducements to silence were so very
strong, (p. 83,) the larger hope was so widely held, and based on the authority
of Scripture. The higher Patristic theology, in its view of death, of penalty,
and of the future state is totally unlike our modern views. If we do not, our
opponents are wise enough to, see the importance of all this. They are wise
enough to see how grievously impaired thereby is their appeal to Scripture, as
teaching endless penalty; and how their chance is gone of appealing to that
ignorance of history, which calls Universalism a modern novelty, or the product
of an indifferent and sentimental age.
Here I beg my readers to note that these pages are only a plea for a truly
catholic Church, for a genuine, and not a nominal, catholicity. I am pleading
that Christ's Holy catholic Church may not be narrowed or dwarfed, but may,
with a true catholicity, savingly embrace (sooner or later} every soul for whom
its Founder died. I believe this to have been the deepest conviction of many,
of very many, of the primitive Saints.
It is possible that in spite of all care and labor, (now extending over
several years,) some errors of detail may be found in these chapters; some
passages may have been misunderstood. I ask my readers to believe that, if so,
I have offended involuntarily. I ask my critics to blame, if they must blame,
in a spirit of fairness, not wielding a tomahawk in the service of the God of
Love, nor using scorn and taunt in the service of Jesus Christ. But all the
main conclusions are, I believe, absolutely true.
The so-called inconsistency of the Fathers has been frankly faced, and the
complete unfairness of the mode of interpretation which is still too common,
has been exposed. - see pp. 93-4. When all the facts are fairly weighed, pp.
83-94, the evidence for the existence of a great body of 'universalistic
teaching in early times remains clear and 'wholly unshaken.
Taking a rapid survey of facts, I think we may thus arrange early
eschatological teaching. There were at first, probably, three distinct
currents. Some held the final annihilation of the wicked; some, especially in
North Africa, held their endless punishment; some, perhaps even a majority,
taught Universalism. By the days of GREGORY of Nyssa the latter view, aided
doubtless by the unrivaled learning, genius and piety of ORIGEN had prevailed,
and had succeeded in leavening, not the East alone, but much of the West (pp.
148-50). While the doctrine of annihilation has practically disappeared,
Universalism has established itself, has become the prevailing opinion, even in
quarters antagonistic to the school of Alexandria.
The waning fortunes of the dogma of endless penalty soon revived, however,
and in their turn gained the ascendency. The Church of North Africa, in the
person of AUGUSTINE, enters the field. The Greek tongue soon becomes unknown in
the West and the Greek Fathers forgotten. A Latin Christianity, redolent of the
soil, develops itself, assuming, in accordance with the Roman bent, a rigid
forensic type. On the throne of Him whose name is Love, is now seated a stern
Judge (a sort of magnified Roman Governor). The sense of sin practically dwarfs
all else. The Father is lost in the Magistrate.
In the East the decay of the earlier belief was, if less rapid, nearly as
complete. Strife within and without the Church, increasing ignorance and
corruptions, bitter controversy (and other factors, p. 159) combined to form a
soil in which the larger hope of earlier days at length dwindled and almost
expired. Indeed, who can wonder that this was so, if he will but reflect how
cruel was the age, how narrow is the natural heart of man, how slowly, even
now, it responds to that which is most divine. The true wonder (to me, at
least) is this, viz., the appearance in such an age as that of the later Roman
empire of the very idea of Universalism - a phenomenon which can, I think, be
alone accounted for by the fact that the early Fathers found it, as they tell
us, in the New Testament, p. 84.
So I close this sketch of early Universalism, under a deep sense of my
personal deficiencies, increased as they are, at once, by the difficulties of
limited space (e.g., S. GREGORY of Nyssa alone would furnish extracts enough to
fill this volume); and by the no less real difficulty of inducing my readers to
view this evidence from the standpoint of the early centuries. Let us take the
facts as they then were; let us try to picture a state of society in which the
sentiment of mercy was practically unknown; in which all things reeked with
vices too loathsome even to name; add the fear of cruel persecution, often
threatening the repose, if not the very existence of the Church; then, under
such circumstances, to promise these bloodstained persecutors, these votaries
of lust (even though unrepentant in life), a final salvation in the ages to
come, must have seemed almost treason to the cause of CHRIST, because only too
likely to arrest conversions. When to this we add the undoubted fact, that the
moral principles then current within the Church, explicitly sanctioned
dissimulation - thus rendering lawful that concealment (or denial) of
Universalism which must have seemed so expedient; then it is that we gain some
idea of the depth of conviction needed to account for even indirect teaching -
for hints even - of the larger hope in the early centuries. And, if so, how
much more for an Universalism, often, as we have seen, wide enough to assert or
imply, the final salvation of every fallen spirit. For in two respects the
teaching of this book - let us note the fact - falls short of a great body of
primitive teaching, (a) it states a hope instead of a certainty of restoration,
(b) it does not extend this TO ALL RATIONAL AND FALLEN SPIRITS; a point which
lies beyond my immediate province.
CHAPTER VI
UNIVERSALISM AND CREATION
"Adam which was the SON OF GOD." -S. LUKE, iii.
38.
Our next step is an important one, to show briefly how Universalism instead
of disturbing the due proportion and harmony of Christian doctrine is precisely
the element which affirms and establishes both.
We shall find - and the fact is a striking confirmation of the larger hope -
that the great verities of our Faith grow into a living unity in the light of
the great Purpose of Restoration. Creation, Incarnation, Resurrection,
Judgment, &c., thus assume their places as parts of one great whole, the
'One thought of the One God,' - p. 207-9. The Bible story opens with Creation,
which the New Testament so closely connects with Restoration, - Col. 1. 16-20.
Heb. i. 2-3. As all created beings issue out of, so they return unto God - p.
239) all are emphatically pronounced 'Good,' 'Very Good' - Gen. i.. 4, 10, 12,
18, 21, 25, 31 - pregnant words. Man is created in God's very Image and
Likeness. What does this involve? It is (1). God's affirmation of universal
Fatherhood. (2). God's assumption of the holiest duties towards every man. (3).
God's investing every man with inalienable rights.
I contend that such a tie between God and Man can never be broken, that in
the Origin of mankind Scripture bids us see their destiny, that God must
realize finally that ideal which he traced in Creation. We are told God is not
the Father of all men; He is only their Creator ! What a total misapprehension
these words imply of all that is involved in creating man in the likeness of
God, in the image of God. Viewed thus, Creation contains the Gospel in germ; it
involves universal Fatherhood. "Have we not all one Father," asks the Prophet,
why? "Has not one God created us? "- Mal. ii. ii. 10. Lord, You art our Father
* * we are all the work of Your hand." Is. lxiv. 8. "The Protevangelium (the
earliest gospel) is Gen. i. 26. 'Let us make man in Our image, after Our
likeness.'" - WESTCOTT on Heb. i. 2. Indeed, we may perhaps say of Creation
that it is fatherhood extended, it is paternity and something more. For what do
we mean by paternity and the obligations it brings? The idea rests essentially
on the communication of life to the child by the parent. Now paternity is for
us largely blind and instinctive; hut Creation is Love acting freely, divinely;
knowing all the consequences, assuming all the responsibility, involve d in the
very act of creating a reasonable immortal spirit. "Dieu, dit on, ne doit rien
a ses creatures. Le crois qu'il leur doit tout ce qu'il leur promit, en leur
donnant l'etre. Or c'est leur promettre un bien, que de leur en donner l'idee,
et de leur en faire sentir le besoin." - Emile. It seems, then, very strange to
seek to escape the consequences of the lesser obligation, by admitting one
still greater; to seek, in a word, to evade the results of a divine universal
fatherhood, by pleading that God is only the Creator of all. Hence a good
Creator, freely creating for a doom of endless sin, freely introducing a
dualism, is a profound moral contradiction. Can we even imagine a Good Being
of His own freewill calling into existence creatures to hate Him for ever, or
certainly creating those who will, as He knows, hate Him for ever, and sin for
ever ! Thus, in the awful yet tender light of Creation, the traditional
creed shrinks and shrivels up - "Seeing then that the spirit comes from God," *
* says S. JEROME, "it is NOT JUST that they should perish eternally who are
sustained by His breath and spirit."- In Is. lvii. 6.
I pass to consider the Incarnation. It is the great fact of Christianity.
From it flow, and on it depend the Atonement, the Sacraments, the Resurrection;
they are, as it were, results of the Incarnation, and extensions of it. Now
there are many aspects of this mystery which I do not touch; content to note
that one point is quite clearly admitted, that Jesus Christ became Incarnate as
the second ADAM. Therefore, to justify such a title, the Incarnation involves
the idea of the unity, absolute and organic, of the race of man. "For what
purpose is the history of our race traced to its earliest origin * * unless its
fortunes were regarded as a whole, and it must stand or fall together." -
WILBERFORCE on the Incarnation. "To that old Creation is opposed the
regeneration of man's race, through its new Creation in the second ADAM." - Ib.
But this logically involves the salvation of the race, "which stands or falls
together." It is, to borrow a homely phrase, all or none (p.71-3). If this were
to be stated in the language of science, it would stand thus - ADAM = x, where
x represents all humanity. And so Christ, as the last ADAM, sums up all
humanity in the spiritual equation. The traditional creed, in fact, constructs
an Incarnation of its own, not that of Scripture. Its Incarnate Son may be the
Son of God, but is not the Son of Man (of humanity), not the second ADAM. And
as the Christ of the traditional creed is not the Christ of Scripture, so its
human race is not the true humanity, for it teaches that the race is a
collection of atoms, separable, inorganic. But Scripture affirms the reverse:
it is quite true that every man bears his own burden of sin and suffering; but
there is a truth higher still - the solidarity of the race, in the divine idea
and plan. Says WESTCOTT, "Our lives are fragments of some larger life." -- Rev,
of the Father, p. 98. This is the truth, without which the Fall and the
Incarnation are unintelligible. In the highest sense Christ does not deal with
the units of humanity, for humanity itself is the divine unit in Redemption.
Therefore I feel constrained to charge the traditional creed with making void
the idea which underlies the Incarnation, the organic unity of mankind.
* "The Church," says NEWMAN, "holds that
it were better for the earth to fail and for all the many millions who are upon
it to die of starvation in extremist agony, as far as temporal affliction goes,
than that one soul, I will not say, should be lost, but should commit ONE
VENIAL SIN." - Angl. difficult p. 190. But, if so, how inconceivable does it
become that God should freely create millions of beings whose destiny will, to
His certain knowledge, be an endless existence in evil hopeless and aggravated,
evil rotting, festering for ever and ever.
* These statements from the pen of one who teaches that a part of the human
race is severed for ever from the second ADAM, are remarkable. They illustrate
what has been said (p. 67) of the virtual untruth which runs through our
traditional theology.
A further point must here be noted: as we think of man's Creation in God's
Image and Likeness, and all it involves; of the stupendous glory of the
incarnation; of the splendor of the Atonement, there comes of itself a
conviction that no anticipations we can form are too magnificent of the destiny
of humanity as such, i.e., as a whole: no ideals are too lofty. The traditional
creed stands self condemned when confronted with these noble facts; it bears
the brand of utter meanness; its message of ruin without remedy, of eternal
chaos, and darkness is a denial of the whole purpose and essence of Creation;
it is a denial, no less, of the message of the Incarnation to humanity as such,
as an organic whole.
I pass to the Atonement. It is an Atonement made by Christ as the last
ADAM. Not alone, then, does Christ sooner or later draw to Himself all men, but
He cannot draw less than all men if He be a new and better ADAM. Therefore, I
repeat, the traditional creed, while in words teaching, in fact denies the
Atonement of the Bible. It asserts an universal salvation - but it really means
a salvation that does not save universally - one in which Christ tries to save
all, and is defeated. What is this but to dishonor the cross in its very
essence: to deny that our Lord is truly the last ADAM, and to treat Him as one
who, in the face of assembled creation, in the sight of men and angels, has
challenged the powers of evil and has failed?
Long familiarity has blinded us to the significance of the startling
provision by which ADAM is linked organically with the whole race in the
transmission of guilt. This tie is formed universally, and independently of any
volition. To call Christ the second (i.e., last) ADAM is either to dupe men, or
it is to assert a tie equally organic and absolute with the whole human race.
But it is said, that, as men can shake off the heritage of ADAM, so they may
the grace of Christ: I reply (I.) so they may, if the grace of Christ be only
as strong as the sin of ADAM, which S. PAUL clearly denies, e.g., Rom. v.
15-21, &c. (II.) Before men can shake off a heritage they must have
received it. Hence, unless Christ REPLACES THE RACE IN PARADISE, He has not
undone the evil of the Fall (a fact which is steadily denied, or ignored, by
the traditional creed), and so is not the second ADAM. (III.) It is an
illogical process to say that because a partial failure took place (foreseen,
and permitted for wise ends), therefore a new dispensation expressly designed
to remedy that failure will itself fail. (IV.) In the highest and truest sense
God never fails, never can fail.
Here it is right to point out that two very
popular views of the Atonement lead, logically, (their truth I do not discuss)
to the larger hope. One theory says that Christ died as the sinner's
substitute. If so, and if He, as is certain, died for all, then all have a
clear right to salvation. If the substitute be accepted all have a right to go
free. Similarly, if Christ's death be the price paid for mankind's redemption,
then the acceptance of that price gives mankind a clear right to salvation. The
substitute being accepted, and the price fully paid for all, it is wholly
unfair to exact the penalty twice over, in any one case, in hell. These obvious
conclusions are too often ignored. A few words may be added on a strange view
not seldom held. An infinite Atonement presupposes, it is said, an infinite
guilt, and an infinite penalty. An infinite Atonement, it may be replied,
presupposes rather an infinite Love and an infinite Hope; and excludes the
chance of failure, possible to a finite Savior. I have shown the illogical and
unscriptural assumption involved in speaking of human guilt as infinite (p.47
Note). But, even admitting that the penalty of sin is infinite (for argument's
sake), my argument as above is wholly untouched. Be the penalty infinite or no,
you cannot equitably exact it twice over.
Let us pass to the Sacraments. They are an extension of the Incarnation.
"The influence of the Incarnation extends itself through that sacramental
system, which binds all men to the head of the race" - WILBERFORCE, p. 14. "As
there is a recapitulation of all, in heaven and earth in Christ, so there is a
recapitulation of all in Christ in the holy sacrament." - Bishop ANDREW, Sermon
of the .Nativity. In the language of theology, the tie formed in Baptism
(renewed in Holy Communion) with Christ is so close, that in the famous words
of S. LEO, "Corpus regenerati fit caro Christi." "The body of the baptized
becomes the flesh of Jesus Christ." But if so, it is impossible to believe that
the very flesh of Christ can be sent into an endless hell. Can Jesus Christ cut
off, so to speak, His own flesh and sever it from Himself for ever? or rather,
to state the case fully, can Christ assign a portion of Himself to the society
of devils for ever? Even Keble seems to feel this. When dwelling on these
aspects of Redemption, the cruel theology to which he clings drops off; and
rising to true catholicity, he bids us view "Christ's least and worst with hope
to meet above ." and says, in suggestive words, "Christ's mark outwears the
rankest blot." Need I again point out how these words really involve
Universalism, for our Lord always teaches that those who have been brought
nearest to Him and yet disobey, as do impenitent Christians, will fare worse in
the final judgment than those who have never heard of Him.
Next, let us pursue the Incarnation into another field of thought, and
contemplate in its light the Resurrection. The Resurrection is - admitting
fully its work for the body - yet essentially far more than this. "It is the
new birth of humanity." - WESTCOTT, Gosp. of Res. It is the crown of
Redemption. (I.) It is Life from Christ permeating the whole man, body and
spirit. (II.) It is Life permeating the whole of humanity, through the last
ADAM. "As in (the) ADAM all die, so in (the) Christ shall he made alive." To a
collective death in ADAM is here opposed a collective life in Christ; to a
fall, a rising again; to a loss, a gain; and that universal and absolute, one
dealing with the race. I say, a gain, necessarily; and as involved in the very
idea of the Resurrection. For what is the Resurrection? It comes only through
Christ, Who not merely gives, but Who IS the Resurrection and the Life. It is
thus the closest union with Christ: it is to share the "kingdom of God :" to
bear "the image of the heavenly :" to draw from Christ the gifts of "life,"
"power," "glory," "incorruption," " immortality," as S. PAUL teaches. And to
share all these is, necessarily, to share blessedness; a point I must press. By
what imaginable process can death, and blight, and evil be the result of that
Resurrection which is Christ? Again, death is in Scripture a name under which
are grouped the results of sin. Hence to abolish death, as the Resurrection
does, is to abolish sin and its results. But by the Resurrection death is swept
away, is, indeed, "swallowed up," and Life in all its fulness of meaning, Life
in Christ, Life which is Christ, is communicated.
Meantime, let us notice that this view of the Resurrection seems implied in
our Lord's words, S. Jno. vi. 39, 40, 54. There the Resurrection is contrasted
with loss, and is stated as the result of believing: cfr. S. Jno. xi. 25-6:
here notice our Lord's rejection of the idea of a Resurrection deferred to the
Last Day, as elsewhere He says, "Verily, verily, the hour now is, in which they
that are in the graves shall hear the voice of the Son of man, and they that
hear shall live. - S. Jno. v. 25. Here we have to guard against the common
error, which destroys the whole force of Christ's words, by severing this
present Resurrection from that which is to come. To our Lord, no such division
occurs: nay, to deny any such division seems His very object, and to teach that
the true idea of the Resurrection is of a force essentially spiritual, ever
acting ; a leaven which, working here and now, shall one day transform and
raise the whole man, body, soul, and spirit. Further, the idea of the
Resurrection, as a gain from its very nature, seems in harmony with our Lord's
words - S. Matt. xxii. 30; Mark xii. 25; Luc. xx. 35-6. The same conception
underlies S. PAUL'S teaching. "If the Spirit of Him, Who raised up Jesus from
the dead, dwell in you, He that raised up Jesus from the dead, shall also
quicken your mortal bodies." - Rom. viii. ix. Here Resurrection is represented
as flowing from the indwelling Spirit. Thus, too, S. PAUL preaches as good news
the Resurrection - Acts xvii. 18: and connects the Resurrection and light." ib.
xxvi. 23 (revised version), and significantly hopes for the Resurrection of the
unjust, - Acts xxiv. 15, i.e., hopes that the unjust, shall, with the just,
share the benefit of the Resurrection. Doubtless there is (and we are glad to
admit it), a Resurrection of judgment. - S. Jno. v. 29. For judgment, as we
shall see, is itself a part of the great scheme of salvation; and is curative,
while, nay rather, because it is retributive. To this treatment of the
impenitent dead, S. PAUL seems to allude in saying, "But every man in his own
order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's ;" "Then comes
THE END," i.e., after the time necessary for the subjection to Him of all
opposing creatures "when He shall have put down all rule, and all authority and
power." - 1 Cor. xv. 23-4. In other words all are to be made alive in Christ,
but in due order and succession, vv. 2 2-3. The reign of Christ is to be
prolonged until its aim is attained, v. 25, i.e., the aim just referred to of
universal life, v. 22.
Such, broadly speaking, seems to be the view of the Resurrection given in
Scripture. Taken narrowly, its statements may seem to conflict. Thus they
describe the Resurrection as successive, 1 Cor. xv. 23, and Rev. xx. 6, and yet
simultaneous, 1 Cor. xv. 51-2; as present, S. Jno. v. 25, and as future (in
many passages). All becomes clear if we keep in mind the central idea of the
Resurrection as a spiritual redemptive force exercised over the whole man - a
force present and ever acting (as in the parallel case of judgment); a force
which is successive, as it transforms individuals or classes of men; and yet
future and simultaneous in some special sense, when the end has come, when the
whole of humanity are "risen," when the climax has been by all attained.
I have reserved for the last a more detailed examination of S. PAUL'S great
argument in 1 Cor. xv. Two points of the greatest moment are there taught: (I.)
S. PAUL is speaking of the Resurrection of the dead generally, i.e., of all
humanity. (II.) He asserts in the case of all, the quickening, healing force of
the Resurrection; he knows no other resurrection than this healing restoring
process. (I.) That the Apostle is speaking of the Resurrection of all seems
clear from his words, v. 22-3 - " For as in the ADAM ALL die, so in the Christ
shall ALL be made alive." Here he plainly describes a process coextensive with
the race, coextensive with sin: again he proceeds to state clearly this
universal reference by explaining that life does not reach all at once, but
"every man in his own order." He divides the ALL, taking first "they that
are Christ's," v. 23, who obtain the Resurrection life at His parousia. Thence
he passes to the mass of humanity, who are to be gradually "subjected" in the
interval before "the end," v. 24. Finally, everything whatsoever and
wheresoever is to be subjected to Christ. (On this process, see notes on 1 Cor.
xv. 25-28; Eph. i. 10. i. 22 ; Col. i. 15-20 ; Phil. iii. 21, - Chap. viii.)
The final result is summed up in very striking words - "And when all things
have been subjected unto Him (Christ) then shall the Son Himself also be
subjected unto Him (the Father) that did subject all things unto Him (Christ)
in order that God may be ALL IN ALL." Observe the same relation subsists
finally between the whole universe (whatsoever and wheresoever), as that
between Christ and the Father - the same original word is used of both. The
language of the Apostle admits of no exception at THE END; of no death
whatsoever, first or second, for all are made alive in Christ; of no
annihilation, for all, are restored; of no blot or stain of evil moral or
physical. Finally, as the grand result - God IS ALL AND IN ALL.
This conception of the Resurrection as a spiritual force, conveying
blessedness, we find asserted by many early writers. The first traces of this
teaching are perhaps in the works of those Fathers, who seem to teach the
extinction of the wicked and to confine the Resurrection to the righteous. See
CLEMENS (Romanus) quoted p. 94. They who contradict the gift of God die "in
their wrangling," says S. IGNATIUS. "It would have been better for them to
love, so that they might rise," i.e., obtain the Resurrection. - Ad Smyr. vii.
See also Ad Trall. ix. "He who raised Christ from the dead, will raise us up
also, if we do His will," says S. POLYCARP - Ad Phil. ii. So, too, apparently,
"The Teaching of the Apostles" (p. 94). THEOPHILUS of Antioch teaches that
those keeping God's commandments "can be saved, and obtaining the Resurrection,
can inherit incorruption." - Ad Ait. ii. 27; and IRENEUS (p. 95) very probably
takes the same view. ARNOBIUS asks "what man does not see that, that which is
immortal * * cannot be subject to any pain; and that, on the contrary, that
cannot be immortal which does suffer pain ? " - Adv. gen. ii. 14. Passing on
from these Fathers, we find abundant early evidence to support the view, which
makes the Resurrection a process of restoration from its very nature. - See
ATHENAGORAS, p. 108; METHODIUS, p. 111. Again, S. HILARY speaks thus: "When the
only begotten Son was about to reconcile to God all things in heaven, and on
earth * * when death * * should come to an end • by redeeming man from the
law of sin - by making God an object of praise to all, and through all the
eternities, by the gift and dignity of our immortality. Now all these things
the virtue of the Resurrection accomplished." - In Ps. lxix., p. 834 (Paris,
1652). S. GREGORY of Nyssa abounds with such teaching as the following: "The
Resurrection is the restoration of our nature to its pristine state." - De an.
et Res. ii., p. 684. "Therefore, like a potter's vase, man is resolved once
more into clay, in order that * he may be molded anew into his original form,
by the Resurrection. - Cat. orat. ch. viii. "Lest sin adhering to us should
last for ever, the vessel is, by a kindly providence, dissolved by death for a
time, in order that * * mankind should be remolded; and restored, free from the
admixture of sin, to its former life. For that is the Resurrection, namely, the
replacing of our nature in its former state." - In fun. Pulch. ii. p. 955. S.
AMBROSE teaches that: "The Resurrection was given that by death sin should
end." - De bono mort. ch. iv. "The Resurrection is that by which all the bonds
of the enemy are loosed." - Ii Ps. xli. So, too, the AMMBROSIASTER. "On the
abolition of sin, the Resurrection of the dead takes place." - In Col. ii. "The
Resurrection," says an early author, "is the remolding of our nature." - De
Sacr. ii. 6. "Not to sin," says GENNADIUS, "belongs to the immortal and
impassible nature." - In Rom. vi. 12. In the same tone speaks CLEMENT of
Alexandria. - See Pad. iii. ch. i. The school of Antioch strongly insisted on
this view of the Resurrection. DIODORUS has been quoted - p. 137, and THEODORE
- p. 142-3. From the latter I add here: "Christ gave the Resurrection in order
that, placed in an immortal nature, we should live free from all sin. - In Rom.
v. 18. "The Apostle proves at length that those who are mortal serve sin, but
those who are become immortal are set free from it." - ib. viii. 3. "The
Resurrection of the dead (is) the final (greatest) good." - ib. xi. In the same
spirit THEODORET says - "In the future life the body, when made incorruptible
and immortal, cannot admit the filth of sin." - In Col. ii. 11. "For after the
Resurrection, when our bodies become incorruptible and immortal, grace shall
reign in them, sin having no place left for it. For when sufferings (passions
pathon) are put an end to (by the Resurrection), sin will have no place." - In
Rom. v. 2!. Viewed thus, surely a clearer light falls on the Savior's words, "I
am the Resurrection and the Life," words reechoed in our Creed -" I believe in
the Resurrection of the dead, and the Life everlasting" -- the Resurrection as
bringing to all Life everlasting.
From the Resurrection, let us pass by an easy transition to consider those
texts which speak of "death" and "destruction" and "perishing" as the portion
of the ungodly. To ascertain the true meaning, let us inquire what is meant by
death. There are two answers commonly given. First comes that of the popular
creed, which says death in the case of sinners means living for ever in pain
and evil. The recoil from such teaching has produced the second view of "death"
as meaning "annihilation," now maintained by some. I have already spoken of
this view, pp. 8-10; what follows will show how completely it seems to me to
contradict the true Scriptural idea of death.
First, I would ask, in the words of Mr.
JUKES, "are any of the varied deaths which Scripture speaks of as incident to
man, his nonexistence or annihilation? Take as examples the deaths referred to
by S. PAUL, in the sixth, seventh, and eighth chapters of the Epistle to he
Romans. We read (ch. vi., 7), 'He that is dead is free from sin.' Is this
'death' which is freedom from sin, nonexistence or annihilation? Again, when
the Apostle says (ch. vii. 9), 'I was alive without the law once, but when the
commandment came, sin revived, and I died.' Was this 'death,' wrought in him by
the .law, annihilation? Again, when he says (ch. viii. 6), 'To be carnally
minded is death,' is this death nonexistence or annihilation? And again, when
he says (ch. viii. 38), 'Neither death, nor life, shall separate us,' is the
'death' here referred to annihilation? When ADAM died on the day he sinned
(Gen. ii. 17), was this annihilation? when his body died, and turned to dust
(Gen. v. 5), was this annihilation? Is our death in trespasses and sins' (Eph.
ii. 1-2) annihilation? Is our 'death to sin' (Rom. vi. 11), annihilation? * *
Do not these and similar uses of the word prove beyond all question, that
whatever else these deaths may , not one of them is nonexistence or
annihilation?"
If death be neither living for ever in pain, nor annihilation, what then is
it? Death is, in its narrower aspect, bodily dissolution; it is for man a
separation from some given form of life which he has lived in. It is the way
out of one state of being into another. Thus understood, how should death shut
out hope in any case? Nor is it really opposed to life, in fact it is, when
viewed in a truer and higher aspect, a pathway to life; nay, the very condition
of life. 'Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abides alone,
but, if it die, it brings forth much fruit.' S. John xii. 24. Is there not here
a great truth hinted at, of universal application? Is not the connection a very
real and vital one between dying and life? So the Apostle says that 'he that is
dead is freed from sin,' Rom. vi. 7, i.e., is alive to God. Must it not be that
this death threatened against the ungodly is, after all, the way, however
sharp, to life even for them? as S. PAUL, Rom. xi. 15, asks, 'what shall the
reconciling of them be but life from the dead?' On the view generally held
these words, so significant, lose all real force. A tradition, wholly
unwarranted, has spread almost universally, which regards death as the close of
our training; as assigning a limit beyond which Christ Himself has no power or
no will to save the obstinate sinner.
I reply that in both the letter and the spirit, this view contradicts at
once the deductions of reason: the teachings of the early church: and the
express language of the New Testament. Indeed, to teach truer views of death
seems one of the essential objects of the Gospel. Death is, in fact, the
crossing from one stage of our journey to another. It is not an end; it is a
transit; it is an episode in life, and not its goal. It is not really a
terminus, but a starting point. It is "that first breath which our souls draw
when we enter Life, which is of all life center." - Edwin Arnold. "Death is the
shadow, the dream, and not life, as we hastily judge who measure being by our
senses." - WESTCOTT, Rev of the Father, p. 94. The day of death was by a true
instinct named in the early church the day of birth. To teach that our training
ends at death, is to say that a child's education ends with the nursery.
Therefore, let me ask, on what authority is the common doctrine taught,
unknown to antiquity, unknown to Scripture? Who commissioned any to teach, that
to die is to pass into a state beyond the reach of Christ's grace? If so, why
are we told, so significantly, the story of Christ's evangelizing the spirits
in prison? Why are those especially selected for evangelisation who had been in
life disobedient, and had so died? Why does the Apostle tell us that the Gospel
was preached even to the dead ? - 1 Pet. iv. 6, a fact obscured in the
authorized version. Why these repeated and exultant questions, "O grave where
is your victory ?" "O death where is your sting ?" Why has the New Testament,
with such varied illustrations, pressed on us this fact (as of special moment)
that Christ has destroyed death, if death is ever to put a stop to His power to
save? How could Christ be the Conqueror of death, if death can in any case
reduce Him to impotence? Can death disarm its victor? So far from this, S. PAUL
invokes the analogy of nature, as showing that death is the condition of life.
"You fool, that which you sow is not quickened, except it die," - in fact
"There is no gain except by loss,
There is no life except by death "
Who shall limit this truth in its operation? It certainly does hold good in
the spiritual order - of that we are assured. S. PAUL, in a passage already
quoted, speaks of death as freeing from sin. Let me quote further. "If we be
dead with Him, we shall live with Him." - 2 Tim. ii. 11. "We which live are
always delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might
be manifested in us."- 2 Cor. iv. 11. And so our Lord declares that "He that
loses His life shall save it." - a statement more than once repeated in the
gospels. And the Apostle adds, Rom. viii. 13, "if you mortify the deeds of the
body, you shall live." Thus, too, the Psalmist strikingly prays, "that the
wicked may perish, in order that they may know that God reigns over the earth."
- Ps. lxxxiii. 17-8. See, too, the verse, "When He slew them then they sought
Him." - Ps. lxxviii. 34. On these words ORIGEN comments, "He does not say that
some sought Him after others had been slain, but He says that the destruction
of those who were killed was of such a nature that, when put to death, they
sought God." - De prin. ii. ch. 5, iii. So, too, Elam is to be first consumed
and then restored. - Jer. xlix. 37-9. So is Ammon to be restored after perpetual
desolation - Zeph. ii. 9 and Jer. xlix. 6. So the dead bones are made alive. -
Ez. xxxvii., and Israel comes up out of her graves. - ib. v. 13. cf 1 Samuel
ii. 6.
* True, in the Old Testament the
threatenings of "death" arid "destruction" are mainly temporal But the same
principle underlies God's dealings in both dispensations, and renders the
quotations of this chapter strictly relevant.
We thus learn how death becomes the very instrument by which God quickens
the sinner, and that in two ways. (I.) By the death of the body, which takes a
man out of the present age into a state more fitted to rouse and to save. (II.)
By the death of the spirit, i.e., its being searched through and through by
God's fiery discipline - by His sharp surgery - till it die to sin and live to
righteousness. In all this subject of death, there is an extraordinary
narrowness in the views held generally, as though the fact of dying could
change God's unchanging purpose; as though His never failing love were
extinguished because we pass into a new state of existence; as though the power
of Christ's Cross were exhausted in the brief span of our earthly life. So far
from this, has not Christ abolished death? Is He not Lord of the dead? Did He
not evangelize the dead? Has He not the keys of death? On the popular view,
what depth of meaning can you possibly assign to these words?
It may be said, is there not "the second death ?" Yes, assuredly. But though
it were not the second merely but the thousandth death, yet it is but death:
and death absolutely, in every degree and power, is destroyed, is blotted out,
or there is no real meaning in S. PAUL'S song of triumph (1 Cor. xv. 55). No
true victory has been won by Christ if the second death is too strong for Him.
Will our opponents explain how "death" can be "SWALLOWED UP" in victory, and
yet survive in its most malignant form, i.e., the second death? As MARTENSEN
well puts the case, "When S. PAUL teaches that death is the last enemy that
shall be conquered, evidently in this death he comprehends the second death,
else there would still be an enemy to conquer." - Dogm. Chret.
A vast body of early opinion affirms that the sinner's "death" and
"destruction" is the Great Artist remolding His own work; is the Physician
healing, not annihilating. To pulverize the sinner, to destroy, to slay, ALL
MEAN REFORMATION. Such is the testimony of a crowd of illustrious names, to
most of whom the language of the New Testament was familiar as the language of
their everyday life. So CLEMENT asserts that the law in ordering the sinner to
be put to death designs his being brought from death to life. - Strom. lib.
vii. p. 707. ORIGEN has been already quoted. S. METHODIUS asserts that the
custom of Scripture is to call destruction that which is only a change for the
better. - Ex. EPIPHAN. Adv. haer. ii. torm. i. § 32. IRENAEUS speaks of
death as ending sin. - Adv. haer. iii. 23-6. S. GREGORY of Nyssa is full of
similar teaching. "They who live in the flesh ought, by virtuous conversation,
to free themselves from fleshly lusts, lest after death, they should again need
another death, to cleanse away the remains of fleshly glutinous vice that cling
to them." - De anim. et Res., ii. p. 652. This seems to show the healing agency
of even the "second death." "When the Psalmist prays, let sinners and the
unrighteous be destroyed, he is (really) praying that sin and unrighteousness
may perish ."-De orat. Or. i. p. 719. The passage continues thus - "And if
there be found any such prayer elsewhere (in the Scriptures), it has exactly
the same meaning, viz., that of expelling the sin, and not of destroying the
man." For S. GREGORY of Nazianzus, see p. 118, and for S. BASIL, p. 120. HILARY
has been quoted to the same general effect. So have EUSEHIUS and RUFINUS,
MACARIUS MAGNES, TITUS of Bostra, CLEMENT of Alexandria, CHRYSOSTOM, and CYRIL
of Alexandria; to these I may add MAXIMUS and DIDYMUS: and AMBROSE, pp. 129-30.
It would be hardly possible to adduce a stronger chain of testimony. I now turn
to S. JEROME (see p. 136). "All God's enemies shall be destroyed, His enemies
shall perish and cease to exist, but perish in that wherein they are enemies."
S. JEROME even seems to assert the salvation of the "Man of sin," for the
passage proceeds thus-" Just as S. PAUL writes to the Thessalonians (of the Man
of sin), whom the Lord shall slay with the breath of His mouth. (So) this
slaying signifies not annihilation, but the cessation of the evil life, in
which they formerly used to live." - In Mic. v. 8. From the AMBROSIASTER I take
the following, on the words, "They shall perish." "'They perish * * while they
are being changed for the better." - In Heb. i. 11. And so in the Sibylline
Books, the wicked first perish and afterwards are saved. - lib. ii. vv. 211,
250-340.
* So, in heathen mythology the same
deity, APOLLO, is the Healer and the Destroyer.
What is true of "death" as threatened against the sinner, is true no less of
"judgment, " even in its most extreme form. We are not without very distinct
teaching in Holy Scripture on this point. "Everywhere," says S. BASIL,
"Scripture connects God's justice (righteousness) with His compassions." - In
Ps. cxvi. 5. Doubtless in a certain sense judgment may be opposed to mercy, and
contrasted with it (S. Jas. ii. 13), but this is on the surface rather than in
essence. As, to take an illustration, death is often contrasted in Scripture
with life, and yet is the very pathway to life. (See pp. 185-8). Whenever
judgment comes, it comes on Love's errand, if it comes from God. Here is the
spiritual watershed between the two theologies. There is the popular theology
that says, God loves His enemies, till they die. His love then turns into hate
and vengeance. His love is in fact, a question of chronology, or, if one will,
of geography, i.e., bounded to this world. And there is the truer theology that
teaches with the Bible, that God is Love - Love unchanging and eternal in all
His ways.
In the first judgment recorded in Scripture, mercy goes hand in hand. If
Adam is to die, mercy follows; the serpent's head is to be bruised. So, too,
even the vengeance of eternal fire on Sodom ends in her restoration. - Jude
vii.; Ezek. xvi. 53-5. We thus understand the striking juxtaposition of mercy
and judgment in God's revelation of Himself to Moses. - Ex. xxxiv. 6-7: the
same connection we shall find in Deut. xxxii. 35 and 39: (cfr. Rom. xii.
19-20.) Thus, too, Israel's Judges were Saviors. - Judg. iii. 9: Obad. 21. Few
more beautiful illustrations of the view I am urging can be found than that
afforded by the story of ACHAN, stoned by a terrible judgment with all that he
had, in the Valley of Achor - Josh. vii. 24-25: for if we turn to Hosea ii. 15
we shall find this promise, "I will give her the Valley of Achor for a door of
HOPE," words pregnant with suggestion.
If now we turn to the Psalter, we may note that the fact of God's coming to
judgment is a matter of deep joy - Ps. lxvii. 4; nay, the Psalmist (Ps. xcvi. I
I-3; xcviii. 4-9) bids the sea to roar, the floods to clap their hands, the
hills to sing for joy, at the prospect of judgment (as being a part of the
great scheme of redemption). And so he hopes in God's judgments (Ps. cxix. 43),
and comforts himself with them - ib. 52-62 (compare Ps. xcvii. 8). Of Ps. ii.
8-9 I have already spoken. It would be interesting to know how the traditional
creed can fairly reconcile Christ's taking the heathen as His inheritance, with
the terrible judgment inflicted on them, "breaking them in pieces." The more we
study the Bible the more clear does the fact become, that salvation is
essentially linked with the divine judgments. And so, conversely, there is an
awfulness even in the divine compassion. There is mercy with You, therefore You
shall be feared. - Ps. cxxx. 4. And in this spirit we read the suggestive
words, "You, Lord, art merciful," says the Psalmist, "for You render to every
man according to his work." - Ps. lxii. 12. Here is the essence of the question
- retribution is mercy; judgment means salvation. "The thought," says MAURICE,
"of God's ceasing to punish is the real - the unutterable horror. Wrath is not
the counteracting force to love, but the attribute of it." So Ps. lxvii. 1-4
presents to us the picture of God as judge, in connection with His saving
health reaching all nations. So in Ps. lxxii. I, 2, 3-17, judgment leads to a
reign of universal righteousness. Again, in Ps. xcix. 8, forgiveness and
vengeance go together; so Ps. ci. 1, combines mercy and judgment, and Ps.
xxxiii. 5, judgment and loving-kindness. And so we read, "Your judgments are a
great deep, O Lord, you preserve man and beast," - Ps. xxxvi. 6.
The Prophets are full of similar teaching. Note ISAIAH connecting the words
of comfort and pardon to Israel with her having received "double for all her
sins." - Is. xl. 1-2. So it is said, "Zion shall be redeemed with judgment." -
Is. i. 27. "When your judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world
learn righteousness." - Is. xxvi. 9. "Princes. shall rule in judgment, and a
man shall be an hiding place from the wind." - Is. Xxxii. 1-2. "I will make my
judgment to rest for a light of the people. * * My salvation is gone forth." -
Is. li. 4-5. "Therefore will he be exalted that he may have mercy' * * for the
Lord is a God of judgment." - Is. xxx. 18. So again, "He has filled Zion with
judgment * * and there shall be abundance of salvation." - Is. xxxiii. 5-6.
"The Lord is our Judge * * He will save us." - Is. xxxiii. 22. We may note how
this connection of judgment and salvation runs through the Bible, - see Is.
xlv. 21-2, where God is described as a just God and a Savior; and the passage
proceeds to invite all the ends of the earth to look and be saved. Compare with
this, Zech. ix. 9, "just and having salvation, and 1 Jno. i. 9, "He is * * just
to forgive us our sins." So do we read of judgment in connection with the
future setting up of God's kingdom of peace and love. - Is. ii. 2-4. Nor should
we overlook the connection in Christ between God's rule and salvation, - Is.
xl. 10-11 ; ix. 7, so Ps. ciii. 19-22. And let us note the juxtaposition of the
"helmet" of salvation, and "garments of vengeance." - Is. lix. 17. So the "day
of vengeance" and the acceptable year are linked together. - Is. lxi. 2. And in
Is. xlii. 1-12 (applied to Christ in the New Testament) we find Him described
as setting judgment on the earth (v. 1), but the issue is salvation (v. 7-12).
Again, speaking of Christ as the branch, another Prophet tells how "He shall
execute judgment * * in the land. In those days Judah shall be saved." - Jer.
xxxiii. 15. And "I will betroth you unto Me for ever * * in judgment and in
mercy." - Hos. ii. 19. So in Dan. vii. 10-14, the universal dominion promised
to Christ is closely connected with the Judgment Day. So in Ezek. xxiv. 13-4,
it is said of Israel, "You shall not he purged of your filthiness any more,
till I have satisfied My fury upon you."
And we may note a remarkable reading in
the Septuagint, "I will set judgment unto hope." - Is. xxviii.
17.
The passages just quoted (and those that follow) may be compared with those
already cited to illustrate the Scriptural meaning of death and destruction. It
will also probably help our attaining a true view of judgment if we remember
that, in a sense most real, judgment is present and continuous. "Les grandes
assises de la vallèe de Josaphat commencent pour nous chaque soir." -
MAD. SWETCHINE. "The world," says EMERSON, "is full of judgment days." -
Spirit. Laws.
Let us now pass to the New Testament: there we shall find ample proof worthy
of our closest study, and showing the true meaning of judgment, alike here and
hereafter, as conveying salvation. Take for instance the context, so often
overlooked, of our Lord's famous words, S. John xii. 32 - "Now is the judgment
of this world, now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be
lifted up, will draw all men unto Me," i.e., the judgment of the world is the
salvation of the world, is the drawing of all men to Christ. Thus, if it be
objected that we are told Christ came not to judge, but to save the world, - S.
Jno. iii. 17, we can point to the above passage, and to the express statement,
"For judgment came I into this world." - S. Jno. ix. 39. But all difficulty
ceases when we remember that primarily salvation is Christ's object, but in
practice this salvation is attained very often through judgment. Thus note S.
Matt. xii. 18-21, where the bringing of judgment unto victory is stated as our
Lord's object: and again, note the connection of judgment and quickening in S.
Jno. v. 21-2. Very striking are the words of S. PAUL which refer to the last
Judgment, and seem to show conclusively that, that great day brings salvation
to all who are judged. Turn to Rom. xiv. 10 - " We must all stand before the
judgment seat of Christ," must each render his account to God. But that is far
from being the only object of that judgment. Its main and essential purpose is
salvation. To show this is easy. For note, that to illustrate the purpose of
God in judging, S. PAUL here quotes from Is. xlv. 23, which runs thus - "Look
unto Me and be you SAVED, all you ends of the earth, for I am God * * I have
sworn by Myself that unto Me every knee shall bow. * * The word is gone out and
shall not return ;" it must be fulfilled, i.e., God's purpose of salvation must
reach effectually the entire race. But this prophetic assertion of an universal
salvation is here quoted by the Apostle, and is linked with the Day of
Judgment, which, according to him, it describes. In that Judgment, S. PAUL sees
not the final damnation of any man, but the fulfillment of the prophetic
promise - a pledge that salvation shall reach every soul of man. Pause, and
realize the full significance of this. Beyond the grave, we have S. PAUL
looking on to the closing scene; to that Judgment which winds up the great
drama of Life, and Sin, and Redemption. And as the Apostle looks he sees in the
very Judgment a process of salvation, he sees a picture bright with hope for
every human soul - a picture which he can only describe in terms of the joyful
outburst of the prophet, "Look unto Me and be you saved, all you ends of the
earth."
So the Creed, "He shall come to judge the
quick and the dead, Whose kingdom shall have no end." Thus judgment leads to
the setting up of Christ's universal empire: and so (suggestively) the Judge
sits on a white throne (sign of amity) .- Rev. xx. 11.
Bearing all this in mind, a light, clear and distinct, falls on those words
of S. PAUL (so unintelligible on the ordinary view), where he declares the
gospel to be "the power of God unto salvation, * * for therein is the wrath of
God revealed." Note salvation and wrath linked together; salvation because the
wrath of God is revealed against all sin -.Rom. i. 16-8 - a connection obscured
by the arrangement of the text in our translations. Note, too, the teaching of
Rom. xii. 19-21, which surely implies that true divine vengeance is the
overcoming evil by good, by kindness: and Deut. xxxii., which is there quoted
refers to the healing character of God's vengeance, v. 39. Consider next what
S. PAUL says of the case of HYMENAEUS and ALEXANDER- 1 Tim. i. 20. They had
sinned. He thereupon hands them over to Satan. You can hardly imagine a more
desperate state - thrust by Apostolic authority out of God's Church, and handed
over to God's enemy, and that after having made shipwreck of their faith. But
what follows? It is that they may learn not to blaspheme. As an old Father puts
it, "Sinners are handed over to the devil. Wherefore? That they may perish
eternally? And where then is the mercy of God? Where is the tender Father? What
the Apostle says is this, I have handed over sinners to the devil, that,
tormented by him, they may be converted to Me." - In Ps. cviii. 9 (in S.
JEROME). Another equally striking instance is furnished by the case of the
incestuous Corinthian. I have judged already * * to deliver such an one unto
Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be SAVED." - 1 Cor.
v. 3-5. And so, as it has been well put, this wretched Corinthian was delivered
from the power of the devil, by being delivered into the power of the devil.
Few more suggestive passages exist in the New Testament. Here is a man
delivered by Apostolic authority - in the name of Jesus Christ - to Satan,
handed over to Satan. But mark the object and the result. It is to end not in
death but in life - say rather in life attained by means of God's awful
judgment. "O mon ame sois tranquille, et attends en paix le jour des vengeances
eternelles, c'est le jour de Christ, et ce sont les vengeances de Christ. C'est
donc un jour de salut, et ce sont des vengeances d'amour." - G. MONOD, Le
judgment dernier, p. 28. In this connection, as showing how the utmost
conceivable severity of the divine judgments is consistent with final
salvation, I ask you next to remember how S. PAUL tells of Israel that "wrath
is come upon them to the uttermost." - 1 Thess. ii. 16. The wrath of God to the
uttermost, and yet the same Apostle tells us that all Israel shall be saved.
Weigh well these words. It is as though God had exhausted all His vials of
anger, and left Himself no more that He could do. And even then does all this
wrath mean that hope is at an end, that salvation is impossible? It means the
very reverse. Salvation to the uttermost (for ALL ISRAEL shall be saved)- is
the end of wrath to the uttermost.
Quite as striking, perhaps even more significant, are S. PETER'S words, as
he tells the story of the preaching of Christ to the spirits in prison. The
spirits are specially described as those of the disobedient dead. And mark what
follows: "For this cause," he adds, "was the gospel preached even to the dead,
that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to
God in the spirit," i.e., in order that even those who had died in sin might
have the benefit of judgment, and so live to God. Here we have (I.) judgment
bringing to the sinner not condemnation, but life (II.) salvation by judgment
extended beyond this life (III.) extended to those who neglected, while living,
the greatest light then available; and died impenitent. All this involves a
precise contradiction to the common view of the future of the impenitent dead.
The thoughtful reader will note further that the "times of restitution of all
things" come when Jesus returns, Acts iii. 21, but He returns to judge the
quick and the dead. Let us finally quote, "I saw another angel, having the
everlasting gospel to proclaim * * and he said, fear God and give Him glory,
for the hour of His judgment is come." - Rev. xiv. 6-7. Note the everlasting
gospel proclaimed - how? By God's judgments.
This view of Judgment is precisely the teaching of antient catholic Fathers,
which I shall here give. Take in proof S. JEROME'S striking comment on Zeph.
iii. 8-10. There, speaking of the Day of Judgment and its terrors, he says:
"The nations, even the multitude of the nations, are gathered to the Judgment,
but the kings, i.e., the leaders of perverted dogmas are led up for punishment,
in order that on them may be poured out all the wrath of the fury of the Lord.
And this is not done from any cruelty, as the bloodthirsty Jews fancy, but in
pity, and with a design to heal * * For the nations being assembled for
judgment, and the kings for punishment, in order that wrath may be poured out
on them: not in part but in whole, and, both wrath and fury being united (in
order that) whatever is earthy may be consumed in the whole world." The object
aimed at (and gained) being that (as the passage proceeds) every one may lay
aside his error, and every knee bend in Jesus' name. Need I point out the
extreme significance of these words? They are unhesitating in their frank
recognition of, nay, in the emphasis laid on "the wrath of the fury of the
Lord," "the whole mass both of wrath and fury." But this is a means of
salvation. The great Day of Wrath that is to burn like fire, and to consume the
adversaries of God, burns up only what is earthy, bringing to every sinner
salvation.
S. JEROME adds that it is possible to
understand this passage of Christ's first coming, but he evidently adopts the
view above given.
Again, we have S. JEROME commenting on Rom. i. 18. "Therein is the wrath of
God revealed against all ungodliness," "where wrath is revealed it is not
inflicted; it does not smite, but it is revealed in order that it may terrify,
and may not be inflicted on the terrified." - In Hab. iii. Writing on Mich vii.
17, he compares the wicked to serpents, who, as they creep over the earth, drag
along with them earthly matter. So the wicked, "shall be troubled so long as
the sinful matter clings to them." But when (by the judgment) this has been
cleared away, they too shall end by fearing God.
Equally forcible and clear is the teaching of S. GREGORY of Nyssa.
"Therefore the divine judgment does not * * bring penalty upon those who have
sinned, but * * works good alone by separating from evil, and drawing to a
share in blessedness." In other words, the penalty is the cure- the unavoidable
pain attending the removal of the intruding element of sin. - De an. et Res.
ii. p. 659. And again: If this (sin) be not cured here, its cure is postponed
to a future life. As sharp remedies for obstinate cases, so God announces His
future judgment for the cure of the diseases of the soul, and (note these
words) that judgment is a threat to the frivolous and vain, "in order that,
through fear, * * we may be trained to avoiding evil; but by those who are more
intelligent it (the judgment) is believed to be a medicine, a cure from God,
Who is bringing the creature, which He has formed, back to that state of grace
which first existed."- Cat. orat. ch. viii.
S. GREGORY does not mean to deny the
terror of the Judgment Day. Hear his words : "All creation trembles, who is
without fear? -In verba Fac. hom. Orat. ii.
It will be interesting to compare with them the following from S. BASIL:
"Fear edifies the simpler sort." - Deus non est auct. mali, and from DIDYMUS:
"For although the judge at times inflicts tortures and anguish on those who
merit them, yet he who more deeply scans the reasons of things, perceiving the
purpose of His goodness, Who desires to amend the sinner, confesses Him to be
good." - De Sp. Sanc. ch. 44. Again, S. GREGORY says that the wrath of God,
which is to swallow up the sinful, is not wrath at all. "In the case of God,
His wrath, though to sinners it seems wrath, and is so called by them, is
nothing less than wrath (i.e., is not wrath at all, but as though (it were)
wrath comes to those who, according to God's justice, call it a retribution * *
(but) God Himself is not really seen in wrath." - In Psalmos Tract ii. ch. xv. p. 359. ORIGEN
goes quite as far. "When you hear of the wrath of God, believe not that this
wrath and indignation are passions of God: they are condescensions of language,
designed to convert and improve the child. * * So God is described as angry,
and says that He is indignant, in order that you may convert and be improved,
while in fact He is not angry." - In Jer. Hom. xviii. 6. So an old commentator
on the Psalms (in S. JEROME) says on Ps. vii., that God "awaits the day of
vengeance with a quasi-wrath, in order that He may correct (amend) by fear the
sinner." To the same general effect write S. BASIL, p. 120; S. GREGORY of
Nazianzus, p. 118; and CLEMENT, p. 107; and S. HILARY, on Ps. lxvii. 3-4, who
says that the cause of the nations' joy arises from "the hope of eternal
judgment, and of the nations (Gentiles) directed into the way of life." To
bring such teaching home, let us suppose one of our Archbishops were to declare
that God's Judgment may terrify simple souls, but that the intelligent see its
real end to be the cure of sin; or imagine a very eminent Bishop asserting that
the eternal fire purifies sinners.
Again, how shallow is the common view of "fire "as only or chiefly a penal
agent. "Fire, in Scripture, is the element of 'life' (Is. iv. 5), of'
purification' (Matt. iii. 3), of 'atonement' (Lev. xvi. 27), of
'transformation' (2 Peter iii. 10), and never of 'preservation alive' for
purposes of anguish." And the popular view selects precisely this latter use,
never found in Scripture, and represents it as the sole end of God's fiery
judgments! If we take either the teaching of Scripture or of nature, we see
that the dominant conception of fire is of a beneficent agent. Nature tells us
that fire is a necessary condition of life; its mission is to sustain life; and
to purify, even when it dissolves. Extinguish the stores of fire in the
universe, and you extinguish all being; universal death reigns. Most strikingly
is this connection of fire and life shown in the facts of nutrition. For we
actually burn in order to live; our food is the fuel; our bodies are furnaces;
our nutrition is a process of combustion; we are, in fact, "aflame to the very
tips of our fingers." And so it is that round the fireside life and work
gather: when we think of home we speak of the family hearth.
What Nature teaches, Scripture enforces in no doubtful tone. It is
significant to find the Great Source of all life constantly associated with
fire in the Bible. Fire is the sign, not of God's wrath, but of His being. When
God comes to EZEKIEL there is a "fire unfolding itself " - ch. i. 4, 27, and
"the appearance of fire" - ch. viii. 2. Christ's eyes are a flame of "fire
"-Rev. i. 14. And seven lamps of "fire" are the seven Spirits of God. - ib. iv.
5. So a fiery stream is said "to go before God," His throne is fiery flame, its
wheels are burning fire. - Dan. vii. 9,10. His eyes are lamps of fire - ib. 10,
6; He is a wall of fire. - Zech. ii. 5. At His touch the mountains smoke.- Ps.
civ. 32. And God's ministers are a flame of fire - Ps. civ. 4; Heb. i. 7. It is
not meant to deny that the divine fire chastises and destroys. It is meant that
purification, not ruin, is the final outcome of that lire from above, which
consumes - call it, if you please, a paradox - in order that it may save. For
if God be love , then by what but by love can His fires be kindled? They are,
in fact, the very flame of love; and so we have the key to the words, "Your God
is a consuming fire," and "Your God is a merciful God." - Deut. iv. 24.3!. So
God devours the earth with fire, in order that finally all may call upon the
name of the Lord. - Zeph. iii. 8-9 (words full of significance). So ISAIAH
tells us of God's cleansing the daughters of Zion by * * the spirit of burning
(ch. iv. 4) - suggestive words. And, so again, "By fire will the Lord plead
with all flesh." - Ps. lxvi. i6. And Christ coming to save, comes to purify by
"fire." - Mal. iii. 2.
Let us note, also, how often "fire" is the sign of a favorable answer from
God: when God appears to MOSES at the Bush it is in "fire :" God answers GIDEON
by "fire ;" and DAVID by "fire." - 1 Chron. xxi. 26. Again, when He answers
ELIJAH on Carmel, it is by "fire;" and in "fire" ELIJAH himself ascends to God.
So God sends to ELISHA, for aid, chariots and horses of "fire :" So when the
Psalmist calls, God answers by "fire." - Ps. xviii. 6-8. And by the pillar of
"fire" the Israelites were guided through the wilderness, and in "fire" God
gave His law. And in "fire" the great gift of the Holy Ghost descends at
Pentecost.
These words bring us to the New Testament. There we find that "fire," like
judgment, so far from being the sinner's portion only, is the portion of all.
Like God's judgment again, it is not future merely, but present; it is "already
kindled," i.e., always kindled: its object is not torment, but cleansing. The
proof comes from the lips of our Lord Himself. "I am come to send fire on the
earth," words that in fact convey all I am seeking to teach, for it is certain
that. He came as a Savior. Thus, coming to save, Christ comes with fire, nay,
with fire already kindled. He comes to baptize with the Holy Ghost, and with
fire. Therefore, it is that Christ teaches in a solemn passage (usually
misunderstood, S. Mark ix. 43) that every one shall be salted with fire. And so
the "fire is to try every man's work." He whose work fails is saved (mark the
word saved), not damned "so as by fire," for God's fire, by consuming what is
evil, saves and refines. The antient tradition that represents Christ as
saying, "He that is near Me is near fire," expresses a vital truth. So MALACHI,
already quoted, describes Christ as being in His saving work "like a refiner's
fire." And so, echoing Deut. iv. 24-3!, we are told that "Our God is a
consuming fire," i.e., God in His closest relation to us: God is love: God is
spirit: but "Our God is a consuming fire" - a consuming fire, "by which the
whole material substance of sin is destroyed." When, then, we read - Ps. xviii.
12-3 that "coals of fire" go before God, we think of the deeds of love which
are "coals of fire" to our enemies. - Rom. xii. 20. Thus we who teach hope for
all men, do not shrink from but accept, in their fullest meaning, these
mysterious "fires" of Gehenna, of which Christ speaks (kindled for
purification), as in a special sense the sinner's doom in the coming ages. But
taught by the clearest statements of Scripture (confirmed as they are by many
analogies of nature), we see in these "fires" not a denial of, but a mode of
fulfilling, the promise-" Behold, I make all things new."
Abundant quotations might be made from the Fathers in support of the above
view. S. AMBROSE, on Ps. i., says: The fiery sword at the gate of Paradise
shows "that he who returns to it comes back by fire." ORIGEN says, "As bodily
diseases require some nauseous drug * * or actual cautery, how much more is it
to he understood that God, our Physician * * should employ (for healing) penal
measures of this kind, and even the punishment of fire. * * The fury of God's
vengeance is profitable for the purgation of souls. That the punishment, which
is said to be applied by fire, is applied with the object of healing, is taught
by IS. iv. 4." - De prin. ii. x. 6. S. JEROME says: "Fire is God's last
medicine for the ten tribes, and for heretics, and for all sinners," that after
God has tried death and destruction, and they have not even then repented, "He
may consume them as He did Sodom and Gomorrah; that when consumed, and when the
divine fire shall have burned up all that is vilest in them, they themselves
shall be delivered as a brand snatched from the burning." - In Amos iv. ii.
"Therefore (i.e., to effect a cure) the world which 'lies in the evil one' is
burned with divine fire in the Day of Judgment, and the bloody city is laid
upon coals of fire." - In Ezech. xxiv. "When they perish in fire * * or are
destroyed in the fire of their prince the devil, or certainly are burnt in the
fire of which the Lord said, 'I am come to send fire on the earth,' and are
(thus) brought back from their former ways and do penance, the whole earth
shall be full of the glory of the Lord." - In Hab. ii. 12. Indeed, S. JEROME is
full of this teaching, see, e.g., his remarks on Mal. iii. 2-3; Hos. iv. 13 ;
Joel ii. I ; Amos vii. 4, &c., &c. "Finally, after tortures and
punishments, the soul brought forth from the outer darkness, and having paid
the very last farthing, says, I shall behold His righteousness. * * Now he who
after God's wrath, says that he sees God's righteousness (justification)
promises himself the sight of Christ."- In Micah vii. 8. So the old commentator
(in S. JEROME), speaking of God, says, "He is fire, that He may expel the
devil's cold." -In Ps. clxvii. 18. To the same effect much might he quoted from
S. GREGORY of Nyssa. The evil man after death will not become "a sharer in the
divine nature, till the cleansing fire shall have removed the stains mingled
with the soul." - Orat. de mort., ii. p. 1067. And again, " Thus • •
the soul which is united to sin must be set in the fire, so that, that which is
unnatural and vile * • may be removed, consumed by the eternal fire." - De
an. et Res. ii. p. 658. Here the eternal fire cleanses.
See Is. xlvii. 14-5, quoted by many
Fathers, where the Septuagint has a remarkable reading - "You hast coals of
fire, sit upon them, they will be to you a help."
There remains for our consideration a very important class of passages,
supposed, erroneously, to favor the popular creed. These passages are those
that speak of the "elect, " and their fewness; of the "many" called, but the
"few" chosen. That God's election is a doctrine clearly revealed in Scripture,
no impartial reader can doubt: although unfortunately, around few subjects has
the battle of controversy been so furiously waged. One party has, in affirming
God's election - which is true, so affirmed it as to make Him into an arbitrary
and cruel tyrant - which is false. But the truer and deeper views of God's plan
of mercy through Jesus Christ - now in the ascendant I trust - teach us to
affirm distinctly the doctrine of the divine election of "the few :" and just
because we so affirm it, to connect with it purposes of universal mercy. For
what is the true end and meaning of God's election? The elect, we reply, are
chosen, not for themselves only, but for the sake of others. They are "elect,"
not merely to be blessed, but to be a source of blessing. It is not merely with
the paltry object of saving a few, while the vast majority perish, that God
elects; it is with a purpose of mercy to all; it is by "the few" to save "the
many ;" by the elect to save the world. "If you go to Scripture," says Dr. Cox,
"you will find this its constant teaching. Even in those early days when one
man, one family, one nation, were successively chosen, to be the depositories
of divine truth, when, therefore, if ever we might expect to find the
redemptive purpose of God disclosed within narrow and local limitations; when
unquestionably it was much fettered and restrained by personal promises, and by
national and temporary institutions; the divine purpose is for ever
overstepping every limit, every transient localisation and restraint, and
claiming as its proper share, all the souls that are and shall be." - Salvat.
Mund. This admits of easy proof. Take a typical case to show what God's
election really means. Take the case of ABRAHAM, the father and founder of
God's elect people. What was the promise to him? 'That in his seed should all
the families of the earth be blessed.' This was of the essence of God's
election. And to this effect S. PAUL speaks with perfect clearness. And
thoughtful readers will remark that it is precisely the Apostle who lays most
stress on the divine sovereignty, who most clearly teaches universal
reconciliation. The promise to ABRAHAM was, S. PAUL tells us, that he should be
the heir of the world, .Rom. iv. 13; words most expressive, and yet without
meaning on the common view of election. In other words the Jews, as God's
elect, have, as their inheritance, all lands, all peoples. In the same Epistle
S. PAUL points out how close the connection is between Israel and the world.
Three times over he asserts their very fall to be the riches of the world, and
asks if so, what will not the reconciling of Israel be (to the world). In
short, on God's elect people hangs the lot and destiny of mankind - see Gal.
iii. 8, and Acts iii. 21-5; the latter passage is very interesting, for S.
PETER there asserts the connection between an universal restoration, and the
promise to ABRAHAM, i.e., his election. A further admirable illustration of
this may be given (furnished by Holy Scripture) from its teaching as to the
"firstfruits," and as to the "firstborn." Israel, as God's elect, is the
"firstfruits" - Israel the "firstborn." But the "firstfruits" imply and pledge
the whole harvest; the "firstborn" involve and include, in the divine economy,
the whole family. Hence the promise that "all Israel shall be saved" implies
the world's salvation. "The firstborn and firstfruits are the 'few' and the
'little flock;' but these, although 'first delivered from the curse,' have
relation to the whole creation, which shall be saved in the appointed times by
the firstborn seed, that is by Christ and His body." - JUKES. It is thus clear
that we, so far from denying the election of the few, lay stress on it as
essential to God's plan of mercy for all . It becomes indeed a corner stone, so
to speak, in the edifice of the world's salvation; for His "elect" are the very
means by which our Father designs to bless all His children - designs to work
out His plan of universal salvation. "The sovereignty by which God reigns is
eternal love." P. STERRY, Rise, Race, &c. "The Lord is King, the earth may
be glad thereof." - Ps. xcvii. i.
A few closing remarks are needed here, to indicate the principle that is
really at stake in these questions. For that principle is vital, and
fundamental. It is no less than the Unity of the Godhead; no less than the
first article of the Creed, "I believe in one God the Father Almighty "- in God
Who is ONE, not in nature alone, but in purpose and in will - One and
Unchanging. In place of this God, the popular creed presents us with a Being
Who fluctuates between tenderness and wrath, * One Who has ever-changing plans,
and a will that is divided, and baffled. For half His creatures His love is in
fact momentary, and His vengeance endless. For the other half, His pity is
endless, and His wrath transient. "The God we have preached has not been the
God Who was manifested in His Son Jesus Christ, but another altogether
different Being, in Whom we mingle strangely the Siva and the Vishnu." - F. D.
MAURICE. This God is not even Lord in His own house; for the worst and
feeblest of His creatures can finally defeat His most cherished plan; can
paralyze the Cross of Christ. In such a God I cannot see Him, Who is Almighty
and unchanging, Whose property is always to have mercy; Whose love, though
always punishing sin, never ceases to help the sinner, for "love never fails ;"
never to all eternity. Against the popular caricature of God, this chapter is
thus a special protest - that caricature which represents eternal love as
turning to hate, as soon as the sinner dies; which vainly talks of an Eternal
Father, Whose judgments mean salvation in one world, and change to damnation in
the next; of eternal love, whose fire purifies and refines in time, and then
beyond the grave turns to mere (purposeless) torture. What wonder if unbelief
abounds, when we invite it by such teaching?
* Thoughtful readers may consider how far
anger and resentment can be strictly predicated of God, Who changes
not.
Against this mass of contradiction stands the view here given of "Death,"
"Judgment,"" Fire," "Election." The old truths remain on a basis firmer than
before, in harmony and no more in conflict, because they rest ultimately on the
Unity of God - unity of essence and unity of purpose. God's essential unity is
destroyed when we assign to Him conflicting actions, as though his Love
demanded one course of action, and His Justice another; as though God the
Savior were one person, and God the Judge a wholly different one. Or, again,
when we blindly teach that, if His judgments now mean salvation, they at the
Great Day mean endless damnation. God, I repeat, in His "judgments," in His
"fires," in "death," * in "election;" God in time and in eternity is ONE and
the same God (Heb. xiii. 8), and has, and must have to all eternity, but one
unchanging purpose - is and must be for ever God our Savior. The divine Unity
is no merely abstract question: it reveals God's essence and character; it is
rooted not in the laws of number, but of spirit and will. When ZECHARIAH says,
"The Lord shall be king over all the earth," he adds, "in that day shall the
Lord be ONE, and His name ONE." And S. PAUL, in declaring that God "will have
all men to be saved," bases this not on God's love but on His unity, "for there
is ONE GOD," He Who is One in All, and All in One, Who will finally bring back
His entire creation to that unity from which it started. Thus, elsewhere, S.
PAUL contrasts the unconditional unchanging promises of God in the Gospel with
the Law, by laying emphasis on this divine unity-" For God is ONE." - Gal. v
20. (See LIGHTFOOT in loco.) To sever God's action into love and harshness is,
says S. GREGORY of Nyssa, but madness, nay, "the madness of babblers !" At the
bare idea that God can be really hard or cruel to His enemies (see note on S.
Luke vi. 27, ch. viii.), and loving to His friends, he exclaims with a scorn
(most rare in his writings)-" Oh, the madness of these babblers ! for if God is
unmerciful to His foes, He will not be truly kind even to you His friend." - De
orat. 1.
* The remarks on death, p. 188, lines 3
and 4, should be compared with what is said, p. 22.
CHAPTER VII
WHAT THE OLD TESTAMENT TEACHES
"From the time at which this great and far-reaching promise or gospel
was given to ABRAHAM, the universal scope of the divine Redemption is insisted
on with growing emphasis, even in those Hebrew Scriptures, which we too often
assume to be animated only by a local and national spirit." - Salvator
Mundi.
"The whole history of the world is the uninterrupted carrying through of a
divine plan of salvation, the primary object of which is His people: in and
with them however also the whole of humanity." - Delitzsch on Ps. xxxiii.
11.
From the Church I turn next to the Old Testament. There we shall find
abundant, perhaps to many readers, unexpected confirmation of the larger hope,
though I can merely attempt to give an outline of its teaching. True, in the
Old Testament, the promises are, it may be said, mainly temporal; but still we
have unmistakable evidence of a plan of mercy revealed in its pages, and
destined to embrace all men. Nor need this interpretation of the older volume
of God's word rest on mere conjecture: let me call as a witness, no less a
person than the Apostle S. PETER. The Apostle in one of the very earliest of
his addresses, Acts iii. 21, takes occasion to explain the real purpose of God
in Jesus Christ There is to come, finally, a time of universal restoration,
"restitution of all things." He adds the significant words that God has
promised this "by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began ;"
and, therefore, we who teach this hope are but following in the steps of all
God's holy prophets. Thus S. PETER would have us go to the Old Testament, and
weave, as it were, its varied predictions into one concordant whole, till they,
with one voice, proclaim the "restitution of all things."
Of the Gospel of Creation I have already spoken: here it is enough to note
that, in the divine act which stamps upon man the Image and Likeness of God, we
have the Gospel in germ. Thus the opening chapters of Genesis "give to us the
largest views of the loving sovereignty of God; and of the divine origin, and
destiny of mankind." - WESTCOTT, Rev, of the Father. In this great fact, that
mankind comes from God, and returns unto (or into) God - Rom. xi. 36, and in
the divine plan to insure this return, lies the center of unity of the Bible, -
the point to which its "many parts" and "many modes" (Heb. i. 1) converge.
Thus we see the true meaning of the Jewish economy- "Its work was for
humanity, the idea of Judaism is seen not in the covenant from Sinai, but in
the covenant with ABRAHAM." - ib.
* Here I may note that even those who
take extreme views of future punishment seem to agree in the belief that ADAM
and Eve found mercy. But, if so, it may well be asked - shall they who were the
authors of the Fall, and all its woe, escape; shall they who, created upright,
fall - yet find mercy at the last, while so many involuntary inheritors of a
fallen nature are doomed?
I have not space to consider minutely the promises of blessing to all men
contained in the Old Testament, though they can be traced almost everywhere. At
the very moment of the Fall is given a promise, that the serpent's head shall
be bruised, intimating a complete overthrow. Two points are very significant
here. The promise is not of the serpent's wounding only, but of such a wound as
involves his destruction; and next the promise is conveyed in close connection
with a terrible judgment; it is part of the sentence, it is embedded, so to
speak, in it. Passing on, we find that with the promise to ABRAHAM was blended
an intimation of blessing to the race of man. And this intimation of a
worldwide blessing, as has been often pointed out, grows more frequent as the
stream of Revelation flows on. We find that in the Law, the Psalms, and the
Prophets, are traces, clear and distinct, of universal blessing. Thus of the
teaching of the Law a fundamental part rested on the institution of the
"firstfruits" and the "firstborn." Elsewhere in this volume has been pointed
out the extreme significance of this as bearing on the larger hope, and as
fulfilled in Jesus Christ. As the "firstfruits" pledge the whole harvest, and
the "firstborn" the whole family, so are the elect people, i.e., God's
"firstborn" ("Israel is my son, my firstborn"), a pledge that all are God's,
that all are destined to share His blessing (to this the whole story of the
Jewish race, when rightly viewed, bears witness; as "first-fruits" they are the
channels of blessing to all mankind). Hence it is that we have the repeated
promises to ABRAHAM, that "in his seed should all the families of the earth be
blessed." Thus the Jewish patriarch becomes in the apostle's striking phrase,
"heir of the world," and no less. This principle, by which the elect become a
means of blessing to all the rest, is strikingly affirmed in the Jewish law. A
sheaf of the "firstfruits" was to be presented to the Lord as pledging and
consecrating the whole harvest. (Lev. xxiii. 10 and 11.) All the "firstborn" of
the herds and flocks were the Lord's (Deut. xv. 19), as a pledge that all were
His. So were the "firstborn" of their sons. (Ex. xxii. 29.) If now we turn to
the New Testament, we learn the essential bearing of all this on Christ's
kingdom. First the Apostle assures us that if the "firstfruits" be holy, the
lump is also holy. (Rom. xi. i6.) Next he asserts that not Israel only, but in
a higher sense Christ is the "firstfruits." (x Cor. xv. 23.) And the context
implies that Christ conveys, actually imparts, life to all as did ADAM death to
all. And as Israel was the "firstborn" son (Ex. iv. 22), so in a sense far
higher is Christ the "firstborn" of every creature (Col. 1. 15-20), (the head
of every man, 1 Cor. xi. 3.) Here, too, the context involves the reconciliation
through the "first born," Christ, of every creature to God. We have thus a
double "firstfruits," i.e., Christ, the true "firstfruits," and His people, "a
kind of firstfruits." (James i. 18.) Christ the "firstborn" (Col. i. 18), and
again His people (His elect) the "Church of the firstborn." (Heb. xii. 23) Now
it is very striking to find all this exactly prefigured in the Law; for it
speaks of a double firstfruits; one which was offered at the Passover, and on
the very day on which Christ rose, on "the morrow after the Sabbath" (Lev.
xxiii. 10,11); the other also distinctly called "firstfruits," (though
distinguished by a separate name) which was offered fifty days later at
Pentecost. * (Lev. xxiii. 17.) Thus does even the Law contain intimations of
universal blessing to accrue to all men.
Let us pass on to the Psalter and there also trace this promise of the
restitution of all things; for the Psalmists, too, are God's prophets, and are
full of the largest forecasts. "When they speak of the coming Messiah, they are
at the farthest from claiming the blessings of His reign exclusively for
themselves; on the contrary, they say, 'His name shall endure for ever: His
name shall be continued as long as the sun; and men shall be blessed in Him;
all nations shall call Him blessed"' * * "They constantly breathe forth the
invitation, O praise the Lord all you nations; praise Him all you people.'" -
Salv. Mundi. Other examples of the same address to all nations - to all peoples
- bidding them join in God's praise, and surely anticipating that they would
one day do so, are frequent in the Psalms. Take, for example, those our Prayer
Book has made familiar, e.g., Cantate Domino. - Ps. xcviii. In it all lands are
bidden to show themselves joyful unto the Lord. To the same effect is the
familiar clause of the Jubilate, Ps. c., "O be joyful in the Lord all you
lands." To show how deeply this idea is embedded in the Psalter, let me add a
few passages here. "Praise the Lord all you nations." - Ps. cxvii. 1. "Unto You
shall all flesh come." - Ps. lxv. 2. "You shall inherit all the nations." - Ps.
lxxxii. 8. "All nations shall come and worship You." - Ps. lxxxvi. 9. "Al? the
earth shall worship You ." - Ps. lxvi. 4. "Sing unto the Lord all the whole
earth." - Ps. xcvi. 1. And so we read, "All nations shall do Him service * *
All the heathen shall praise Him, All the earth shall be filled with His
Majesty." - Ps. lxxii. 11-19. "Let all flesh give thanks unto His holy name,
for ever and ever." - Ps. cxlv. 21. So again, "Praise the Lord you kings of the
earth and all people." - Ps. cxlviii. 11. "Bless the Lord all you His works." -
Ps. ciii. 22. "Let all the people praise You." - Ps. lxvii. 3-5. "All the ends
of the world shall fear Him." - ib. 7. "All the ends of the world shall
remember and turn unto the Lord, and all the kindreds of the nations shall
worship before You." - Ps. xxii. 27. This text has a special significance on
account of the close connection of this Psalm with the Atonement; as a result
of which all the ends of the world shall turn, as it predicts, unto the Lord.
Surely all this constitutes a remarkable array of evidence for the complete
universality of Christ's kingdom. Can any fair mind accept the traditional
creed as a satisfactory explanation of these passages. Here, as ever, men have
delighted to narrow the breadth of the divine purpose, and dwarf its
proportions. But would these promises, worldwide in their range, be fairly met,
by saying that out of all the countless generations of man, only those, yet
unborn, shall indeed fully learn to know God? It is impossible so to think;
impossible not to see here a foreshadowing of those times of "restitution of
all things"- Which must come if the Bible speaks truly. In this universal hope
is to be found the true spirit of the Psalms, in these invitations addressed,
not to Israel, but to all nations - nay, to whatsoever exists. Note how, as the
Psalter draws to its end, the tone of triumph rises, expands, broadens into the
very widest anticipations of universal blessedness (Ps. cxlviii. cl.). In this
spirit it closes, "LET EVERYTHING THAT HAS BREATH, praise the Lord." - Ps. cl.
6.
Of the greater Prophets the same is true; though I need not speak in detail
of them. From amid their varied contents, at times break forth promises of the
widest, amplest hope; anticipations of a time of universal bliss and joy; of a
world in which all pain and sorrow shall have passed away. But these passages
are in the main familiar to you, and I need hardly quote them. They have found
their way to the heart of Christendom, and have stamped themselves on its
literature. "Take, however, only this one sentence from the evangelical
prophet, and take it mainly because S. PAUL echoes it back, and interprets it
as he echoes it. It is Jehovah Who speaks these words by the mouth of ISAIAH:
'Look unto Me and be you saved, all you ends of the earth: for I am God and
there is none other: I have sworn by Myself and the word is gone out of My
mouth in righteousness and shall not return, that unto Me every knee shall bow
and every tongue confess.' Could any words more emphatically declare it to be
the divine purpose that the whole earth, to the very end of it shall be saved;
that every knee shall bend in homage before God, and every tongue take the oath
of fealty to Him? Are we not expressly told that this declaration, since it has
come from the righteous mouth of God, cannot return unto Him void, but must
accomplish its object; that object being the salvation of the human race? S.
PAUL echoes this great word (in Rom. xiv. ix,) and again in the epistle to the
Philippians, and though on his lips it gains definiteness and precision,
assuredly it loses no jot or tittle of its breadth: he affirms, Phil. ii. 9-11,
'that God has highly exalted Him, and given Him a name which is above every
name, in order that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow; not only every
knee of man - for now the promise grows incalculably wider - but every knee in
heaven and on earth, and under the earth: 'and that every tongue shall confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.' It is hard to
understand ISAIAH as proclaiming less than an universal redemption, but if S.
PAUL did not mean to proclaim a redemption as wide as the universe, what use or
force is there in words ?" - Salvator Mundi.
On one passage I must briefly dwell. "He shall see
of the travail of his soul, and be SATISFIED." - Is. liii. 2. By what ingenuity
can hopeless, endless evil be reconciled with these words? How can I accept a
creed that asks me to believe that Christ is satisfied, while His own children
are given over to endless ruin. Who believes this of Jesus Christ? Who can
believe Him "satisfied" with the final and utter ruin of any one soul for whom
He died ? - "satisfied" that His cross should fail? - "satisfied" with the
victory of evil, in so much as a solitary case?
Remember how full are the Prophets, and the Psalms no less, of pictures of
the vastness of the divine mercy, of His tenderness that never fails. Even from
amid the sadness of the Lamentations, we hear a voice assuring us that "the
Lord will not cast off for ever, but though He cause grief, yet will He have
compassion according to the multitude of His mercies." - Lam. iii. 31. Or take
these words, 'I will not contend for ever, neither will I be always wroth, for
the spirit should fail before Me, and the souls which I have made." - Is. lvii.
16. This idea is a favorite one; the contrast between the short duration of
God's anger, and the enduring endless character of His love. "So in a little
wrath I hid My face from you for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I
have mercy on you, says the Lord Your Redeemer." - Js. liv. 8. Let us pause
here for a moment to dwell on the significance of this fact of the limited
duration of the divine anger, so clearly taught in the Old Testament. Take a
few instances, " I am merciful, says the Lord, I will not keep anger for ever."
- Jer. iii 12. "His anger endures but a moment." - Ps. xxx. 5. "While His mercy
endures for ever," - Ps. cxxxvi .- a statement repeated no less than twenty-six
times in this one Psalm. "He will not always chide, neither keeps He His anger
for ever."- Ps. ciii. 9. "He retains not His anger for ever, because He
delights in mercy." - Mic. vii. 18. But if this be true, what becomes of the
popular creed? If God's anger is temporary, how can it be endless? If it endure
but a moment, how can it last for ever in even a solitary instance? I would
invite our opponents fairly to face these plain and reiterated assertions: and
to explain why they feel justified in teaching that God's anger will in many
cases last for ever, and that His mercy will not endure for ever.
I may in passing ask attention to two passages in the Book of Daniel In one,
ch. vii. 14, a dominion absolutely universal is promised to the Son of Man,
words which may be compared with the numerous passages to the same effect noted
in the next chapter. In the other, ch, ix. 24, a promise is made of a decree to
finish transgression, and to make an end of sins.
We have spoken of the pictures of universal blessedness that are to be found
in the greater prophets, "perhaps," says the author already quoted, "some of
you may not be equally familiar with the fact that these same pictures are also
to be found in the minor prophets ;" (a fact very suggestive) that "every one
of these brief poems, or collections of poems, has its tiny Apocalypse. And
mark this point well, while each of the minor prophets sees the vision of a
whole world redeemed to the love and service of righteousness, this vision of
redemption is invariably accompanied by a vision of judgment" - (see ch. vi. on
judgment.) At least, if not all, yet very many of the minor prophets do predict
the coming of a time of universal redemption. So HOSEA xiii. 14, exclaims, "O
death, I will be your plagues. O grave, I will be your destruction." - (See 1
Cor. xv. 55) So JOEL ii. 28, tells of the spirit as being poured upon all
flesh. HABAKKUK can look beyond the terrors of judgment and see the "earth
filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the
sea." - ch. ii. 14. Is not this wonderful? Can you not enter into S. PETER'S
words as he stood forth, while yet Christianity was scarcely born, to proclaim
as its glorious aim and scope, the universal restoration - the paradise of God
regained for mankind - all things made new.- Acts iii. 21.
I resume. In ZEPHANIAH we read the same glorious prospect, the same
universal hope. He speaks of God's judgments as being terrible to the nations,
in order that "men may worship Him, every one from his place, even all the
isles of the heathen." - ch. ii. 11. And again, in the same prophet, we are
told how God is to send His fiery judgments to purify men, "that they may all
call upon the name of the Lord to serve Him with one consent" (ch. iii. 8-9).
So MALACHI closes the prophetic line with an intimation indeed of judgment - of
a refining fire - but together with this is the prospect unfolded, that from
the "rising of the sun unto the going down of the same, God's name shall be
great among the Gentiles, and in every place incense and pure offerings shall
be offered to Him." - ch. i. 11. The words that introduce this prospect "from
the rising up of the sun unto the going down of the same," may well recall the
beautiful and suggestive phrase of Zech. xiv. 7, "At evening time it shall be
light."
Brief as the above survey has been, it has, I trust, served to indicate how,
even through all the Old Testament, the thread of universal hope runs: how the
Law, Prophets and Psalmists of Israel did foreshadow a coming age, when sin
should be no more, and sorrow and sighing should flee away for ever. To the New
Testament I propose to devote an examination more in detail, as its great
importance demands. in the next chapter.
CHAPTER VIII
WHAT THE NEW TESTAMENT TEACHES
"And here I may briefly say, that to my own mind, the language of the
New Testament appears unequivocally to affirm the redemption of all men; their
actual redemption from this evil and diseased state in which we now are; the
actual raising up of all to a perfect life. To my mind this universality seems
to be clearly expressed in Scripture." - HINTON, The Mystery of
Pain.
We now turn to an examination of the very many passages in the New Testament
that clearly declare, or imply, the salvation of all men -- how numerous these
are we shall see. The time has fully come for appealing with all boldness on
behalf of the larger hope, alike to the letter and the spirit of the New
Testament. One thing only I ask, which common fairness and
honesty require, that our Lord and His Evangelists and Apostles may be
understood to mean what they say. Thus, we shall look at a FEW
instances out of MANY. When they speak of all men, I assume them to mean ALL
men, and not some men. When they speak of all things, I assume them to mean ALL
things. When they speak of life and salvation as given to the world, I assume
them to mean GIVEN, and not merely offered. When they speak of the destruction
of death, of the devil, and of the works of the devil, I assume them to mean
that these shall be DESTROYED and not preserved for ever in hell. When they
tell us that the whole of Creation suffers but that it shall be delivered, I
assume that they mean an ACTUAL deliverance of all created things. When they
tell us that Redemption is wider, broader, and stronger than the Fall, I assume
that they mean to tell us at least this, that ALL the evil caused by the Fall
shall be swept away. When they describe Christ's empire as extending over all
things and all creatures, and tell us that every tongue must join in homage to
Him, I assume them to mean what these words convey in their ordinary sense.
If I did not, should I not be making God a liar???
What does the traditional creed require? It practically requires a MUTILATED
BIBLE. More than this, it bids us to expunge precisely that which is noblest
and divinest in Holy Scripture. I have no desire to ignore "the Terrors of the
Lord" -- (see next chapter). They deserve and shall have full recognition. I do
insist, however, that those teachers misread Holy Scripture who forgets that
its essential purpose is to unfold His name, Who is "our Father", and to
proclaim His full victory in the extinction of all evil, and not in its
perpetuation in hell. I protest against teaching that
"All" means in scriptural phrase absolutely "All" when some evil is foretold,
but that "All" means only "some" when spoken of final salvation. So rooted is
this most inequitable mode of interpretation, that it has become involuntary.
The restitution of all things means, we are told, that only some beings are to
be restored, while some are tortured for ever, or annihilated. That God shall
be finally "All in All" means that He will shut up many for ever in endless
evil, to blaspheme and hate Him eternally, and only save the rest. That His
tender mercies are over all His works means, in the ordinary creed, that His
tender mercies expire at the gates of hell. Solemn as is the question, there is
something almost ludicrous, when we find those who so teach, then turning
around to charge us with evading the words of Scripture.
I submit that the entire history of exegesis contains no stranger fact than
this persistent ignoring of so large a part of the New Testament. To bring this
out clearly, I append the following chain of passages from a long series. They,
clearly and closely linked, claim for Christ a saving empire coextensive with
the race, or (perhaps) rather with the whole universe. This connection is
clearly marked, for each passage suggests or contains the same central idea,
and thus forms a link in a continuous chain. This chain begins at creation,
when all things were created by Christ, who therefore, as S. PAUL implies,
reconciles (re-creates) all things unto God -- Col. 1:16-20. Hence, His work is
the restitution of all things -- Acts 3:21. He is Heir of all things -- Heb.
1:2. The Father has given Him
authority over all flesh, to give to whatsoever was given to Him eternal life
-- S. John 17:2 (see original). So all flesh shall see the salvation of God --
S. Luke 3:6. For God, Whose counsel is immutable -- Heb. 6:17,18, Whose
attitude towards His enemies is love unchanging -- S. Luke 6:27-35, will have
all men to be saved -- 1 Tim. 2:4, and all to come to repentance -- 2 Pet. 3:9.
He has shut all up unto unbelief, so that He may show mercy upon all -- Rom.
11:32. For (out) of Him, as Source, and unto (or into) Him, as End, are all
things whatsoever -- Rom. 11:36. He has, therefore, put all things in
subjection under Christ's feet -- Eph. 1:22. So we are assured that God wills to
gather into one all things in Christ -- Eph. 1:10. His grace comes upon all men
unto justification of life -- Rom. 5:18. So Jesus, knowing that the Father had
given all things into His hands -- S. Jno. 13:3, promises by His Cross to draw
all men unto Himself -- S. John. 12:32. For having, as stated, received all
things from the Father -- S. Jno. 3:35, all that was given comes to Him, and He
loses none -- S. John. 6:37-39, but if any stray, goes after that which is lost
till He finds it -- S. Luke 15:4 , and so makes all things new -- Rev.
21:5.
Thus, He comes in order that ALL men may beleive --- S. Jno. i. 7 --- that
the world through Him may be saved -- S. John. 3:17. His grace brings salvation
to all men -- Tit. 2:11. He takes away the sin of the world -- S. John. 1:29.
He gives His flesh for its life -- S. John. 6:51. Because the gifts and calling
of God are without repentance (are irrevocable) -- Rom. 11:29, He gives life to
the world -- S. John. 6:33. He is the Light of the world -- S. John. 8:12. He
is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world -- 1 John. 2:2. He is the
Savior of all men -- 1 Tim. 4:10. He destroys the works of the devil, not some
of them only -- 1 Jno. 3:8, and the devil himself -- Heb. 2:14. He abolishes
death -- 2 Tim. 1:10. He is manifested to put away sin -- Heb. 9:26, and thus
subdues all things unto Himself -- Phil 3:21 (the context clearly shows this
subjugation to be conformity to Himself). He does not forget the dead, but
takes the gospel to Hades -- 1 Pet. 3:19, of which He holds the keys -- Rev.
1:18. He is the same (Savior) for ever -- Heb. 13:8. Thus, even the dead are
evangelized -- 1 Pet. 4:6, and death and Hades destroyed -- Rev 20:14. All are
therefore made alive in Him -- 1 Cor. 15:22. Christ finishes, completes His
work -- S. John. 17:4, restores all things -- Acts 3:21, and there is no more
curse -- Rev. 22:2,3. Every knee of things in heaven and earth, and under the
earth, bends to Him -- Phil. 2:10. The creation is delivered from the bondage
of corruption -- Rom. 8:21, and every creature joins in the song of praise --
Rev. 5:13. So comes the END, when He delivers up the Kingdom to God, Who is
then ALL IN ALL -- 1 Cor. 15:24-28.
These passages are, I repeat, not taken at random and piled up any way. They
are the expression of that Purpose that runs though the Bible. It is a Purpose
first stated in man's creation in God's image; a Purpose to be traced in the
Law, the Psalms and Prophets; and most clearly in the New Testament. From it we
learn that (I.) Christ came, claiming as His own the entire human race, to the
end that He might save and restore the WHOLE, and not any fraction of it,
however large. (II.) He came with full power "over all flesh", having received
power in heaven and on earth -- over all hearts, all evil, all wills. (III.) He
lived and died, and rose again, victorious in the fullest sense, "having
FINISHED His work," as He expressly claims.
Thus, to deny the absolute universality of Christ's redeeming sway, as
destined to embrace ALL SOULS AND ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER, seems no less than to
withdraw from the New Testament an essential and vital part of its teaching.
For here we are not dealing with some few passages, in which it might be
possible to say that "ALL" was used in a lax sense. We have a connected series
in which link follows link, a series in which the actual, not the potential,
universality of Christ's kingdom is the center and essential thought. Let us
now consider a little more in detail, the passages themselves, taking them in
their natural and fair meaning, not obscured by traditional gloss.
"FOR THE SON OF MAN IS COME TO SAVE THAT WHICH WAS LOST." S. Matt
18:11.
Here the question is simply this, will Jesus Christ do what He has come to
do, or will He fail -- as the traditional creed, in spite of all denials,
indubitably teaches?? Will He save that which was lost and not some of the lost
merely, a totally different thing?? How can "that which was lost" be saved, if
any soul be finally lost??
"IN THE REGENERATION." - (PALINGENESIA) S. Matt. xix. 28.
This passage, too often passed over, seems certainly to promise that new
creation of all things, in which Christ, Who first made, is one day to remake
all things; cf Col. i. 15-20; Heb. i. 2. The thoughtful will notice (see
Context) the connection of restoration and judgment.
"ALL FLESH SHALL SEE THE SALVATION OF GOD." S. Luke iii. 5.
Quoted from ISAIAH ch. xl. 5, "The seeing is twofold, as appears from the
sequel (sec ch. lx.). It is (I) the natural sight of Jehovah's glorious deeds
on behalf of His people; and (II.) the spiritual recognition of Jehovah as the
Lord." - CHEYNE. Surely, then, these words point in the direction of a
salvation which shall be quite universal, "for without holiness no man shall
see the Lord." - Heb. xii. 14. "The pure in heart shall see God." - S. Matt. v.
8.
"BUT I SAY UNTO YOU LOVE YOUR ENEMIES, DO GOOD TO THEM WHICH HATE YOU * *
AND YOU SHALL BE THE CHILDREN OF THE HIGHEST." S. Luke vi. 27-35.
"But I say, 'LOVE YOUR ENEMIES."' Will the advocates of endless penalty
frankly tell us how that can be reconciled with the letter, or the spirit, of
this text? Will they explain why God commands us to love our enemies, when He
consigns His own enemies to an endless hell; and why He bids us to do good to
those who hate us, when He means for ever to punish and do evil to those who
hate Him?
"BUT WHEN A STRONGER THAN HE SHALL COME UPON HIM AND OVERCOME HIM, HE
TAKES FROM HIM ALL HIS ARMOR, WHEREIN HE TRUSTED AND DIVIDES HIS SPOILS." S.
Luke xi. 22; S. Matt. xii. 29.
Here it is asserted (a) that Christ is stronger than Satan, (b) that Christ
will overcome Satan, (c) will take from him all his armor, (d) will divide,
i.e., take away his spoils. Each of these statements contradicts the popular
creed, for that teaches (a) that evil is stronger than good, (b) that it
Overcomes good in numberless cases, (c) that Satan's power for evil is not
taken away, but lasts for ever, (d) that his spoils - the souls he has captured
- are not divided, i.e., taken from him. And observe our Lord's victory over
the powers of evil does not consist in shutting up any of their captives in
hell, but in liberating all.
"WHAT MAN OF YOU HAVING AN HUNDRED SHEEP * * IF HE LOSE ONE OF THEM, DOES
NOT LEAVE THE NINETY AND NINE * * AND GO AFTER THAT WHICH IS LOST UNTIL HE FIND
IT ?" S. Luke xv. 4.
Antient commentators follow two main lines, (I.) the hundred sheep are all
men; (II.) are all spiritual creatures: in the former case the wicked are the
strayed sheep: in the latter mankind itself, which by the Fall has strayed from
the heavenly fold. Both views seem to involve Universalism. For in the one all
the wicked, in the other all humanity, are sought till they are found. Any
narrowing of the "sheep" to the elect, is quite alien from the whole spirit of
this parable, which was specially addressed to the publican and the sinner. See
how broadly Christ bases His argument, "what man of you," He asks, "would not
do this ?" Observe the immense significance of Christ's teaching. It expressly
sanctions the right to argue from those feelings of humanity, shared even by
the outcast and sinful, to the divine feelings. (pp. II, 14-6.) Note, too, the
ground taken - the divine loss. It is not the man who loses his soul, it is God
who loses the man; (a fact ignored - with much else - in popular teaching.)
"WHAT WOMAN, HAVING TEN PIECES OF SILVER, IF SHE LOSE ONE PIECE, DOES NOT
SEEK DILIGENTLY TILL SHE FINDS IT?" S. Luke xv. 8.
Here is precisely the same broad human basis, and the same broad hopeful
teaching. Keep steadily in view these facts taught here: (I.) - Our own
feelings of love and pity are a safe guide to God's feelings; on these very
feelings Christ expressly builds, asking, "what man of you ?" (II.) - Every
lost soul is God's loss, Who, therefore, seeks its recovery; and (III.) - will
seek till He find it. (IV.) - The whole of the loss is repaired. (V.) If God
feel the loss of man, He will always feel it. Hence, if sin be endless, the
divine Passion must surely be endless too.
"FOR THE SON OF MAN IS COME TO SEEK AND TO SAVE THAT WHICH WAS LOST." S.
Luke xix. 10.
If so, I gather from His own parables, and His essential nature, that so
long as anything is lost, Jesus Christ will go on seeking and saving; for is He
not always the same? (Heb. xiii. 8.) "'the lost" are His charge, and not some
of the lost, a very different thing. Or are we to read this verse thus: "He
came indeed to save 'the lost '-but those in the fullest sense 'lost' He will
never save ?"
"THE SAME CAME * * THAT ALL MEN THROUGH HIM (CHRIST) MIGHT BELIEVE." S.
John i. 7.
Yes, that all men might believe, that is indeed the divine purpose - the
purpose of Him Who sent the Baptist. But dare we say, that what God purposes,
He will fail to do? I read distinctly of the immutability of His counsel (Heb.
vi. 17). Am I to believe that the immutable purpose of the Almighty and
unchanging God shall finally come to nothing?
"BEHOLD THE LAMB OF GOD, WHICH TAKES AWAY THE SIN OF THE WORLD." S. John
i. 29.
Here is the extent of the work of Christ set forth. It is the world's sin,
and not less, that He takes away. But, if it is taken away, how can there be an
endless hell for its punishment? Is all this playing with words? Are we, then,
to assert of Christ, "Behold the Lamb of God Who tries to take away the sin of
the world but fails ?"
"FOR GOD SENT HIS SON * * THAT THE WORLD THROUGH HIM MIGHT BE SAVED." S.
John iii. 17.
Our opponents say, that God's purpose will fail. He, on the contrary,
assures us by His Prophet, that His word shall not return unto Him void, but
shall accomplish His pleasure.
"THE FATHER LOVES THE SON, AND HAS GIVEN ALL THINGS INTO HIS HAND." S.
John iii. 35.
The relevance of this is obvious, for "all that which the Father gives Me,"
says Christ, "shall come unto Me," ch. vi. 37. This is one of the large group
of passages showing the absolute universality of Christ's kingdom; compare ch.
xiii. 3, and see the connection of the gift of all things to Christ and His
atoning death. Also see S. Matt. xi. 27, where, just before the well-known
appeal, "come unto Me," Jesus has been saying that all things were delivered
unto Him by His Father; a connection surely suggestive. Read, too, S. Mat!.
xxviii. i8, and note the connection between all power given to Christ, and His
claim over all nations. So, too, in Heb. ii. 8-9, the connection is significant
between the gift of all things to Jesus Christ, and His tasting death for every
man. As He creates all things (actually) so He redeems and restores all things
(actually, not potentially); God has given to Him all things; and all things
given to Him shall come to Him.
"THE CHRIST, THE SAVIOR OF THE WORLD." S. John iv. 42.
Christ is here called the Savior of the world. The larger hope simply
pleads, that Christ will, in fact, save the world.
"(HE) WHICH GIVES LIFE UNTO THE WORLD" S John vi. 33.
The world (cosmos) is in Scripture the ungodly mass. It is contrasted with
the inner circle of the faithful, the elect. But this world is over and over
again claimed by Christ. He gives life to it, and His gifts are "without
repentance."
"ALL THAT THE FATHER GIVES ME SHALL COME TO ME; * * AND THIS IS THE
FATHER'S WILL * * THAT OF ALL WHICH HE HAS GIVEN ME * * I SHOULD LOSE NOTHING."
S. John vi. 37-9.
We have seen that God the Father has given to Christ, not some things, but
all things; and here we have the promise of Jesus Christ, that all that has
been given to Him shall come to Him, and that nothing shall be lost (S. Jno.
vi. 12).
"MY FLESH, WHICH I WILL GIVE FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD." S. John vi.
51.
Again, it is the world for whose life Christ is to give His flesh. Can He
give in vain? His gifts are "without repentance," i.e., must be finally
effective, though they may be resisted.
"THEN SPOKE JESUS * * I AM THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD." S. John viii.
12.
Here, too, the world is that of which Christ is the Light as well as the
Life.
"AND I, IF I BE LIFTED UP FROM THE EARTH, WILL DRAW ALL MEN UNTO ME." S.
John xii. 32.
The plainest comment is the best. A partial drawing, i.e., a partial
salvation makes His words untrue. What our Lord does say is, in the
consciousness of power, and using the term applied to the Father's constraining
grace, ch. Vi. 44, is I will (actually) draw all men. He does not say, or
imply, I will try to draw, and fail. One reads the comments of good men on this
passage, with a feeling akin to despair, as they attempt to make Jesus Christ
say that which He did not say, and not say that which He did say. What He does
say is exactly given in the following lines:
So shall I lift up in My pierced hands
Beyond the reach of grief and guilt
The whole creation. - E. S. Browning
"FOR I CAME NOT TO JUDGE THE WORLD, BUT TO SAVE THE WORLD." S. John xii.
47.
This is as distinct a statement of Christ's purpose as is possible; its
force can only be evaded by asserting that Christ would fail to accomplish that
very thing which He came to do: and this assertion must be made in the teeth of
those explicit passages, which declare the completeness of His triumph.
"JESUS, KNOWING THAT THE FATHER HAD GIVEN ALL THINGS INTO HIS HANDS." S.
John xiii. 3.
These words carry us to the very eve of the Passion. "Knowing that His hour
was come," v. 1, Jesus knows, too, that all things have been given into His
hands (See ch. iii. 35; xvii 2; S. .Matt. xxviii. 18; xi. 27; Eph. i. 22). Such
knowledge at such an hour is deeply significant. As the Cross draws near, there
comes to cheer Him the knowledge that to Him have been given all things, i.e.,
an assurance of absolute victory.
"AS YOU GAVE HIM AUTHORITY OVER ALL FLESH. THAT WHATSOEVER YOU HAVE GIVEN
HIM, TO THEM HE SHOULD GIVE ETERNAL LIFE." S. John xvii. 2.
Even the revised version fails to bring out with clearness the central fact,
that eternal life has been given to all flesh by Christ. Literally the original
runs: "You gave to Him authority over all flesh, in order that (as to) ALL
which You have given to Him, to them (i.e., to all), He should give eternal
life." The Greek is clear; but our versions fail, in not repeating the emphatic
all (repeated in the original), which involves the gift (not the offer) of
eternal life to ALL by Christ - thus obscuring the meaning. It is necessary to
remark, if we would understand S. JOHN'S teaching, the emphasis laid on the
divine SOVEREIGNTY in Redemption, a sovereignty which is love. - (Our recoil
from Calvinism has blinded most readers to this truth which pervades all Holy
Scripture). Thus the Father disposes all things, and gives all things to
Christ, ch. xiii. 3; iii. 35; xvii. 2 (S. Matt. xxviii 18). At the very hour
appointed, ch. xvii. 1; ii. 4; xii. 23; xii. 1; each part of the great work is
accomplished.
"IT IS FINISHED." S. John xix. 30; (cfr,. xvii. 4.)
What is finished? the pain - the Cross? It is inconceivable that such a
Speaker, at such an hour, should mean less than this, viz.; ALL is finished in
all its extent. The Great End and Goal is now attained - attained in all its
length, and breadth and height. In no respect can that Purpose of salvation
fail, which embraces all humanity; for - though the very opposite may seem true
- IT is FINISHED.
"AND HE IS THE PROPITIATION FOR OUR SINS; AND NOT FOR OURS ONLY, BUT ALSO
FOR THE SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD." 1 S. John ii. 2.
* It is well to remember this, when we
are gravely told that "Omnipotence itself cannot save obstinate sinners." Now,
in the matter of salvation we have an express assertion that even the camel can
go through the needle's eye; for with God "ALL THINGS ARE
POSSIBLE."
Notice here the world contrasted with the true disciples; and yet the
propitiation is not to be confined to the few, it is for all. S. JOHN'S anxiety
is to assert this for all. Here, as so often, the narrower and wider purposes
of salvation are both mentioned: the narrower not excluding, as in the popular
view, but including and implying the wider; a truth of the deepest
importance.
"HE WAS MANIFESTED TO TAKE AWAY SINS." 1 S. John iii. 5.
This should he compared with S. John i. 29. There Christ takes away the sin
- regarded as one vast whole - of all humanity: here the sins, i.e., the
individual sins of men.
"THE SON OF GOD WAS MANIFESTED THAT HE MIGHT DESTROY THE WORKS OF THE
DEVIL." 1 S. John iii. 8.
The very purpose of the manifestation of God's Son is here stated to be the
sweeping away of Satan's works. How then can this possibly be true, while pain
and sin endure for ever? No ideas can be more exactly opposed than the
permanence of evil, and yet the destruction of the works of the devil. Is sin,
and all that sin involves, the work of the devil? Yes, or No? You cannot answer
in the negative, if you accept the standpoint of Scripture. But, if the
affirmative be true, then all hell and sin and sorrow are to be swept away.
"THE FATHER SENT THE SON TO BE THE SAVIOR OF THE WORLD." 1 S. John iv.
14.
Does it not savor of mockery to say that the Father sent the Son to destroy
evil, and to save the world, and that the Son is victorious; and yet that
neither shall evil be destroyed or the world saved?
"FEAR NOT * * I HAVE THE KEYS OF HELL AND DEATH." Rev. i. 18.
Significant words; doubly significant when we remember that Christ had just
used these keys to open the prison doors, in His Descent into Hades. How, if
so, can death (the second, or any death) sever from Jesus Christ (Who holds the
keys) - from His power to save?
"AND EVERY CREATURE WHICH IS IN HEAVEN, AND ON THE EARTH, AND UNDER THE
EARTH, * * HEARD I SAYING UNTO HIM THAT SITS ON THE THRONE, AND UNTO THE LAMB,
BLESSINGS," &c. Rev. v. 13.
These words embrace every created thing - on the earth, and under the earth,
and in the sea. All are represented as swelling the chorus of praise to God,
and to the Lamb. Yes, to such an end we trust and hope that all Creation is
indeed coming, because we believe God's distinct promise, that all things shall
be made new. How else could all things join in this glorious chorus? Compare
notes on Eph. i. 10; Phil. ii. 11.
"DEATH AND HELL WERE CAST INTO THE LAKE OF FIRE" Rev. xx. 14.
"The sense of the whole seems to be that at the final consummation of all
things, all evil, physical and moral, will be abolished." - Bishop
WARBURTON.
"BEHOLD * * I MAKE ALL THINGS NEW." Rev. xxi. 5.
This is the same glorious hope, not for some, but for all; no less than all
things are to be made new.
"I AM THE ALPHA AND THE OMEGA, THE BEGINNING AND THE END." Rev. xxi. 5;
(i. 8; xxii. 13).
A thoughtful reader will note that this claims for God a position, which
negatives a final dualism: as He was the Source, so He is the Goal of all
things. God is the TERMINUS of Creation; the Stream shall return to its Source.
The unconscious dualism of current theology is a barrier to any true
apprehension of the thought of the Apostle, which seems to be the same as that
S. PAUL expresses in Rom. xi. 36.
"AND THE LEAVES OF THE TREE WERE FOR THE HEALING OF THE NATIONS. AND
THERE SHALL BE NO MORE CURSE" Rev. xxii. 2-3.
Here is a striking hint - as to a future restoration; a hint that the
nations are one day, in a future age, to be healed, for all this is subsequent
to the passing away of the present earth, heaven (ch. xxi. r). And as a result
of this healing, there shall be no more curse - no pain - no tears - but all
things made new
"THE TIMES OF RESTITUTION OF ALL THINGS." Acts iii. 21.
All things are to be restored; (apokatastasis, i.e., complete restoration),
and this is said to be the meaning of the work of Christ, the meaning of the
promise to ABRAHAM, of the Jewish covenant (v. 25). 'this God has spoken by all
"the prophets since the world began," and this is what the larger hope
teaches.
"AND HAVE HOPE THAT THERE SHALL BE A RESURRECTION * * BOTH OF THE JUST
AND THE UNJUST." Acts xxiv. 15.
Note these words. Could S. PAUL have hoped for a resurrection of the unjust
if that meant hopeless punishment to them? "Who is so great a fool," asks a
famous Father, "as to think so great a boon as the Resurrection can be, to
those that rise, an occasion of endless torment ?"
I may take this opportunity of asking attention to the fact that there runs
through Scripture a definite law of expansion. First one family is chosen, then
this family expands into a nation, then the nation is declared to be the source
of blessing to all nations. Side by side with this numerical expansion there is
visible a spiritual expansion. The prescribed sacrifices, the elaborate ritual,
are pushed aside in favor of a spiritual creed, even in the Old Testament.
Passing to the New Testament the law is the same, but more active still. By
what, to a hasty judgment seems strange, Christ devotes half His time to the
bodies of men, but we see the meaning to be that He cares for the whole man,
and this care expands into the noble promise of the Resurrection. Next comes a
most significant expansion. All barriers fall before the march of Redemption.
The dead, the unrepentant dead, are evangelized; the Cross penetrates Hades, 1
Pet. iii. 18-20; iv. 6. Nor is this all there are hints plain enough of a
greater expansion still. "All things in heaven," "the Principalities and
Powers," - Eph. i. 10; iii. 10, &c.; Col. i. 15-20, are drawn within the
range of the Atonement. Can any Hope be broader than that here directly
suggested by the Bible itself? The question seems rather this :-Are our
broadest hopes broad enough? Shall there be a corner or nook or abyss, in all
the universe of God, finally unlighted by the Cross? Shall there be a sin, or
sorrow, or pain unhealed? Is the very Universe, is Creation in all its extent,
a field wide enough for the Son of God?
We have seen how numerous are the passages which the writings of S. Matthew,
S. Luke and S. John contain, teaching directly or indirectly, the salvation of
all men. Let us now consider the epistles of S. Paul, S. Peter, and that to the
Hebrews. We shall find in these books the stream of promise still widening -
the universality of Redemption indicated with a precision of language and a
variety of illustration, which it seems not possible to reconcile with endless
evil. I do not mean that every passage quoted is in itself conclusive. I do
mean that all are relevant, as links in that great chain of promise, which
enshrines the doctrine of universal restoration. And here an important question
arises. How - on the hypothesis of endless evil - can we account for such
passages, as naturally and obviously point to the larger hope? That the Bible
holds out a hope of universal reconciliation, &c., &c., cannot be
denied. And, if this universal restoration is never to take place, how came
this promise to be made? How c ame the Bible to raise expectations never
destined (as we are told) to be fulfilled, in a matter so unspeakably
important? Inspired writers, aware that all things (in the natural sense of the
words) will never be restored, and yet asserting positively that they will be
restored, present us with a fact, which our opponents may well be invited to
account for and explain.
S. PAUL'S writings naturally claim special notice here. He is, so to speak,
the Statesman-Apostle, whose mind ranges over the whole field of the divine
purpose and of human destiny. Two points I must note. (I.) Not merely does S.
PAUL assert the divine Sovereignty, but it lies at the center of his teaching.
He sees everywhere a Purpose slowly but surely fulfilling itself, a purpose
which may be resisted, but must finally prevail. (II.) In this Apostle the
Resurrection is set in striking prominence, as from its essential nature, a
spiritual, redemptive force, as indeed the climax of Christ's work for man.
"THE PROMISE THAT HE SHOULD BE THE HEIR OF THE WORLD * * TO ABRAHAM."
Rom. iv. 13.
Here remark that the election by God of the Jews really involves the world's
salvation; for ABRAHAM IS "heir of the world," (see on election in ch. vi.)
i.e., receives as his inheritance the whole world.
"THEREFORE AS BY THE OFFENSE OF ONE, JUDGMENT CAME UPON ALL MEN TO
CONDEMNATION; EVEN SO BY TILE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF ONE THE FREE GIFT CAME UPON ALL
MEN UNTO JUSTIFICATION OF LIFE." Rom. v. 16-18.
I earnestly commend a study of the whole drift and argument of this passage.
It is, I think, absolutely irreconcilable with a partial salvation. It contains
a statement as explicit, as words can convey it, of this great truth - God's
remedy is COEXTENSIVE WITH, AND IS STRONGER, THAN SIN. Wherever, upon
whomsoever sin has lighted, there shall God's grace, through Jesus Christ, come
to heal. In the very same sense as "the many" (all men) were made sinners, so
"the many "shall have righteousness - not merely offered them - but be made
righteous. And here I take my stand on these plain words of Scripture, and
maintain that no state of final sin, for any soul, is compatible with them.
Will our opponents explain how the grace of God (v. 15) can be mightier in
fact, than sin, if there be a hell without end? Will they explain how grace can
muck more abound than the offense - if there be a place of endless evil? Note
the great underlying principle, viz., that grace is stronger than sin, always
and everywhere stronger (finally).
"BECAUSE THE CREATURE ITSELF ALSO SHALL BE DELIVERED PROM THE BONDAGE OF
CORRUPTION INTO THE GLORIOUS LIBERTY OF THE CHILDREN OF GOD. FOR WE KNOW THAT
THE WHOLE CREATION GROANS AND TRAVAILS IN PAIN TOGETHER UNTIL NOW. * * WAITING
FOR THE ADOPTION, TO WIT, THE REDEMPTION OF OUR BODY." Rom. viii.
21-22-23.
As to the details of S. PAUL'S meaning, men may fairly differ; but his
central thought seems clear. All created things have been subjected to vanity -
to pain and suffering, no account taken of their will - ouk hekousa. Yet these
are but the travail pains of a new birth; all that suffers shall be delivered
from the bondage of corruption. Note how here (alone in the New Testament) are
the sufferings of the whole creation alluded to, and how emphatic is the
assertion that every created thing - pasa he ktisis - is awaiting redemption;
and this reaches them by the manifestation of the sons of God, "the
firstfruits," or the elect (see cli. vi. on election).
"FOR IF THE CASTING AWAY OF THEM BE THE RECONCILING OF THE WORLD, WHAT
SHALL THE RECEIVING OF THEM BE, BUT LIFE FROM THE DEAD * * FOR IF THE
FIRSTFRUITS BE HOLY, THE LUMP IS ALSO HOLY." Rom,. xi. 15-16.
The calling of the Jews is linked in God's plan with the world's salvation
(v. 12). They are His people, in the truly divine sense, that by them the
world's salvation may be worked out. They, as "firstfruits," represent and
pledge the whole world.
"AND SO ALL ISRAEL SHALL BE SAVED." Rom. xi. 26.
Here the Apostle's whole argument and the tenor of the context - see
particularly v. 7 (and cli. x. 21) - very clearly distinguish "Israel" from the
" election" (taken out of Israel), and show that by Israel the whole nation is
meant. (Nor does this "election" conflict with the truth that in a wider sense,
Israel itself (all Israel) forms the "firstfruits," i.e., the elect people; in
fact, as already noticed, there is a double "firstfruits," both in the Law and
the Gospel p. 213.) To sum up - (a) God's rejection of Israel is apparent only,
for His calling is indefeasible, and therefore (b) all Israel shall be saved -
without exception. (c) Israel, i.e., the elect, is so closely linked with the
world, that their very rejection means the world's salvation - in God's
mysterious plan. (d) So close is this tie between the elect and the world, that
a further promise follows, that Israel's restoration shall be to the world
"life from the dead "-v. 15 - a very suggestive phrase (ch. vi. on Death). (e)
This final salvation of Israel is coextensive with the whole nation for this
further reason, because God's gifts are irrevocable, and were made to all.
"FOR THE GIFTS AND CALLING OF GOD ARE WITHOUT REPENTANCE." Rom. xi.
29.
That is, what God gives, He gives effectually. His gifts and His call are
IRREVOCABLE; this meaning our versions fail to convey, cfr. Is. lv. ii. His
word cannot fail of its purpose finally. When He calls, men must hear - a fact
of the deepest significance. Let me ask the advocates of the popular creed,
how, if God's call must be obeyed (for the whole context seems to show this to
be clearly the apostle's meaning), sooner or later, there is any room for
endless disobedience in hell?
"GOD HAS CONCLUDED THEM ALL IN UNBELIEF, THAT HE MIGHT HAVE MERCY UPON
ALL." Rom. xi. 32.
The original is the widest possible; it is the whole mass of men to whom S.
PAUL refers. The whole is shut up unto unbelief in order that the whole may
find mercy; and as the unbelief is actual and absolute, so, if there be a
parallelism, must the mercy be equally actual and absolute.
"FOR (OUT) OP HIM AND THROUGH HIM AND UNTO HIM ARE ALL THINGS." Rom,. xi.
36.
If so, God is the END of all things, i.e., unto (or perhaps into) Him all
things shall return. The original imports that God is at once SOURCE and GOAL;
AUTHOR and END of all Creation. No outlook can be more magnificent; no hope
more divine, or broader, than this. Naturally, and characteristically, popular
teaching practically ignores such a passage. (How different would have been its
reception had it contained an anathema.)
"AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME, AND EVERY TONGUE
SHALL CONFESS TO GOD. SO THEN EVERY ONE OF US SHALL GIVE ACCOUNT OF HIMSELF TO
GOD." Rom. xiv. 11-12.
S. PAUL here quotes the great passage - Is. xlv. 22-23, in which salvation
is promised to the entire human race, and which the apostle connects with the
Judgment - see p. 295. From the whole context it seems that Christ's empire
over all is absolute; extends to the dead; implies salvation; and this
salvation is linked with His (future) judgment. The word translated "confess"
is properly to "offer praise" or "thanksgiving." Thus, S. PAUL'S view of the
true meaning of the judgment day and its issues, seems in direct conflict with
endless ruin.
"AS IN ADAM ALL DIE, EVEN SO IN CHRIST SHALL ALL BE MADE ALIVE." 1 Cor.
xv. 22.
As ADAM actually brought death, spiritually, to all, so the last ADAM
actually gives life, spiritually, to all. No mere offer of life can satisfy the
plain language of the text. Nothing less than life really - spiritually
imparted to all by the last ADAM - can fairly express S. PAUL'S meaning. But it
is objected that as death in ADAM 15 not final in some cases, so life in Christ
is not final in some cases. (I.) It would perhaps be enough to answer that the
objection misses the mark, for the apostle's thoughts are set simply on one
point, on asserting that an universal life succeeds, and absorbs, an universal
death. But I will reply further, that (II.) the plain words of the text require
an actual communication of life TO ALL through Christ, else the comparison
between ADAM and Christ is NOT TRUE; for it is certain that the link of evil
between ADAM and the race is absolute, actual, and universal. And to call
Christ the last ADAM, while denying a tie of grace and life equally actual,
absolute, and universal, is to dupe men. (III.) The context involves the
permanence of this life through Christ, for it claims for Christ a full
victory; and requires us to believe that God will be All in All, at the End.
(IV.) Life in Christ is thus not alone universal, it is final, v. 24-8.
"FOR HE MUST REIGN, TILL HE HAS PUT ALL ENEMIES UNDER HIS FEET * * THAT
GOD MAY BE ALL IN ALL." 1 Cor. xv. 25-28.
There is here, at THE END, no place for sin - no trace of evil - no hell -
for is not God All and in All I His empire is to be unbroken, universal,
absolute. And the subjection of all to Him is the same subjection by which He
is to be subject to the Father, i.e., harmony and love, and peace; so the
context requires. For note, that in summing up the final results of Christ's
work, the same word is used (in the original) of Christ's own subjection to the
Father, and of the subjection of Christ's own enemies to Him. But, obviously,
Christ's own subjection can only be love and harmony - hence the subjection of
Christ's enemies cannot mean their endless incarceration in cvi.? and rain.
Such a conception is no less excluded by the assertion that finally God shall
be All in All.
"O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR STING? O GRAVE, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY?" 1 Cor.
xv. 55.
I ask my readers quietly to think over the whole drift of this chapter and
to mark the Apostle's increasing rapture, as his argument expands, and as the
prospect opens before him of an universe yet to be, from which every form of
death and sin are banished. S. PAUL'S words are indeed explicit; and yet is
there not more than this? There is surely in S. PAUL a conviction, underlying
all beside; a Conviction (to which his warmest words give but imperfect
expression) of the absolute triumph of Christ, of the flood of glory that is to
sweep over all creation, in its widest sense.
"GOD WAS IN CHRIST, RECONCILING THE WORLD UNTO HIMSELF." 2 Cor. v.
19.
Is God in earnest in telling us that He reconciles the world? Does lie mean
what He says, or does He only mean that He will try to reconcile. it, but will
be baffled? This question often rises unbidden, as we read these statements of
the Bible, and compare them with the popular creed, which turns "all" into
"some, when salvation is promised to "all, " and turns the "world," when that
is said to be saved, into a larger or smaller fraction of men.
"IN YOU SHALL ALL NATIONS BE BLESSED." Gal. iii. 8.
The relevance of texts like this lies in the fact that they show the true
meaning of God's election, and are links in that great chain of promise of
universal restoration - which S. PETER assures us God spoke by the mouth of all
His holy prophets, and which he declares to mean the restitution of all
things.
"THAT HE MIGHT GATHER TOGETHER IN ONE ALL THINGS (ta panta) IN CHRIST,
BOTH WHICH ARE IN HEAVEN AND WHICH ARE ON EARTH." Eph. i. 10.
The universe in all its extent - the sum total of all existence - is to be
brought back to Christ as Head, in unity. Such seems the view of the Apostle.
It is the same process as the reconciliation of all things - Col i. 15-20- and
the subjection of all things to Christ -1 Cor. xv. 27-28 - the homage and
praise of all things rendered to Christ.- Phil. ii. 10-11. But if the universe
and its contents are summed up in Christ, where is any possibility of an
endless hell, or of a creation permanently divided? The word translated "gather
together in one" is found only here, and in Rom. xiii. 9, as the law is summed
up in one commandment, so is the universe to be summed up in Christ one
day.
"GOD PUT ALL THINGS UNDER HIS FEET." Eph. i. 22.
The original verb here is the same as that used of the subjection of Christ
to the Father. - 1 Cor. xv. 28, and Phil. iii. 21. See note there.
"THAT THE GENTILES SHOULD BE FELLOW HEIRS." Eph. iii. 6.
That is fellow heirs with the Jews. But the promise to the Jews was that all
Israel should be saved (see note Rom. xi. 26.), and because Jew and Gentile are
made one Eph. ii. 14, - therefore all Gentiles seem to be included in the
promise to all Israel. - Rom. xi. 26.
"HE ASCENDED UP FAR ABOVE ALL HEAVENS THAT HE MIGHT FILL ALL THINGS."
Eph. iv. 10.
But if Christ is to fill all things - the universe - how can evil subsist
eternally? This cannot be eluded by asking whether Christ, as God, has not
always filled all things; for, to the Apostle, there is some further and
special sense in which Christ is to fill all things (by the expulsion of evil),
as a consequence of His completed work.
"BY HIM TO RECONCILE ALL THINGS UNTO HIMSELF; BY HIM, I SAY, WHETHER THEY
BE THINGS IN EARTH, OR THINGS IN HEAVEN." Col. i. 15-19-20.
I gladly substitute for my own comments LIGHTFOOT'S note on v. 16,
"All things must find their meeting point, their
reconciliation at length in Him from Whom they took their rise; in the Word as
the mediatorial agent, and through the Word in the Father as the primary
source. The Word is the final cause as well as the creative agent in the
universe. This ultimate goal of the present dispensation in time is similarly
stated in several passages. Sometimes it is represented as the birth throe and
deliverance of all creation through Christ, as Rom. viii. 19. * * Sometimes it
is the absolute and final subjection of universal nature to Him as I Cor. xv.
28. * * Sometimes it is the reconciliation of all things through Him as below,
v. 20. Sometimes it is the recapitulation, the gathering up in one head of the
universe in Him, as Eph. i. 10 * * all alike enunciate the same truth in
different terms. The Eternal Word is the Goal of the universe, as He was its
starting point. It must end in unity, as it proceeded from unity, and the
center of this unity is Christ." If I venture to add anything it is
to protest against explaining away these words. WHATSOEVER has issued from the
Eternal Word, returns to Him as its Goal, reconciled, purified, and restored;
no other meaning can be fairly extracted from the words quoted.
"THAT IN THE NAME OF JESUS EVERY KNEE SHOULD BOW, OF THINGS IN HEAVEN,
AND THINGS IN EARTH, AND THINGS UNDER THE EARTH; AND THAT EVERY TONGUE SHOULD
CONFESS THAT JESUS CHRIST IS LORD." Phil. ii. 10-11.
This is S. PAUL'S statement of the great vision (Rev. v. I 3), in which
every created thing in heaven and on earth and under the earth unites to sing-
Blessing, etc., to God most High. Could a picture more universal be painted -
every knee, in heaven, on earth, under the earth bending, and every tongue
proclaiming God's praise. Such is the force of the original. All things, says
LIGHTFOOT, "whatsoever and wheresoever they be. The whole universe, whether
animate or inanimate, bends the knee in homage and raises its voice in
praise."
"ABLE EVEN TO SUBDUE ALL THINGS UNTO HIMSELF." Phil. iii 21.
In what sense this subjugation of all things to Christ is to be understood,
is clear from the context, "who shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation,
that it may be conformed to the body of His glory, according to the working
whereby He is able even to subdue all things unto Himself." Note the
significance of this. No one can doubt that Christ is destined to subdue all
things, but this passage shows decisively that Christ's subduing all things (in
the Scriptural sense) is making them like unto Himself. See note on 1 Cor. xv.
25.
"GOD OUR SAVIOR, WHO WILL HAVE ALL MEN TO BE SAVED, FOR THERE IS ONE
GOD." 1 Tim. ii. 3-4.
"None can hinder His doing as He wills * * Now His will is that all should
be saved." - S. JEROME on Eph. i, 11". S. PAUL here directs thanksgiving and
prayer to be offered for all men on the express ground that God wills the
salvation of all. And this divine will S. PAUL grounds on the divine unity - a
fact which marks this passage noteworthy- for the One God can have but one
eternal (irresistible) purpose. "God is One, the One that is All, that binds up
all in one, and one in all, and makes all one." - J. WHITE, Restoration of all
things. This Divine Oneness is no merely arithmetical proposition. It states a
deep spiritual fact, viz., that Oneness is of the essence of the divine plan. A
Creator who is ONE, and a creation perpetually TWO (i.e., perpetually divided
into two classes), is to S. PAUL a thing inconceivable. - See ch. vi. towards
the end.
"GOD THE SAVIOR OF ALL MEN, ESPECIALLY OF THOSE THAT BELIEVE." 1 Tim. iv.
10.
Any obscurity in this passage becomes clear the moment we reflect on God's
plan by which the elect - those who believe - are first saved, and then become
the means, here or in the ages yet to come, of saving all men.
"OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, WHO HAS ABOLISHED DEATH." 2 Tim. i. 10.
Death is abolished, and with death that which it in Scripture implies, sin
and evil. For death abolished, and yet death in its worst form, the second
death, maintained for ever, are plain contradictions. Will those who maintain
the doctrine of conditional immortality explain how death can be abolished, and
yet swallow up finally all sinners in a sentence of annihilation?
"FOR THE GRACE OF GOD HAS APPEARED, BRINGING SALVATION TO ALL MEN." Titus
ii. 11.
Yes, "bringing salvation to all men:" this is precisely the larger hope. But
how is "salvation brought to all men" consistent with the damnation of myriads
of men - nay, of any man? if, as we are distinctly told, God's gifts are
without repentance, i.e.., effective and irrevocable.
"HE ALSO WENT AND PREACHED UNTO THE SPIRITS IN PRISON." 1 Peter iii
19.
These words amount to a complete overthrow of the popular view of the state
of the sinful dead; for plainly they assert a process of redemption as going on
after death. Remark, carefully, who they were to whom Christ took the Gospel,
and whom, as the following passage shows, He saved. They were those who had
sinned against the greatest light known in their day, and DIED IN THEIR
SINS.
"THE GOSPEL WAS PREACHED EVEN TO THE DEAD, (IN ORDER), THAT THEY MIGHT BE
JUDGED AND LIVE IN THE SPIRIT." 1 Peter iv. 6.
Notice again here the connection between judgment and salvation. Even the
(impenitent) dead were evangelized, in order that they should have the benefit
of judgment, and thus live to God (see on Judgment ch. vi.) Such a text
literally cuts up the traditional creed root and branch.
"THE LORD IS NOT WILLING THAT ANY SHOULD PERISH, BUT THAT ALL SHOULD COME
TO REPENTANCE." 2 Peter iii. 9.
If then any do perish finally, God's will and design must have been finally
overthrown: it is obvious that a temporary resistance, permitted for wise ends,
differs wholly from a final defiance of God's will.
"HIS SON, WHOM HE HAS APPOINTED HEIR TO ALL THINGS." Heb. i. 2.
It is enough to say that these words express the larger hope, if fairly and
fully understood. They teach the absolute universality of Christ's reign, which
the repeated testimony of Scripture shows to be love and peace.
"YOU HAVE PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET," &c. Heb. ii.
8-10.
Here is an addition to that very large class of passages which speak of
Christ's kingdom, as destined to extend over all things, e.g., Eph. iv. 10 ;i.
10; Phil. iii. 9-11; Rev. v. 13, &c. I have already shown that subjection
to Christ means perfect harmony and peace, in the usage of the New Testament,
see notes on Phil. iii 21, and 1 Cor. xv. 25. This remarkable passage proceeds
to lay stress on Christ's death, as embracing "every man," v. 9 ; - the writer
has already strongly asserted the dignity of man, and his vast inheritance,
simply as man, v. 6-7. This dignity, impaired by the Fall, has been recovered
by Christ the Son of Man. And it was right that Christ should suffer in
fulfilling the Will of Him (God), for Whom are all things, and through Whom are
all things," v. 10, - all things whatsoever; words that authorize the widest
hope, for God is the Goal of all creation. (See Rom. xi. 36.)
"THAT THROUGH DEATH HE MIGHT DESTROY THE DEVIL" Heb. ii. 14.
But the destruction of the devil, as holding the power of death, is quite
inconsistent with the continuance of death and evil eternally.
"THE IMMUTABILITY OP HIS COUNSEL." Heb. vi. 17.
We admit that a seeming failure there may be of God's purpose: but no real
failure is possible. What God's immutable counsel is, we see in 2 Pd. iii. 9,
where the original word translated "willing" is the same as "counsel" here.
"HE HAS APPEARED TO PUT AWAY SIN BY THE SACRIFICE OF HIMSELF." Heb. ix.
26.
Sin has intruded and caused an appearance of failure in God's plan. Christ
comes to sweep sin away. When will our opponents meet fairly the dilemma, viz.,
Christ fails, or succeeds in His purpose. If He fails, you contradict
Scripture. If He succeeds, you contradict your dogma.
"JESUS CHRIST, THE SAME YESTERDAY, TODAY, AND UNTO THE AGES." Heb. xiii.
8.
THE SAME throughout "the ages ;" words little heeded I fear; and yet which
virtually contain the essence of the Gospel - the sum and substance of our
hope. For what is it these words teach? not the superficial view that Christ is
now a Savior, and will in future be merely a Judge to condemn; but that, what
He was on earth that He is now, and that He will be, through "the ages"
(judging ever, but only a Judge that He may by it be a Savior). They bid us
look to a series of ages yet to come, and there see Jesus Christ still working
to save; doubtless by penalty, by fiery discipline, in the case of hardened
sinners; but still the same Jesus, i.e., Savior, and destined to continue His
work of salvation till the last wanderer shall have been found.
So far from producing every possible passage that teaches the larger hope, I
might have easily cited other texts that teach, or imply, the same. Take but
two clauses of the Lord's prayer: "Our Father," these two words really involve
the whole question - they form a tie, never to be broken, between man and God.
"Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven," But how is His will done in
heaven? It is universally done. Shall it not then be universally done on earth
too? Does Christ put into our mouths a petition which He does not design to
fulfill, in even larger measure than we can hope? I might have also quoted "God
is Love." To this point all His attributes converge. Love is that character,
which united they form (love infinite and unchanging). Can this Love consign to
endless agony its own children? Can infinite Love ever cease to love ? - let
the Apostle reply, "Love never fails," is inextinguishable.
I would sum up by repeating the three propositions already stated, p. 224.
(I.) Christ's Purpose of salvation was deliberately formed to include the whole
of our race, and no less. (II.) He received for this end ALL POWER, i.e., power
over all wills, all evil, all obstacles, whatsoever and wheresoever. (III) The
Bible claims; the Prophets claim; the Evangelists claim; the Apostles claim;
Christ claims absolute success in this task. - Is. xlv. 22-3; lv. 11; liii 11;
S. Jno. xii. 32; xvii. 4; 1 Cor. xv. 22, 27-8; Rom. v. 15-21; xi. 29-32; 2 Tim.
i. 10, &c.
* In the above brief notes I have not
attempted an exhaustive comment. It has been my aim to point out the plain
natural meaning of the passages cited, in their bearing on the future destiny
of man, and to present this meaning in the most simple and straightforward way.
Specially have I urged the imperative necessity of truthfulness, of assuming
that what the sacred writers say, that they mean, in the ordinary acceptation
of their words - that in saying, e.g., "I make all things new," Christ really
meant all things and not some things; that in saying, "God is the Savior of all
men," the Apostle meant that God really does save all men.
A few words of earnest caution must be added here. I trust it has been
made plain in these pages, that in teaching universal salvation, I have not for
a moment made light of sin, or advocated the salvation of sinners while they
continue such. I earnestly assert the certain punishment of sin (awful it may
well be, in its duration and its nature for the hardened offender), but in all
cases directed by love and justice to the final extirpation of evil. Nay, I
have opposed the popular creed on this very ground, that it in fact teaches men
to make light of sin, and that in two ways: FIRST: because it sets forth a
scheme of retribution so unjust as to make men secretly believe its penalties
will never be inflicted; and SECOND: because it in fact asserts that God either
will not, or cannot, overcome and destroy evil and sin, but will bear with them
for ever and ever. I repeat that not one word has been written in these pages
tending to represent God as a merely good-natured Being, Who regards as a light
matter the violation of His holy law. Such shallow theology, God forbid that I
should teach. Infinite Love is one thing; Infinite Good-nature a totally unlike
thing. Love is never feeble, it is (while most tender) most inexorable. In the
light of Calvary it is that we are bound to see the guilt of sin. But let us
beware, lest, as we stand in thought by the Cross, we virtually dishonor the
Atonement by limiting its power to save - by teaching men that Christ is after
all vanquished; lest, while in words professing to honor Christ, we, in fact,
make Him a liar, for He has never said, "if I be lifted up, I will
draw some men," or even "most men," but "I WILL DRAW ALL MEN UNTO
ME."
CHAPTER IX
WHAT THE NEW TESTAMENT TEACHES (continued)
"The word 'hell' the sacred writers never use in the sense which is
generally given to it." - Dr. ERNEST PETAVEL. - The Struggle for eternal
Life.
"Nous sommes peutêtre engages dans quelque erreur enorrne, dont
le Christianisme un jour nous fera rougir, comme il nous a fait rougir de la
torture, de l'esclavage, de la contrainte en matiere de religion." -
VINET.
WE are often met with the objection, "You look
only at one side of the Bible". I am determined that, in these
pages, no room shall be given for the objection. Most true then it is, that
there runs through Holy Scripture a current seeming (to an English reader) to
teach the final destruction of the impenitent, and in some few passages their
endless punishment. Most fully do I admit all this. I say, seeming to teach,
advisedly. For the Bible was not written, as vast numbers appear to think,
in English, by some Englishman in the 19th century, for his fellow Englishmen.
It comes to us from very distant ages; in very many parts; the work of very
many minds, but one and all writing from an oriental standpoint, saturated with
oriental habits of thought, and in oriental phrase and style. Therefore all
depends on the sense in which the terms in question are used. Let us go to
the Bible itself to decide. Those who turn to the paragraph which follows the
note on S. Matt. iii. 12 (in this chapter), will see how far from indicating
hopeless ruin are the very strongest phrases employed. In the usage of
Scripture itself "death" and "destruction" are indeed very often the path to
life, - see pp. 9-11, 149, 184-90, &c.
Admitting then these two currents, we at once feel that they are not equal
in quality; we feel instinctively the divineness of the one; it is deeper,
diviner, broader, stronger. We feel its kindred with all that is noblest in our
nature - I do not mean with what we like best, but with what we recognize as
best and most divine, alike in God and in man.
"But the current of terror is louder." No, I do not think so. It may seem so
from habit, or because sinners do not readily rise to what is broad and divine.
To them vengeance is more credible than love. Yet even were it the louder
current, I may point out that God is ever found "in the still small voice." Nor
is that which lies on the surface always, or even often, the true meaning of
Scripture. Thus, in the predictions of the Messiah, the surface current, which
wholly misled the Jews, spoke of a Conqueror, and of splendid earthly triumph.
But the true meaning lay underneath the surface, in those fewer, less
prominent, but diviner predictions of a suffering Savior, of His life of toil,
- see Salv. Mund.
Feeling this, I would face in all frankness all the facts, and entreat an
honest and thorough examination. I hope to show, that while undoubtedly the
penalties threatened against sinners are terrible, still they are not endless.
I believe that not one passage can be found anywhere in the Bible that so
teaches, when fairly translated and understood. I must ask you, before
examining these passages, carefully to bear in mind the following
considerations :
- (I.) When the horrors of endless sin and pain are so stoutly defended on
the (supposed) authority of the Bible, it is well to remember, that slavery was
unanimously defended for more than fifteen hundred years on exactly similar
grounds; so was the infliction of most cruel tortures; so was religious
persecution with its indescribable horrors; so was the existence of witches,
and the duty of burning them alive. Nay, every theologian in Europe was for
centuries persuaded of the truth of actual sexual intercourse between evil
spirits and men and women. "Holy men," you say, "everywhere defend endless pain
and evil on the authority of Scripture." Holy men, I reply, have with absolute
unanimity defended, on the authority of Scripture, tenets and practices so
abominable that one shudders in attempting to recall them.
- (II.) A fact of the deepest significance is this: that although certain
phrases existed, by which the idea of unendingness might have been conveyed,
yet none of these is applied by our Lord amid His Apostles to the future
punishment of the impenitent. Those interested are invited carefully to weigh
this very striking fact.
- (III.) Thus aiidios or ateleutetos are never used of future punishment in
the New Testament. Nor is it anywhere said to be aneu telous "without end," nor
do we read that it shall go on pantote, or eis to dienekes " for ever."
- (IV.) Is it, I ask, conceivable that a sentence so awful as to be
absolutely beyond all human thought, should be pronounced against myriads upon
myriads of hapless creatures, in language ambiguous, and admittedly capable of
a very different meaning, and habitually so used in the New Testament, and in
the Greek version of the Old Testament, from which Our Lord and the Apostles
quote?
- (V.) It is certainly a strong confirmation of the view which asserts that
no unlimited penalty is taught in the New Testament to find so great a body of
primitive opinion (and that specially of the Greek speaking Fathers), teaching
Universalism ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. - See pp. 84, 148, 170. All
such teaching obviously contains an implied assertion that the texts, usually
relied on, do not teach endless penalty.
- (VI.) Again, while the texts quoted in favor of the salvation of all men
use language clear and explicit, and are a fair rendering of the original in
all cases, it is not so in the case of the passages usually alleged to prove
endless torment. In those cases where they seem to the English reader so to
teach, they are either mistranslated or misinterpreted, or both. Hence we see
how inaccurate is the assumption all but universally made, that these terms
that seem to teach endless pain and evil are in the Bible. They are merely in a
certain human and fallible translation of the Bible, a totally different
thing.
- (VI.) It is also to be noted that not a few of the passages usually quoted
in support of the traditional creed do not, even if the accuracy of the
translation be admitted, contain any assertion of endless pain, though they may
seem to teach final destruction (to an ordinary reader.)
- (VII.) Finally, in addition to all the above, a great difficulty remains in
the way of the advocates of the traditional creed. They DARE NOT CARRY OUT
THEIR OWN PRINCIPLES. Their principle of interpreting the Bible would compel
them to believe what they do not believe, and to teach what no reasonable
person could presume to teach. (a.) First, it would compel them to believe in
the endless torment of the vast majority, at least of all adults (see pp. 4-5).
(b.) Next it would compel them to believe that this torment goes on for ever
and ever IN THE SIGHT OF THE LAMB AND THE HOLY ANGELS (for their satisfaction
?) - Rev. xiv. 10 - and indeed probably in the sight of all the Blessed. - Is.
lxvi. 24, and S. .Luc. xvi. 23. But these two things they disbelieve. Nor do
they believe the statement that God creates evil. - Is. xlv. Nor have they any
ground, so far as I know, for their disbelief, except that these statements,
taken literally, are unworthy of God, i.e., are immoral. Thus, in fact, they
stand self-condemned. Nor do they really believe that Israel is to fall and
rise no more. - Amos, v. 2; nor do, or can they, take literally the many
threats of the same kind which Scripture contains.- See paragraph after note on
S. Matt. iii. 12, in this chapter.
- (VIII.) As instances of wholly incorrect rendering, take the words
translated " hell," " damnation," "everlasting," "eternal," "for ever and
ever." "Hell" is, in the New Testament, the rendering of three widely differing
Greek words, viz., "Gehenna," "Hades," and "Tartarus," such is the accuracy of
our translation! "Gehenna" occurs eleven times in the New Testament as used by
our Lord, and once by S. JAMES. In the original Greek it is taken almost
unchanged from the Hebrew ( Ge-hinnom, i.e., valley of Hinnom), an example
which our translators ought to have followed, and rendered Gehenna, as it is,
by Gehenna. By retaining the term hell with its inevitable associations, they
in fact are prejudging the question, and are assuming the part not of
translators but of commentators. This valley lay outside Jerusalem: once a
pleasant vale, and later a scene of Moloch worship, it had sunk into a common
cesspit at last. Into it were flung offal, the carcasses of animals, and it
would seem, of criminals, and in it were kept fires ever burning (for
purification be it remembered), while the worms were for ever preying on the
decaying matter. The so-called undying worm and flame, of which so much has
been made (a) were - at least in their literal and primary use - temporal and
finite, (b) preyed only on the dead body (c) and were for purification; three
particulars essential to the due understanding of the passages on which the
dogma of endless torments has been so unfairly based. Hades is a. term,
denoting the state or place of spirits, good and bad alike, after death. Our
Revisers have, by a tardy justice,. struck "hell," as its translation, out of
their version. It occurs in the Gospels and Epistles five times, twice in the
Acts, and four times in the Revelations. It denotes that intermediate state or
place which succeeds death; a state which, in our recoil from Romansh error, we
have almost ceased. to recognize at all. Tartarus occurs once only (in the
verbal form) in the New Testament, in 2 Peter ii. 4. It also is a classical
term, used there most often, although not always, for the place of future
punishment of the wicked. Here S. PETER applies it not to human beings, but to
the lost angels; and in their case it denotes no final place of torment, but a
prison in which they are kept awaiting their final judgment; hence, to render
it by the term "hell" is simply preposterous. "Damnation," "damned," - both of
these terms represent merely two Greek words (and their derivatives), krino and
katakrino, i.e., to judge and to condemn. Our Revisers have felt how
unwarrantable the former translation was, for which there is indeed this
excuse, that probably, when the authorized version was made, the meaning of the
word "damn" was far milder than it has since become (as was certainly the case
with the term "hell."). To import into these words the idea of endless torment
is to err against all fairness, for they simply mean to "judge," and at most,
to "condemn."
* In one passage, 2 Peter ii. 3, the word
"damnation" represents a different Greek word, "apoleia," and is rightly
rendered by our Revisers as "destruction" in that place.
Most significant is it that in the original of the New Testament, the
horrors of unending agony, which these terms conjure up for so many, vanish
when we come to know that by "damnation" is simply meant "judgment," or at most
"condemnation," as our Revisers now fully admit in their version; and by "hell"
is only meant, either the place of disembodied souls, Hades, (as our Revisers
now render it) or the Jewish Gehenna (see Revised Version), a place of
temporary punishment in its literal sense, where the worms fed continually, it
is true, and the fire for ever burned; but in both cases purifying, and causing
no pain (for the bodies were those of the dead); and where both "undying "
worm, and "unquenchable" fire, have long since, in their literal sense, passed
away. True it is that Gehenna was by the Jews used, symbolically, of the place
of future punishment- a fact to be fully admitted. But the evidence adduced by
FARRAR (Mercy and Judgment, p. 180-215), by COX, Salv. Mundi, p. 70-5, and by
an Article in the XIX. Century, August, 1890, (see, too, PFAFF, quoted p. 8o,)
seems to make it clear that, normally, at least, Gehenna was not believed to
involve endless punishment. It was certainly a place from which deliverance was
possible, and probably one from which deliverance was the rule. Jewish opinion
was by no means fixed, but fluctuated much as to the details and the duration
of future punishment. Some Rabbis seem to have held (as did certain of the
Fathers) the final annihilation of the wicked.
True it is, most true, that while no unending torment is threatened by our
Lord, yet His words do convey most solemn warning to the sinner - warning that
gains in real weight when its true import is discerned, because the conscience
recognizes its justice. I accept, then, heartily - as their true natural sense,
every warning, however terrible, and every penalty threatened against sinners
in Scripture; but that true natural sense is not, as I hope to show, in any
case that of endless evil and torment. My quarrel with the advocates of the
popular view (as far as the Scripture is concerned) is that, while assigning to
one class of texts a meaning, which they cannot fairly bear, they at the same
time wholly put out of view, blot out from the Bible in fact, a very large and
weighty class of passages, furnished by the New Testament, in favor of
universal salvation. Thus, as so often happens, when men persist in seeing only
one side, they fail to apprehend the true meaning, even of that one side, which
they present to us as though it were the whole.
Let us next consider the true meaning of the words aion and aionios. These
are the originals of the terms rendered by our translators "everlasting,"" for
ever and ever :" and on this translation, so misleading, a vast portion of the
popular dogma of endless torment is built up. I say, without hesitation,
misleading and incorrect; for aion means "an age," a limited period, whether
long or short, though often of indefinite length; and the adjective aionios
means "of the age," "age-long," "aeonian," and never " everlasting" (of its own
proper force), it is true that it may be applied as an epithet to things that
are endless, but the idea of endlessness in all such cases comes not from the
epithet, hut only because it is inherent in the object to which the epithet is
applied, as in the case of God. Much has been written on the import of the
aeonian (eternal) life. Altogether to exclude, (with MAURICE) the notion of
time seems impracticable, and opposed to the general usage of the New Testament
(and of the Septuagint). But while this is so, we may fully recognize that the
phrase "eternal life" (aeonian life) does at times pass into a region above
time, a region wholly moral and spiritual Thus, in S. John, the aeonian life
(eternal life), of which he speaks, is a life not measured by duration, but a
life in the unseen, life in God. Thus, e.g., God's commandment is life eternal.
- S. Jon. xii. 50. To know Him is life eternal, - ib. xvii. 3, and Christ is
the eternal life. - 1 S. Jno. i. 2; v. 20. Admitting, then, the usual reference
of aionios to time, we note in the word a tendency to rise above this idea, to
denote quality, rather than quantity, to indicate the true, the spiritual, in
opposition to the unreal, or the earthly. In this sense the eternal is now and
here. Thus "eternal" punishment is one thing, and "everlasting" punishment a
very different thing, and so it is that our Revisers have substituted for
"everlasting " the word "eternal" in every passage in the New Testament, where
aionios is the original word . Further, if we take the term strictly, eternal
punishment is impossible, for the "eternal" in strictness has no beginning.
'The word by itself, whether adjective or
substantive, never means endless. " - Canon FARRAR "The conception of eternity,
in the Semitic languages, is that of a long duration and series of ages" -Rev.
J. S. BLUNT - Dict. of Theology. "'Tis notoriously known," says Bishop RUST,
"that the Jews, whether writing in Hebrew or Greek, do by olam (the Hebrew word
corresponding to aion), and aion mean any remarkable period and duration,
whether it be of life, or dispensation, or polity." "The word aion is never
used in Scripture, or anywhere else, in the sense of endlessness (vulgarly
called eternity, it always meant, both in Scripture and out, a period of time;
else how could it have a plural - how could you talk of the aeons and aeons of
aeons as the Scripture does ?" - C. KINGSLEY. So the secular games, celebrated
every century were called "eternal" by the Greeks. - See HUET, Orig. ii. p.
162.
Again, a point of great importance is this, that it would have been
impossible for the Jews, as it is impossible for us, to accept Christ, except
by assigning a limited - nay, a very limited duration - to those Mosaic
ordinances which were said in the Old Testament to be "for ever," to be
"everlasting" (aeonian). Every line of the New Testament, nay, the very
existence of Christianity is thus in fact a proof of the limited sense of
aionios in Scripture. Our Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, our Holy
Communion, every prayer uttered in a Christian Church, or in our homes, in the
name of the Lord Jesus: our hopes of being "for ever with the Lord " - these
contain one and all an affirmation most real, though tacit, of the temporary
sense of aionios.
As a further illustration of the meaning of aion and aionios, let me point
out that in the Greek version of the Old Testament (the Septuagint) - in common
use among the Jews in Our Lord's time, from which He and the Apostles usually
quoted, and whose authority, therefore, should be decisive on this point -
these terms are repeatedly applied to things that have long ceased to exist.
Thus the AARONIC priesthood is said to be "everlasting," Num. xxv. 13. The land
of Canaan is given as an "everlasting "possession. and "forever," Gen. xvii. 8,
and xiii. 15. In Deut. xxiii. 3, "for ever" is distinctly made an equivalent to
"even to the tenth generation." In Lam. v. 19, "for ever and ever" is the
equivalent of from "generation to generation." The inhabitants of Palestine are
to be bondsmen "for ever, " Lev. xxv. 46. In Num. xviii. 19, the heave
offerings of the holy things are a covenant "for ever." CALEB obtains his
inheritance "for ever" Josh. xiv. 9. And DAVID'S seed is to endure "for ever,"
his throne "for ever, " his house "for ever ;" nay, the Passover is to endure
"for ever ;" and in Isaiah xxxii. 14, the forts and towers shall be "dens for
ever, until the spirit be poured upon us." So in Jude vii., Sodom and Gomorrah
are said to be suffering the vengeance of eternal (aeonian) fire, i.e., their
temporal overthrow by fire, for they have a definite promise of final
restoration.- Ez. xvi. 55.
Christ's kingdom is to last "for ever," yet we are distinctly told that this
very kingdom is to end.- 1 Cor. xv. 24. Indeed, quotation might be added to
quotation, both from the Bible and from early authors, to prove this limited
meaning of aion and its derivatives; but enough has probably been said to prove
that it is wholly impossible, and indeed absurd, to contend that any idea of
endless duration is necessarily or commonly implied by either aion or
aionios.
* Thus JOSEPEUS calls "aeonian," the
temple of Herod, which was actually destroyed when he wrote. PHILO never uses
aionios of endless duration.
Further; if this translation of aionios as "eternal," in the sense of
endless, be correct, aion must mean eternity, i.e., endless duration. But so to
render it would reduce Scripture to an absurdity. In the first place, you would
have over and over again to talk of the "eternities." We can comprehend what
"eternity" is, but what are the "eternities " You cannot have more than one
eternity. The doxology would run thus: "Yours is the kingdom, the power, and
the glory, 'unto the eternities."' In the case of the sin against the Holy
Ghost, the translation would then be, "it shall not be forgiven him, neither in
this eternity nor in that to come." Our Lord's words, S. Matt. xiii. 39, would
then run, "the harvest is the end of (the) eternity," i.e., the end of the
endless, which is to make our Lord talk nonsense. Again, in S. Mark iv. 19, the
translation should be, "the cares," not of "this world," but "the cares of this
eternity choke the word." In S. Luke xvi. 8, "The children of this world,"
should be "the children of this eternity." Rom. xii. 2, should run thus; "Be
not conformed to this eternity." In 1 Cor. x. 11, the words, "upon whom the
ends of the world are come," should be: "the ends of the eternities." Take
next, Gal. i. 4: "That He might deliver us from this present evil world,"
should run thus: "from this present evil eternity." In 2 Tim. iv. 10, the
translation should be: "DEMAS has forsaken me, having loved this present
eternity." And "Now once at the end of the ages has He been manifested," should
read, on the popular view, "at the end of the eternities." Let me state the
dilemma clearly. Aion either means endless duration as its necessary, or at
least its ordinary significance, or it does not. If it does, the following
difficulties at once arise; (1) - How, if it mean an endless period, can aion
have a plural? (2) - HOW came such phrases to be used as those repeatedly
occurring in Scripture, where aion is added to aion, if aion is of itself
infinite? (3) - How come such phrases as for the "aion" or aions and BEYOND
?-ton aiona kai ep aiona kai eti: eis tous aionas kai eti. - See (Sept.) Ex.
xv. 18; Dan. xii. 3; Micah iv. 5. (4) - How is it that we repeatedly read of
the end of the aion ? - S. Matt. xiii 39-40-49; xxiv. 3 ; xxviii. 20; 1 Cor. x.
11; Heb. ix. 26. (5) - Finally, if aion be infinite, why is it applied over and
over to what is strictly finite? e.g., S. Mark iv. 19; Acts iii. 21; Rom. xii.
2 ; 1 Cor. i. 20, ii. 6, iii. 18, x. 11, &c., &c. But if an aion be not
infinite, what right have we to render the adjective aionios (which depends for
its meaning on aion) by the terms "eternal" (when used as the equivalent of
"endless") and "everlasting?"
Indeed our translators have really done further hurt to those who can only
read their English Bible. They have, wholly obscured a very important doctrine,
that of "the ages." This when fully understood throws a flood of light on the
plan of redemption, and the method of the divine working. Take a few instances
which show the force and clearness gained, by restoring the true rendering of
the words aion and aionios. Turn to S. Matt. xxiv. 3. There our version
represents the disciples as asking "what should be the sign of the end of the
world." It should be the end of the "age ;" the close of the Jewish age marked
by the fall of Jerusalem. In S. Matt. xiii. 39-40-49, the true rendering is not
the end of the "world," but of the "age," an important change. So S. John xvii.
3, "this is life eternal," should be "the life of the ages," i.e., peculiar to
those ages, in which the scheme of salvation is being worked out. Or take Heb.
v. 9; ix. 12; xiii. 20, "eternal salvation" should be "aeonian" or of the ages;
"eternal redemption" is the redemption "of the ages ;" the eternal covenant is
the "covenant of the ages," the covenant peculiar to the ages of redemption. In
Eph. iii. 11, "the eternal purpose" is really the purpose of "the ages," i.e.,
worked out in "the ages." In ch. iii 21, there occurs a suggestive phrase
altogether obscured (as usual, where this word is in question,) by our version,
"until all the generations of the age of the ages." Thus it runs in the
original, and it is altogether unfair to conceal this elaborate statement by
merely rendering "throughout all ages." In 1 Cor. x. 11, "the ends of the
world" are the "ends of the ages." In ch. ii. 6-7-8, the word aion is four
times translated "world," it should be "age" or "ages" in all cases Here it is
impossible to avoid asking how - assuming that aion does mean "world" in these
cases - how it can yield, as an adjective, such a term as "everlasting?" If it
mean "world," then the adjective should be "worldly," "of the world." And great
force and freshness would be gained in our version by always adhering to the
one rendering "age."
Again, in Heb. xi. 3, "the worlds were framed," should be "the ages." In
Heb. ix. 26, "now once in the end of the world" should be, "in the end of the
ages." Take, again; the closing words of S. Jude, which run literally, "To the
only God, be glory, &c., before every age, and now and unto all the ages,"
i.e., before the ages began, and now, and throughout all the ages yet to come.
So Rev. i. 6, "glory" is ascribed unto Christ, "unto the ages of the ages," in
the original. In 1 Tim. i. 17," the King eternal" should be "the King of ages
;" in vi. 17, "charge them that are rich in this world" should be "in this
age." 2 Pet. ii. 17, "the mist of darkness is reserved for ever" should be "for
the age," for a period finite but indefinite. A striking phrase closes this
Epistle, ch. iii. 18, obscured in our translation - which renders "to Him be
glory both now and for ever, instead of, as the original requires, "unto the
day of (the) age," see v. 5, which explains the reference. I might easily go
on, but enough has been said to show that Scripture designs teach us the
"doctrine of the ages." In these repeated instances there must he some definite
purpose in the use of these peculiar terms; and we must deeply regret the
unfairness and inconsistency which in the case of aion mars and renders unfair
our versions. Thus it would be interesting to ask on what principle our
Revisers have in one brief epistle employed FIVE different words (or phrases)
to translate this one word, aion, e.g., Eph. i. 21 ii. 2, 7 ; iii, 11,21, e.g.,
"world," "course," "age, " "eternal,"" for ever." Such are the devious ways of
our teachers, and our translators.
Let me state briefly the doctrine of "the ages." "It will, I think, be
found, that the adjective - aeonian - whether applied to 'life,' 'punishment,'
'covenant,' 'times,' or even God Himself, is always connected with remedial
labor, and with the idea of ages or periods, in which God is working to meet
and correct some awful fall." - JUKES. There is present in the word in fact a
certain spiritual force, and a reference to "the ages" in which a redeeming
process is going on. It is the more needful to insist on this, because in our
recoil from the Roman Catholic teaching about Purgatory, etc., we have gone too
far; we have been trained to limit all God's possible dealings with us, to the
narrow span of our earthly existence. But this is to shut our eyes to the truer
and higher teaching of the Gospel. What does God mean by the repeated reference
to these "ages," when He speaks in the New Testament of His redeeming plan? On
the popular view these passages go for nothing. Is this fair or reasonable? But
by accepting what they plainly teach, we are enabled to harmonize God's
threatenings with His clearly expressed purpose to save all men finally.
Indeed, in these "ages" is indicated the true scope of redemption, as a vast
plan, extending over many periods or ages, of which our present life forms but
one, and it may be, a very brief part. Through these "ages" it is clearly
taught that Christ's work is to go on, for "Christ is the same today, and
yesterday, and unto 'the ages,"' Heb. xiii. 8; and He assures us that He is
alive "unto the ages," and has the "keys of death and of Hades," Rev. i. 18,
words significant in this connection. This then, we, taught by Scripture,
believe to be the "purpose of the ages," Eph. iii. 11. Nay, we are permitted in
Holy Scripture a momentary glance beyond that limit- in these glorious words :
- "Then," at the expiry it would seem of these ages, "comes the End, "when
every enemy vanquished and every wanderer found, "Christ shall have delivered
up the kingdom unto God, and God shall be All in All." - 1 Cor. xv. 28.
"HE SHALL BURN UP THE CHAFF WITH UNQUENCHABLE FIRE." S. Matt. iii. 12,
Luke iii. 17.
(a) Any good lexicon will show us how little the term translated
"unquenchable "really conveys that idea. HOMER often applies it to "glory,"
"laughter,"" shouting," to the brief fire that consumed the Grecian fleet.
EUSEBIUS twice says that martyrs were consumed in "unquenchable" fire. Church
Hist. vi. 41. CYRIL calls the fire, that consumed the burnt offering,
unquenchable. - De ador. lib. x. It is terrible to think of the agony caused to
loving hearts by misleading translations; perhaps most of all by that
disgraceful rendering that "never shall be quenched." - S. Mark ix. 43-5 (now
removed after it has worked such evil.) (b) Further, if the context be
examined, it points to a present, and impending judgment, and not a future
punishment. (c) The whole figure implies not the endless torture of the wicked
in a future life, but the destruction by Christ's fiery baptism, already
working, of that chaff which surrounds every grain. Nor can any figure express
more completely than does burning chaff the idea of e vanescence.
Here I earnestly beg my readers to pause and seriously consider, not
traditional prejudices, but plain facts. The usage of Scripture shows
decisively, that to press words like "unquenchable, "&c., to a narrow
literal meaning makes perfect nonsense. Take some typical instances. A fire is
kindled against Israel which is to burn for ever - Jer. xvii. 4, and yet all
Israel is to be saved - Rom. xi. 26, so is "the whole house of Israel." - Ez.
xxxix. 25. And again, Israel's hurt is "incurable ;" her pain is "incurable " -
Jer. xxx. 12, 15,. but in a moment it is added, "I will heal you" of the
(incurable) wound, v. 17. So, too, HOSEA more than once declares the rejection
of Israel by God, and that no more mercy remains for her: and yet in the same
breath asserts her final pardon and reconciliation - Hos. i. 6-9-10; ii 4, 10,
14, 15, 19, 23 ; ix. 15; xiii. 14; xiv. 4; passages well worth our pondering
over. In AMOS the same striking. teaching occurs. Israel, it is said, shall no
more rise, ch. v. 2. Yet God will raise her up. - ch. ix. xx. All fair readers
can see the extreme significance of all this ; and how very far the principle
of interpretation, so plainly involved, really goes. Again, though, as we have
seen, an express promise of the restoration of all Israel is given, and
repeated in the New Testament - Rom. xi. 26, yet an "unquenchable" fire is to
burn them up - Jer. vii. 20; "everlasting" reproach and "perpetual" shame is to
come on them - Jer. xxiii. 40; "perpetual" hissing - Jer. xviii. 16; and
"perpetual" desolations - Jer. xxv. 9; "perpetual" backsliding - Jer. viii. 5.
Surely some righteous indignation is called for against those who construct a
sentence of endless damnation against countless millions of God's children
(very largely) on the strength of phrases like the above, whose meaning is so
completely misapprehended Let us examine further. Not alone is the sin of
Israel "incurable," but so is the wound of Samaria - Mic. i. 9. And yet this
"incurable" wound is to be cured, for the captivity of Samaria is to be turned
again.- Ezek. xvi. 53 Nor is this all. Sodom and Gomorrha suffer the vengeance
of "eternal fire " - Jude, and are to be a "perpetual" desolation - Zeph. ii.
9, and yet the "perpetual" desolation is to end in restoration - Ez. xvi. 53;
and this temporary meaning is constantly that of "perpetual" in Scripture:
e.g., Lev. iii. 17, xxiv. 9, xxv. 34; Jer. xxxiii. 40. So, too, Ammon is to be
a "perpetual" desolation - Zeph. ii. 9; is to fall and rise no more - Jer. xxv.
21, 27; and yet it is to be restored - Jer. xlix. 6. And so Elam is to fall and
rise no more - Jer. xxv. 27, yet in the latter days it is to be restored, ch.
xlix. 39. The same is true of Egypt: compare Jer. xxv. 19, 27, with Ezek. xxix.
13, &c. And Moab is to be destroyed, and yet restored. - Jer. xlviii. 4,
47.
Now why is all this? Why in the Prophets do threats most awful, and hopes
most radiant, jostle one against another? Why do Mercy and Terror, Despair and
Joy, alternate, as the portion of the same persons? Why this seeming chaos? Not
because God has conflicting purposes, but precisely because He has no
conflicting purposes: threats and hopes are blended because threats and hopes
serve the same end. Nay, were the threats of Scripture still more awful than
any recorded, were they as clear as they are so often figurative and obscure;
and were we stripped of most (or all) of the direct promises of universal
salvation, still we might have hope, knowing that "God is Love," and that with
God "all things are possible."
"WHOSOEVER SHALL SAY, YOU FOOL, SHALL BE IN DANGER OF HELLFIRE." S. Matt.
v. 22.
The popular interpretation reduces these words to an absurdity. "It is
incredible that to call a man a fool should be so much a worse crime than to
call him Raca, that, whereas for the one offense men are to be brought before a
court of justice, for the other they are to be damned to an everlasting
torment." - Salv. Mund. The hellfire of this passage is the fire of
"Gehenna."
"FEAR HIM WHICH IS ABLE TO DESTROY BOTH SOUL AND BODY IN HELL." S. Matt.
x. 28.
These words point to God's power rather than to His intention. They say God
is able to destroy soul and body; they do not say that God will do so. And if
they do point to an intention, those who read what has been said above on
"death," "destruction," (ch. vi.) will readily perceive how accordant with the
usage of Scripture it is to make destruction and death a path to life; see pp.
9-10, 149, 184-90.
"FOR WHAT IS A MAN PROFITED, IF HE SHALL GAIN THE WHOLE WORLD, AND LOSE
HIS OWN SOUL ?" (life). S. Matt. xvi. 26.
This certainly shows that a man by persisting in sin may lose his soul, a
loss greater than that of the whole world. But (I.) how does this loss teach
endless torment, or endless sin? (To be shut out of God's presence for an age
would far overbalance the enjoyment of the whole world for a lifetime.) Or how
(II.) does it prove anything against a final restitution, against Christ's
seeking and finding the lost soul?
"THE DAMNATION OF HELL." S. Matt. xxiii. 33.
No comment is needed here, but to reinstate the true rendering-" the
judgment of Gehenna."
"THAT YOUR WHOLE BODY SHOULD BE CAST INTO HELL." S. Matt. v. 29,30, and
xviii. 8,9.
These passages are so similar that they may be considered together, and may
be compared with S. Mark ix. 43-50, where a full comment is given. The "hell"
of the text is "Gehenna, " and in ch. xviii. 8. 9, "hellfire" is the fire of
Gehenna, and everlasting fire is aeonian fire.
"AND THESE SHALL GO AWAY INTO EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT, BUT THE RIGHTEOUS
INTO LIFE ETERNAL." S. Matt. xxv. 46.
This text, if fairly translated, seems to require an interpretation quite
distinct from that of the popular theology, and opposed to it. (a)
"Everlasting" and "eternal" represent aionios, and mean "of or belonging to an
age " - aeonian. (b) If a punishment absolutely endless were intended it seems
unaccountable that a word should be used which habitually does not mean
endless, but the opposite. (c) The word translated punishment means pruning,
i.e., corrective punishment, and should be so rendered. (d) So that which is
threatened seems the opposite of our popular hell; it is a corrective process,
"proper to the age " - or "ages." (e) And of this beneficent purpose there is a
hint, often unnoticed, in the term applied to those on the left hand, it is
properly "kids" or "kidlings," a diminutive, implying a certain affection. And
so for the paschal offering a kid was eligible (Ex. xi. 5) equally with a lamb;
and in the Catacombs the Good Shepherd is at times depicted as bearing home on
His shoulders A KID, not a lamb, i.e., a GOAT, not a sheep. (f) Nor must we
forget that, in Rev. xx. 11, the throne of judgment is WHITE - the sign of
peace and amity. But it is said that the same word is applied to the happiness
of the saved and to the punishment of the lost; and that, if it does not mean
endless in the latter case, the bliss of the redeemed is rendered uncertain. I
reply (I.) even were it so, we are not at liberty to mistranslate, but (II.) in
fact it is certainly not so. True, the text does assign an aeonian penalty and
an aeonian reward, but this leaves perfectly open the whole question of the
precise duration of either. For the term aeonian is quite indefinite, it does
not touch the question of the limit of time; it simply teaches that both reward
and penalty go on to a future age or ages. The question what will happen after
this age or ages is not raised in this passage. (g) I have in these comments
made two assumptions both very doubtful, and both favorable to the traditional
creed.
* It must be noted that the endlessness
of the happiness of the Redeemed depends, not on any meaning we assign to
aionios. but on its own intrinsic nature, as resulting from union with Him, Who
is endless life; and on texts easily to be found elsewhere, e.g., he that does
the will of God abides for ever, 1 Jno. ii. 17; Because I live you shall live
also, S. Jno. xiv. 19; If a man keep My saying he shall never taste of death. -
S. Jno. viii. 51, cf v. 35. Compare Ps. cii. 28.
(I.) I have assumed the reference of aionios to time, which is not capable
of proof; for with perfect fairness it may have here that spiritual, ethical
meaning it unquestionably at times has in the New Testament; and the meaning
then would be, that just and unjust pass into aeonian, i.e., spiritual states
of punishment and bliss respectively. (II.) I have assumed the primary
reference of this passage to the final Judgment, but that is most improbable;
for these words close a continuous discourse extending over chapters xxiv-v.
(which our division into chapters obscures.) There is no break throughout. And
the question of the disciples, in ch. xxiv., is not about the end of the
"world," but of the "age". Thus, if we divest ourselves of traditional
impressions, and take Scripture itself as our guide, we see that it is not fair
to refer to a distant future, that judgment of which Christ Himself says
distinctly, (ch. xxiv. 34,) that ALL THE THINGS He is speaking of should be
fulfilled before the passing away of the then generation; and which finds a
perfectly natural fulfillment in the terrible calamities, consequent on the
fall of Jerusalem, and the end of the (Jewish) age (as these events would be
described in Eastern metaphor). And indeed our Lord's words, "all the nations"
v. 32, seem to refer to national judgments, and to indicate, in dramatic form,
the principle on which judgment falls on nations; certainly increasing
reflection makes this reference seem increasingly probable.
"TO GO INTO HELL, INTO THE UNQUENCHABLE FIRE * * WHERE THEIR WORM DIES
NOT, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED. * * FOR EVERY ONE SHALL BE SALTED WITH
FIRE." - Rev. Vers. S. Mark ix. 43-50.
(a) Note, first, that the revised text omits vv. 44 and 46, which lend so
much weight to the threats here uttered (b) The whole passage depends on the
statement of v. 49 - a fact generally overlooked - "For every one shall be
salted with fire." These words assign the reason for the preceding clauses, and
seem to show that the true reference in this passage is to some sacrificial or
purifying process, which every one must undergo; as in 1 Cor. iii. 13, "The
fire shall try every man's work." If the sacrifice be not made voluntarily, if
the eye or the foot be not sacrificed, a sharper sacrifice and a severer
penalty will be demanded. (c) The word translated hell is Gehenna. (d) The
phrase, "the fire is not quenched," is quoted from the Old Testament, where it,
or a similar phrase, occurs in the Septuagint twelve times, Lev. vi. 13; 2
Kings xxii. 17; 2 Chron. xxxiv. 25; Is. i. 31, xxxiv. 10; Jer. vii. 20, xvii.
27; Ezek. xx. 47, 48; Amos v. 6 ; Jer xxi. 12. In all these passages the flame
is temporary. Is. lxvi. 24, is the text specially quoted here; and the natural
and primary reference is to the worm and to the fire that preyed on the dead
bodies of malefactors, cast out into Gehenna. In Eastern metaphor these worms,
and this fire are said not to die, and not to be quenched; because the fires
were kept always burning to drive away pollution, and the worm was always
preying on the corpses and offal. (e) In nature both fire and worm purify. (f)
The (indefensible) translation, "the fire that never shall be quenched,"
disappears in the Revised Version. The original word is the same occurring in
S. Matt. iii. 12, and in the note on that text, proved to have been frequently
applied to fire, (and to many things,) even of the briefest duration.
"HE THAT SHALL BLASPHEME AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST HAS NEVER FORGIVENESS,
BUT IS IN DANGER OF ETERNAL DAMNATION." S. Mark iii. 29, S. Matt. xii.
32.
On a question involving the interpretation of a phrase, drawn from a
language still living in their day, it is most important to note the attitude
of most Fathers towards this sin. "The notion," says BINGHAM, "that most of the
antients had of the sin against the Holy Ghost, was not that it was absolutely
unpardonable, but that men were to be punished for it both in this world and in
the next, unless they truly repented of it." - vol. ii. 921 So ATHANASIUS says
of this sin, "If they repent they may obtain pardon, for there is no sin unpardonable with
God to them who truly repent." - De comm. essent. So S. CHRYSOSTOM, "We know
that this sin was forgiven to some that repented of it." * * What is then the
than meaning of it? That it is a sin less capable of forgiveness than all
others, - Hom. xlii. in S. Matt. xii. So VICTOR of Antioch - Comm. in S. Marc.
iii., S. AMBROSE - De penit. ii .4, &c. And so DIONYSIUS (Syrus), as late
as the tenth century, says: "Many, who did blaspheme. against the Holy Ghost,
afterwards repented, and obtained pardon," - translated from a Syriac MSS.
(Dubl. 1762.) Two points are very noteworthy; (I.) that these Fathers did not
believe any sin to be in itself unpardonable, (II.) that they did not believe
the phrases eis ton aiona or aionios, to mean in strictness "never," or
"everlasting," as our version renders them. And so nobody will press the
similar phrase as to the iniquity of Eli's house not being purged for ever - 1
Sam. iii. 14, to mean that it was literally unpardonable.
I may add that if we retain the
authorized text in S. .Mark, the word rendered "damnation" is merely
"judgment." But the true reading is probably hamartematos=sin, i.e., is guilty
of a. sin, whose results last into a future age or ages. The phrase translated
"never," is so far from meaning this literally, that it is elsewhere in
Scripture followed by "and beyond," i.e., and after, e.g., Ex. xv. 18, Dan.
xii. 3, &c. In S. Matt, the parallel passage is differently worded. "It
shall not be forgiven in this world (i.e., age) nor in that which is to come."
These words imply that there is forgiveness for sin after this life in very
many cases - (an awkward fact for the traditional creed,) and therefore
repentance after death is quite possible. Next, there is no assertion whatever
that, after this age, and that to come, there may not be forgiveness even for
the sin v. the Holy Ghost. A few words may be added. This terrible sin is the
sin of the Scribes and Pharisees, i.e., of the hard, narrow religionist, and
not of the ungodly. The sin itself is very clearly defined, "because they said,
He has an unclean spirit," v. 30. Its essence lies in confounding the works of
the Good and Evil Spirits, as, e.g., assigning to God any kind of evil act, p.
37,8. Must it not be a near approximation to this awful sin to assign to God
deeds which, like endless torture, our conscience tells us are evil and
cruel?
"GOOD WERE IT FOR THAT MAN (JUDAS) IF HE HAD NOT BEEN BORN." S. Mark xiv.
21; 5. Matt. xxvi. 24.
Note carefully that our Revisers admit that the original requires a
different rendering, viz., "Good were it for Him, if that man had not been
born." This obviously alters the meaning completely: it gives an intelligible
sense to say that, if there were no JUDAS, it would have been better for the
Master, Whom he betrayed. The common rendering certainly violates the ordinary
rules of Greek syntax. Our opponents must be reminded of this, and also that
even if taken in their extremist sense, the words of JUDAS' doom wholly fail to
prove that he was condemned to endless suffering; for they would be satisfied
to the utmost, if JUDAS were annihilated at the Last Day: nay, had he at the
moment of betrayal died, "and never suffered one pang more, they would be to
the fullest extent true."
The difficulty, even taking the ordinary
rendering, is very great of pressing these words literally. For JUDAS did in
some sort repent - S. Matt. xxvii. 3. "Four signs of true repentance are
present; (I.) his rejection of the wages of iniquity; (II.) his open confession
of his guilt; (III.) his public testimony to the innocence of the Man Whom he
had betrayed, and (IV.) his profound consciousness that the just wage of such a
sin was death." - Cox, Expos. i. p. 356. JUDAS, as one of the Twelve, had a
special promise of sitting to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. But this was,
you will say, conditional. Yes, I reply, just so. And may not a threat be as
conditional as a promise? And if not, then will any one explain, why not? The
rich are expressly shut out of the kingdom of heaven. Do our opponents take
that literally?
"THE PARABLE OF DIVES." S. Luke xvi. 26
(a) DIVES, like JUDAS, is a son of ABRAHAM, who so addresses him, "and all
Israel shall be saved." (b) DIVES was not in hell, but in Hades (see Revised
Version), i.e., in the intermediate state before the Day of Judgment, for his
brethren are alive. (c) DIVES IS distinctly improved by his chastisement: he
has learned to think for others. Can God by His fiery discipline produce this
amendment merely to crush it out in a future state of hopeless pain ? Is this
credible? (d) It is not said that the gulf shall continue impassible; what is
said is, that it is so (was then so). The case is as if a man were imprisoned
for a fixed time, and his friends are sternly told "between him and you is a
barrier placed which cannot be passed." This would be exactly true, though the
barrier were to be removed, when the fixed period of punishment ceased. (e) And
in any case why may not this gulf be passed by Christ, by Him Who has the "keys
of death and hell 7" (f) Those inclined to doubt what I have just said may be
well referred to S. AMBROSE, who, commenting on Ps. cxix., says thus: "So then
that DIVES in the Gospel, although a sinner, is pressed with penal agonies that
he may escape the sooner," thus asserting clearly his belief in DIVES' final
salvation. And S. JEROME expressly asserts twice over that Christ liberated
those souls who were in this very place, - In Zech. ix. 11; in Is. xiv. 7; thus
asserting his belief that the great gulf may be crossed. (g) Those taking this
parable as a literal description of hell and heaven must be reminded of a very
serious difficulty which they ignore. The blessed look on at the torments of
the lost. Is, then, this vision of a ghastly hell and its lost and suffering
ones to be really for ever before the eyes of the blessed ?-Rev. xiv. 10, 11
(to enhance their joy?)
"HE THAT BELIEVES NOT THE SON SHALL NOT SEE LIFE." S. John iii.
36.
The meaning is clear - the unbeliever, continuing such, shall not see life,
but if he repent he may obtain peace. If it were not so, all would be lost.
"THE RESURRECTION OF DAMNATION." S. John v. 29.
Here it is enough to point to the revised translation, "the resurrection of
judgment," not even condemnation.
Of the Parables of judgment, let me say that to build awful doctrines on
these sacred stories, and their metaphors, is quite unfair. Take perhaps the
most stern of all - those in S. .Matt. xiii., and even in these there is no
question of the end of "the world" which is a total mistranslation - it should
be "the age" merely; and no hint is given that the "fire" spoken of should go
on for ever. Admitting to the fullest the warning they convey, and the stern
side of Christ's teaching, yet their true meaning is obscured by adjourning to
some remote future the facts asserted; forgetting that the judgment throne is
now standing, and that we are now standing before it; and that Christ's
"unquenched" fire is now burning; unquenchable, thank God, till (as the whole
usage of the word in the original imports) it has fully done its work.
Here I add a few notes on certain passages, which escaped notice in former
editions. It is said that ESAU "found no place of repentance." - Heb. xii. 17.
But ESAU, though he lost irrevocably the birthright, was blest. "By faith ISAAC
blessed JACOB and ESAU " - Heb. xi. 20. S. PAUL speaks of aeonian destruction
as awaiting sinners. - 2 Thess. i. 9; and of destruction as their end - Phil.
iii. 19. I must refer my readers to what has been sufficiently said already on
the word "aeonian," and on the scriptural use of such terms as "destruction"
and "death," pp. 184-90, 258-64.
Some argue from the words, "Behold now is the day of salvation" (2 Cor. vi.
2), that salvation is confined to this life only. I might reply in the words of
an old Father, "with God it is always NOW;" and might ask whether the more
reasonable adherents of the traditional creed are prepared in all cases to
limit salvation to this present life? But a reference to the original shows
here, too, mistranslation and misinterpretation. S. PAUL IS quoting Is. xlix.
8, which speaks of Christ "In a day (not the day) of salvation have I helped
you." It is Christ (not the sinner) who is. helped, i.e., made strong for the
task of saving. In fact S. PAUL is warning the Corinthians not to receive in
vain the Gospel, and he supports this plea by a quotation, which reminds them
of the grace given to Christ to save in this dispensation. Don't reject, he
would urge, an offer accompanied by so much grace. As to a limit of time set,
beyond which Christ cannot finally save those who now reject the Gospel, that
is not in S. PAUL'S mind here or in ISAIAH'S. I take next Heb. vi. 4-6. (a)
Almost all the Antients explained this of Baptism, i.e., the writer, in their
view, simply forbids a repetition of Baptism. Certainly (b) few, if any,
teachers of today would understand this text to deny the power of repentance to
any sinner in this life; but why, if so, so far as this text is concerned,
should the power of repentance be denied after this life? (c) The impossibility
here spoken of is not qwa God, i.e., these words do not bar His grace. (d) Thus
Christ saves those whose salvation He seems to pronounce impossible, e.g., the
rich ZACCHEUS. Heb. x. 26-31 presents us with a passage parallel to the above,
which asserts that for willful sin fearful judgment is reserved, and that there
is no more sacrifice available. Many Fathers understand this passage merely to
teach the impossibility of a second Baptism. The true meaning seems to be that
for those continuing in willful and aggravated sin, only the certain prospect
of terrible judgment remains: they need cleansing by fire .- ch. vi. on fire
and judgment. The writer is here quoting Deut. xxxii., where the divine
judgment is viewed rather on its hopeful side, "I kill and I make alive, I have
wounded and I heal, v. 39. I am perfectly aware that this cleansing by fire and
judgment will seem strange to some Why? Because a narrow tradition shuts out
from their creed a vital doctrine of Scripture. A few words I may add on that
saying of our Lord's, "If the salt have lost his savor wherewith shall it be
salted ?" Luke xiv. 34; (stated more strongly in S. Matt. v. 13; cf S. Mark ix.
50.) It is enough to say though to human power the salt be wholly lost, yet He,
who makes the camel to pass through the needle's eye, can assuredly restore the
salt; (scientifically speaking, I believe salt never does lose its savor).
We have now considered all the passages of any weight in the New Testament,
and supposed to teach the popular creed, except those of the book of
Revelation. To this let us turn, first protesting against the unfairness of
building a definite theory of hell on the imagery of a book of mysterious
visions, and full of highly-toned metaphors. Its visions speak the language not
of prose but of poetry, the poetry of an Eastern race, far more imaginative and
highly wrought than that of the West. To judge these metaphors, as though they
spoke the language of scientific theology is worse than unfair, it is even
absurd. Take, then, the passages most often quoted to support endless evil and
pain, e.g., ch. xiv. 9-11. Terrible as it seems at first sight, it is, I
believe, really concerned with the times of NERO - who IS the Beast. The
worshippers of the Beast who are to be tormented, are his followers; and the
reference in the torment is to the terrible earthly calamities actually
happening to Rome at that epoch. Who, of whatever school of thought, is there
who does not feel a weight rolled away, when he perceives that the true meaning
of the worshippers of the Beast being tormented night and day for ever and
ever, in the presence of the Lamb and the holy Angels - may be fully found in
the terrible earthly sufferings which befell Rome, "while the Lamb and the holy
Angels are, in human language, represented as cognizant of this punishment ?"
Even Mr. ELLIOTT, in his Horae Apocalyptica, explains this passage of merely
temporary judgment. I should like our opponents to be frank and to say whether
they really believe that the smoke of the torment of the lost goes up for ever
and ever in the sight of the Lamb and of the Holy Angels ? If they do not - as
I believe to be the case - will they with equal fairness explain why on their
own principle they require us elsewhere to take literally similar sayings and
similar figures? But - to resume - whether Nero be or be not the Beast, it
remains certain that language equally strong is used elsewhere of MERELY
TRANSIENT and TEMPORAL judgments. In proof of this, turn to Isaiah xxxiv. 9-10,
and read the deeply impassioned language in which it describes the temporal
calamities of the land of Idumea - its streams are "to be turned into pitch -
its dust into brimstone - its land into burning pitch - it shall not be
quenched night nor day - its smoke is to go up for ever." Now when we know that
these metaphors - sounding so awfully, do yet refer to judgments of a momentary
duration, so to speak, we shall the better be able to assign its true meaning
to all the figurative and poetical language of this book. Nor do I speak of
this book only. The whole Bible is Oriental. Every line breathes the spirit of
the East, with its hyperboles and metaphors, and what to us seem utter
exaggerations. If such language be taken literally, its whole meaning is lost.
When the sacred writers want to describe the dusky redness of a lunar eclipse,
they say the moon is "turned into blood." He who perverts Scripture is not the
man who reduces this sacred poetry to its true meaning. Nay, that man perverts
the Bible who hardens into dogmas the glowing metaphors of Eastern poetry -
such conduct LANGE, in his preface to the Apocalypse calls "a moral scandal."
So with Our Lord's words -if I take them literally - I very often pervert their
sense. Am I in very deed to hate my father and mother because Christ says it is
necessary so to do; or to pluck out my right eye literally? Or take a case -
well put by Canon FARRAR - Egypt is more than once said, in the Bible, to have
been an iron furnace to the Jews; and yet their condition there was so far
removed from being one of torment that they actually said, "it was well with us
there," and positively sighed for its enjoyments. Therefore I maintain that no
doctrine of endless pain and evil can be based on Eastern imagery, on metaphors
mistranslated very often, and always misinterpreted. Having, then, considered
the well-known passage in ch. xiv., I close this chapter by discussing another
often quoted passage.
"BUT THE FEARFUL AND UNBELIEVING * * SHALL HAVE THEIR PART IN THE LAKE
THAT BURNS WITH FIRE AND BRIMSTONE * * WHICH IS THE SECOND DEATH." Revelation
xxi. 8
- It will be necessary to consider the entire context of this
verse, if we desire to understand its purport. It opens with the vision of the
great white throne, ch. xx. 14., and we find that after the judgment of that
Great Day, so far from death and hell (Hades) continuing, they are "cast into
the lake of fire" - very unlike, nay, contradicting the popular view.
- Then comes a declaration that God is to dwell with men - not with
the saints - but with men as such, and that as a consequence, they shall be His
people, and God shah be with them and be their God.
- It is distinctly said, there shall be no more death, neither
sorrow, nor crying, nor any more pain. Is this not a denial of an endless hell
rather than an affirmation of it - nay, an emphatic denial of such a
doctrine?
- Then comes a voice from the throne with a glorious promise,
"Behold I make all things new," not some things. Note, too, this promise is
remarkably emphasized, it opens with the word "Behold," to draw attention to
it: it closes with the command to write it, "for these words are true and
faithful." Was there no reason for this? Is there not thus attention drawn to
this as the central point of the whole vision, i.e., all things made new ? But
this again is a denial of the popular creed.
- In close connection with such promises come the highly figurative
threats of the lake of fire. It is perhaps possible to argue that this may
imply (although I do not think so) the destruction of those cast into it; but
it is wholly impossible to understand it as teaching endless torment in the
face of what has just been promised - (no more crying nor pain, v. 4.)
Therefore, I conclude, looking at the repeated promises (see "c" and "d") of
this very passage, which contrast in their perfect clearness with the highly
figurative language of its threats, looking at the true meaning of God's
judgments and at the whole spirit of Holy Scripture - nay, its express
declaration of universal restoration- that what is here taught, is a fire that
purifies while it punishes, a fire that is, in God's mysterious way, an agent
in making all things new. - On the second death, see ch. vi., p. 188.
"How little can we build dogmas on such
metaphors as the devil being cast with the Beasts (NERO and the Roman world
powers) and the false Prophet - ch. xx. 10-14 - into the lake of fire and
brimstone * * into which also are to be cast two such abstract entities as
'Death' end 'Hades.' At any rate this lake of fire is on the earth; and
immediately afterwards we read of that earth being destroyed, and of a new
heaven and a new earth, in which there is to be no more death or curse." -
Canon FARRAR.
We thus see that the Apocalyptic visions lend no support to the dogma of
endless torment. That doctrine is not, I believe, to be found in a single
passage of Scripture if translated accurately and fairly interpreted. And here
I would ask those who honestly believe that with this dogma of hellfire is
bound up the sole force able to deter men from sin, to remember that to assert
this is to contradict the weight of human experience. For in every age
experience has shown decisively, that it is not the magnitude of the penalty
that deters men from sin or crime, it is its reasonableness and the certainty
of its infliction, p. 26. On the contrary, few doctrines have done so much to
shake the belief in any real punishment of sin hereafter as has that of an
endless hell. For, see p. 57, nobody can be found who, by his acts, shows that
he in fact believes it. Hence, so long as it is taught, the whole subject of
future punishment becomes, for the mass of mankind, doubtful and unreal. Thus a
tone of secret incredulity is fostered, an incredulity which, beginning at this
particular dogma, assuredly does not end there, but affects the whole of
revealed religion. It is not merely that those who still teach the popular
creed thus furnish the skeptic with the choicest of his weapons, by enlisting
the moral forces of our nature on the side of unbelief. They do more than this.
They thus, unconsciously I admit, but most effectively, teach men to profess a
creed with the lips, to which the spirit and the life render no vital
allegiance. By this means the whole Gospel of Jesus Christ is lowered and
discredited, for if men see a doctrine of this kind maintained, in words, but
in fact denied (because in practice found to be wholly incredible) they will
assuredly apply the lesson, so learned, of professed belief and real
skepticism, to the whole system of Christian truth.
I have, I trust, not shrunk from the appeal to Scripture; that appeal, I
repeat, we court in the interests of the larger hope. But should some doubt
still linger some objections seem to be not wholly answered, then I would
remind the wavering that, to ask for mathematical certainty on these points, is
to ask for that which they never can obtain. No reasonable person expects
mathematical proof of the existence of God. No great theological question
exists that is not open to some questionings, more or less plausible, on
scriptural grounds. To ask for a demonstration of the larger hope that shall
leave no room for any plausible objection is to ask for that, which no
reasonable man asks in any similar case.
Before closing, I would dwell on a significant fact which often escapes
notice. Even assuming, for argument sake, the accuracy of the interpretation
placed by the traditional creed on the passages just discussed, even that
wholly fails to prove endless punishment: that might be a reasonable ground for
saying, "there are in Scripture two seemingly contradictory sets of passages. I
must wait and pray till all becomes clear; and meantime lean formulate no
conclusion." But it would furnish no fair ground for saying, "I must expunge
from the Bible those passages that teach universal restoration." This is often
forgotten, but it is not to be denied. And even this way of putting the case
strains many points in favor of the traditional creed. (I.) Because, since all
admit God to be Love, and nobody admits that God is cruel, the presumption is
wholly in favor of the milder view, turning out the true one. (II.) Because
this view is in harmony with the declared will of God to save all men. (III.)
Because it is a maxim with theologians, uncontested and incontestable, that
passages of Scripture which teach things unworthy of God are not to be
understood literally: on this ground they refuse to believe literally the
assertions of Scripture that God hardens the heart, and creates evil. If so,
why are we bound to accept literally passages which, on the common
interpretation, assign to God acts of terrible cruelty? (IV.) Because the
popular view is not only cruel, but is dualistic: while the opposing view rests
on this great principle that, good is always, finally, stronger than evil. (V.)
Because a promise binds in a sense that a threat does not, for nobody is
aggrieved, though a threat remains unfulfilled: take, e.g., the case of
Nineveh, where the threat was most precise and distinct. And so I am unable to
see, even on the ground taken by advocates of the traditional creed, that their
conclusions are warranted. How much less are they warranted, when the
interpretations of Scripture on which they rest, are shown to be untenable?
CHAPTER X
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
"The little Pilgrim listened with an intent face, clasping her hands,
and said, 'But it never could be that our Father should be overcome by evil. Is
that not known in all the worlds ?' "-The Little Pilgrim.
"This word is strange and often terrible; but be not afraid, all will come
right at last. Rest will conquer Restlessness; Faith will conquer Fear; Order
will conquer Disorder; Health will conquer Sickness; Joy will conquer Sorrow;
Pleasure will conquer Pain; Life will conquer Death; Right will conquer Wrong.
All will be well at last." - Madame How and Lady Why. - C. KINGSLEY.
THE question of Universalism is usually argued on a basis altogether
misleading, i.e., as though the point involved was chiefly, or wholly, man's
endless suffering. Odious and repulsive to every moral instinct, as is that
dogma, it is not the turning point of this controversy. The vital question is
this, that the popular creed by teaching the perpetuity of evil, points to a
victorious devil, and to sin as finally triumphant over God. It makes the
corrupt, nay, the bestial in our fallen nature to be eternal. It represents
what is foulest and most loathsome in man, i.e., the most obstinate sin as
being enduring as God Himself. It confers the dignity of immortal life on what
is morally abominable. It teaches perpetual Anarchy, and a final Chaos. It
enthrones Pandemonium as an eternal fact side by side with Paradise; and,
gazing over its fetid and obscene abysses, is not afraid to call this the
triumph of Jesus Christ, this the realization of the promise that God shall be
"All in All"
A homely illustration may make my meaning more
clear. What should we say of a householder who, prizing purity before all
things, and with ample power to gratify his tastes, should sweep into some
corner every variety of abomination, there to rot on for ever under his sight?
Nor is this all, for it is precisely the least rotten, and offensive, of the
mass of moral filth that he removes and cleanses, while permitting the foulest
of all (i.e., the most obstinate and the very worst sinners) to rot and putrefy
for ever. Indeed, according to the current theology, it is exactly because the
moral foulness of this mass is so great that it must endure for
ever.
I have spoken very plainly, for our opponents do not realize what it is that
they have been teaching, and still teach. I have spoken very plainly because of
the moral scandal involved in lowering God below the level of humanity; because
such teaching justly makes God odious to thousands; because of the manifold and
painful evasions of the great moral issues involved, pp. 78-9; because of
skepticism justified and increased.
How instructive is the evident perplexity our opponents feel in reconciling
with the triumph of Christ the perpetual duration of that evil, which He
expressly came to destroy (1 John iii. 8). Thus some (able) men now plead that
the resistance of the lost to God will be "passive" only, and their evil
"inactive." But passive resistance, if it be not a contradiction in terms, is
some form of resistance, and inactive evil is some form of evil, and in both
cases Christ's very purpose is defeated. And obviously the worst forms of
obstinate sin, for which hell is reserved, are the most active, are essentially
active. Therefore, to say that they become inactive is to say that hell
exercises a remedial influence. And if hell be remedial how near are our
opponents to the larger hope? Further, I wish they would frankly tell us how
this perpetuity of evil is possible. "Having anchorage in God," says DE
QUINCEY, "innumerable entities may possibly be admitted to a participation in
the divine aion. But what interest in the favor of God can belong to falsehood,
to impurity, to malignity? * * Evil would not be evil, if it had that power of
self-subsistence which is imparted to it in supposing its aeonian life to be
co-eternal with that which crowns and glorifies the good." - Theol. Essays. And
as already noticed, how can a process of degradation be endless?
With all earnestness, I repeat that our choice lies between accepting
the victory of Christ or of evil, and between these alternatives only.
Escape from this dilemma there is none. It avails nothing to diminish, as many
now teach, the number of the lost; or to assert that they will be finally
annihilated. All such modifications leave quite untouched the central
difficulty of the popular creed - the triumph of evil. Sin for ever present
with its taint, even in a single instance, is sin triumphant. Sin, which God
has been unable to remove (and has had no resource but to annihilate the
sinner) is sin triumphant and death victorious.
How strange, too, is the delusion, often advocated, viz., that all real
objections to the traditional creed are met, if the grosser forms of teaching
it are abandoned. This means, I presume, "let us still punish for ever, though
all chance of amendment is over. But do not shock the mass of men, do not
mention a literal fire: that is to go too far; retain the agony, but be careful
to apply the suffering to the highest part - to the spiritual nature. Rack the
spirit with endless woe, and remorse; hand over to the devil for ever one
formed in God's Image, one for whom the Son of God died; consign man's spirit
to endless evil, it lasts only FOR EVER AND EVER ! Who can be so unreasonable
as to murmur ?" Men's minds must be deeply drugged by prejudice, and the power
of reasoning partly paralyzed, when such pleas are advanced; or when they fancy
that, by diminishing the area of damnation they elude all objections to endless
evil. As though you could solve moral questions by process of arithmetic, or
annul the devil's victory by diminishing the number of his victims. So long as
one soul for whom Christ died remains in the devil's grip for ever, so long and
so far, is the devil victor. Nothing can by a hair's breadth alter that
fact.
A further vital point there is; how far Bishop BUTLER
designed to teach that "probation" is an adequate description of our moral
relationship to God may be uncertain. Yet it is certain that practically his
great name is (largely), the authority with those who teach in fact, if not in
words, that God is primarily the Judge, or the Moral Governor of His creatures.
Against this idea, which is working untold mischief, I earnestly protest. It is
the fatal legacy, the damnosa hereditas, which the stern and narrowly legal
mind of Rome, with a natural bent to cruelty, bequeathed to the Gospel. The
God, Who is Love, is thus in practice changed into an Almighty Proconsul, while
the Savior of Men is disguised in the garb of a Roman Governor. Not the
mercy-seat, but the seat of judgment is presented to the eye. An inflexible
code, and an unbending Judge rule all; on every side is diffused a sense of
terror. Love is subordinate, sin becomes the central fact ; guilt, not grace,
comes first. "Our Father" to all practical purposes, disappears, while the
great Taskmaster, or the Moral Governor, or the Accountant-General takes His
place. It is not that in so many words the love of God and the divine
Fatherhood, are denied, but that they are so often recognized in words only.
Shrunken, atrophied, palsied, the doctrine remains, as in some country where
the rightful monarch has not been formally dethroned, but has dwindled into a
puppet.
Such a system may call itself the Gospel, may point to the support of the
greatest names, and be taught in thousands of pulpits (often softened, but the
same essentially), yet it is a counterfeit and no true Gospel.
Where has the bright and joyous Christianity vanished which covered the dark
recesses of the Catacomb; (p. 105,) with every symbol, that could attest joy
and triumph, but gave no place to any dark and painful image, not even to the
Cross? Why was this? Because to these men the victory of Jesus Christ was a
thing really believed in, a fact actually realized, and dominating all else.
Because they believed that death, and its sting, was really, truly, universally
SWALLOWED UP IN VICTORY. And so they loved to paint Christ radiant with youth
and strength, true and absolute Conqueror of death and hell. Perpetual death,
moral rottenness for ever festering, what place - such were their thoughts-
have such things in a restored creation? Why is the Christ of religious art now
so sad, with anguished features and drooping head - is it because He mourns His
approaching defeat? Why have we so very generally banished from our churches
the figure of the risen and triumphant Lord- is it because in our heart of
hearts we feel in how many cases He fails to triumph? Whither has gone the
Vision so noble, so tender, and yet so strong, of the victorious Christ as He
descends into Hades, and opening the prison doors brings the disobedient dead
back to life?
Yes, "they have taken our Lord away and we know not where they have
laid Him." They have taken "Our Father," too, "the All Father," and we know not
where to find Him. For bread they give us a stony creed; judgment without
mercy; hell without hope; evil without end; heaven without pity for the lost
and the suffering; and a world here, in which to live is truly misery to the
thoughtful, as being but the portal and antechamber to endless woe, for so many
of their brothers and sisters in Christ, whom they are commanded to love as
they love themselves. Catholics (?) indeed we call ourselves, while not
one pulpit in a thousand in all England ventures so much as to hint at these
glad tidings of the release of the dead from Hades, which Catholic antiquity
universally taught, p. 97. Whither, too, has vanished that happier and higher
view of death, as a CURE, as the remolding by the Great Artist of His own
Likeness and Image, a view so significant and taught by so many and so famous
names? p. 149. By what right have we virtually added to the Antient Creeds the
fatal clause, "I believe in an eternity of evil ?" p. 147. Why do we never hear
the nobler view of the Resurrection as from its very nature a process of
restoration? see pp. 122-3, 133, 142-3, 144.5, 178-84. Why has the important
fact been steadily ignored, or even denied, of the wide diffusion of
Universalism in the primitive Church? Why has the Church delighted to accept a
cruel and uncatholic Africanism from the Bishop of Hippo, while refusing the
nobler and more catholic teaching which the Bishop of Nyssa, p. 121-5, and so
many saints freely taught in the Church's greatest age?
I do not mean that there has been a formal acceptance or rejection. I mean
that Augustinianism has in fact leavened all Latin Christianity, banishing the
nobler teachings of true catholicity. Thus, if God is to damn man eternally,
there is a step certain to be taken (to justify, if possible, such a sentence),
viz., the degrading and slandering that nature which man has received from God,
and which the Son of God assumed and wears for ever. Thus, too, the Incarnation
loses its proper place; the true lesson of Creation is ignored; the fact of the
divine Image and Likeness in every man is displaced and forgotten. "Can
anything be so precious as is the Image of God," asks S. AMBROSE. The very
elect are "lepers covered with dung and mire, ulcers putrefied in their
father's loins." - Answer to Travers, § 22. If even HOOKER, the judicious,
can so write, how deeply must the fatal leaven have penetrated - indeed its
traces are most legible to this day.
To resume, I believe that no doctrine has ever gained so wide a currency,
with so little support in Scripture, as has Probation; (and so little support
in all the higher Patristic theology). It fact it is not the product of
Scripture, it comes from the Philosophers, not from the Prophets, or the
Apostles. And any one can notice how it is assumed, and not proved from
Scripture, in the books that are current. Doubtless there is an element of
probation in education, but, if God is our Father, the fact that dominates all
else in our moral relationship to Him, is the education of humanity as His
children. Certainly no education can go on without trial, but we are "tried
that we may be educated, and not educated that we may be tried. • •
The essential characteristic of a Father's love is that it is inextinguishable.
"If I am here simply on trial, if I regard God as One Who is keeping a debtor
and creditor account with me, I may in word call Him Father, and in word
ascribe love to Him, but I cannot really regard Him as Father." - ERSKINE - The
Purpose of God.
Be it remembered that no reasonable man doubts that God is truly our
Governor and our Judge. But we deny such a Governor and such a Judge, as the
traditional creed depicts; we deny that the Father is ever (practically) lost
in the Judge. We are forced to ask, Have these our teachers, learned aright the
alphabet of the Gospel? If they had, could they talk as they do? For to say
that God is "loving," is in fact to make love an attribute merely, like justice
or wrath. God is not loving, for GOD IS LOVE, a distinction which is vital;
which affects the whole Christian scheme in its essence. Nor is this error all.
Our opponents seem not to understand what Love really is; else they could not
accuse us of making light of retribution, because we insist that God is
Love.
For the very essence of Love is misconceived, when it is confounded with
mere good nature; forgetting the awful, inexorable, side of true (divine) love;
forgetting, too, that this love is essentially inextinguishable. With a gospel
based on errors so cardinal as to substitute for the Father, the almighty
Inspector - for His training, the idea of probation merely - with the central
fact wrong, what wonder if all the rest is out of gear? Who could expect
astronomy to flourish, if men were taught that this earth is the center, and
not the sun? So with the moral universe. If I place Sin at the center, and not
Love - I paralyze every motion, and wholly invert the divine order.
In fact we admit this divine rule far
more truly than our opponents. To them God's rule is, in fact, baffled finally
and hopelessly by evil, which He never succeeds in
extinguishing.
It is a sad fact, that Christian teachers should only admit that God is
Love, provided no due practical conclusions are drawn from it. It is a sad
fact, perhaps the saddest of all facts to those who try to see fairly, that in
so very few, out of the vast number of Christian pulpits, is there preached a
God, Who is even as good as an average human parent. Those who so preach would
themselves loathe the very touch of a human father or mother who should act, as
they say God will act towards many (or any, what do numbers matter here?) of
His creatures; or as God has in fact acted, when He forced on these unhappy
ones the fatal gift of life, and thus in the phrase of the Poet, "cursed them
into birth."
How seldom, again, is this question treated as it should be from the divine
standpoint. Truly we need the profound lesson conveyed by the divine Spirit to
an old Prophet, "The battle is not ours, BUT GOD'S." - 2 Chron. xx. 15. This
weary, age-long battle with sin is, in its final issue, not ours, but God's. It
is "the salvation of the Lord," emphatically. - ib. v. 17. Nowadays it is
deemed the profoundest theology to forget all this: it is deemed the highest
wisdom to hang the final issue of this awful conflict on the sin-stained,
frail, ignorant will of a being like man. Instead of a theology they give us an
anthropology; instead of a science of God, a science of man. We hear little of
God's will, because as it may be conjectured that will points so emphatically
to universal salvation.
The question remains, and will remain till it receives due answer. Is God
really Master? or is sin to oust Him from any part of His own house for ever?
To reject Calvinism is easy enough, but to reject the divine Sovereignty is to
reject holy Scripture, p. 32-3, and may I not add to reject the verdict of
reason too?
Again, I entreat my readers to pay no heed to the delusive plea that claims
victory for Christ, if He shuts up His enemies in hell, as though the sole
victory possible to a divine Being were not the conversion of His enemies; as
though the perpetuation of evil in hell were not His defeat. But, in truth, the
traditional creed is essentially, if not formally, dualistic. There is a Deity
(nominally) supreme, and a rival demigod, Satan. There are two confronting
empires, destined to exactly the same duration. In the middle ages we find
actually represented in painting a rival Trinity, a Trinity of Evil . - DIDRON,
Iconog. Chret. ii. 23. How profound is the revelation thus made of the beliefs
ruling the minds of men, still ruling in those who believe that the devil is
all but omnipotent, and practically omnipresent.
Let us go to the Bible. Those who have reason to shrink from this appeal are
not Universalists, but are the advocates of endless sin; of a baffled Savior;
of a victorious devil. It is they who shut their eyes to the teaching of the
Bible. It is they who make light of its repeated promises of a restitution of
all things. It is they who make Scripture of none effect by their traditions.
To the Bible they come drugged by early prejudice; saturated with cruel
traditions, to whose horror long familiarity has deadened the mind. And so it
is, that many really cannot see the true force of Scripture, when it plainly
asserts the restitution of all things. Hence the painful evasions; the halting
logic that honestly (for I gladly admit this) but blindly turns the Bible
upside down, i.e., teaching that all men drawn to Christ, means half mankind
drawn to the devil; all things reconciled through Christ, means the final
perdition of half the universe. The notion of the popular creed, i.e., that God
is in the Bible detailing the story of His own defeat, how sin has proved too
strong for Him, this notion seems wholly unfounded. Assuredly the Bible is not
the story of sin, deepening into eternal ruin, of God's Son, worsted in His
utmost effort; it is from the opening to the close the story of grace stronger
than sin - of life victorious over every form of death - of God triumphing over
evil.
Once more I repeat that the larger hope EMPHATICALLY AND FULLY ACCEPTS
the doctrine of retribution. Those who picture Universalism as some easygoing
system, which refuses to face the stern facts of sin and misery and
retribution, are hopelessly wrong. We press on all the impenitent the awful
certainty of a wrath to come, and this with far more chance of
acceptance, because taught in a form that does not wound the conscience;
because we care not teach that finite sin shall receive an infinite penalty.
Few things have so hindered the spread of the larger hope as the wholly and
absolutely groundless notion, that it implies an inadequate sense of sin, and
pictures God as a weakly indulgent Being, careless of holiness, provided the
happiness of His creatures is secured. In fact it is those who teach the
popular creed, and not we, who make light of sin. To teach unending sin in
hell, even in a solitary instance, and under any conceivable modification, is
to teach the victory of evil. To us this seems at once a libel on God and an
untruth -a libel because it imputes to God a final acquiescence in sin; an
untruth, because it teaches that His Omnipotence breaks down at the very moment
it is most needed, and that His Love and Purity can rest with absolute
complacency, while pain and evil riot and rot for ever.
May it not be said a peculiarly evil form
of dualism, for in it the Good Spirit freely permits the entrance of evil,
which He knows will endure for ever?
Here we may ask, can any light, however small, be
thrown on this awful mystery of sin? For all practical purposes, I reply, there
are but two possible views of moral evil. It is endless as God Himself, which
is in fact dualism;" or it is temporary, and in God's mysterious plan,
permitted only to serve a higher end. Indeed this view of moral evil seems to
be substantially that of S. THOMAS AQUINAS; "he makes the elevation of the
creature above the original capabilities of his nature, to depend on the
introduction of sin."- NEANDER, Ch. Hist. viii. 216. Thus it is a stage in the
development of the creature, and of this there seems a hint conveyed in the
story of the first sin. By it man is said to have "BECOME AS ONE OF US," as
though the very Fall implied a Rise. Certainly Scripture asserts that "God has
shut up all men unto disobedience, in order that He might have mercy upon all
!" Note here the stress boldly laid (I.) on God's agency, and not on man's
will. (II). The universality alike of sin and of salvation, both are equally
absolute and universal. (III). But sin is permitted only as leading up to, as
involving salvation. And thus we see not an arrangement by which man starts
innocent, free to choose sin or not, but a (virtual) provision for the
hereditary transmission of evil; by which innocence becomes impossible to all;
by which every child of ADAM is, in the divine plan, "shut up unto (sin)
disobedience," an arrangement inconceivable on the part of a good and loving
Father, except with a settled purpose of mercy to every one. I am not
presumptuous enough to fancy that I have a novel solution to offer of this
profound mystery, but if the Bible be truly from God, then no solution is
possible which refuses (as do almost all interpreters) to treat seriously the
following striking passages, on the ground probably that reverence for the
Bible is reverence for those parts of the Bible that suit our own views. These
passages have been, in fact, completely ostracized.
* Does CLEMENT of Alexandria mean this
when he speaks of Adam as "made a man by disobedience." - Adm. ad
gent.
"I am the Lord; I make peace and CREATE EVIL; I THE
LORD DO ALL THESE THINGS." - Is. xlv. 7. Note the emphatic repetition, for true
reverence, true honesty, demands a frank recognition of these words. Nor do
they stand alone in their general teaching. Take, e.g., the memorable scene
when Satan appears before God, and receives from Him power over Job, and those
passages in which we read of an evil spirit from the Lord (1 .Sam. xvi. 14,
xviii. 10: xix. 9). Again, God is represented as saying to the lying spirit,
"Go forth and do so :" and the Lord is said to have "put a lying spirit" in the
mouth of the prophets (1 Kings xxii. 23). So in Judges ix. 23, God sends an
evil spirit. I advance no theory, but quote Scripture, and protest against
explaining it away under the plea of reverence. In addition to all this we have
repeated statements that "God hardens" the human heart, "shuts the eyes lest
they should see; and the ears lest they should hear." - See Ex. iv. 21, vii. 3,
ix. 12, x. 1 ; Deut. ii. 30; Josh. ix . 20; Is. vi. 10, xix. 14, xxix. 10,
lxiii. 17; Jer. xiii. 13, xx. 7; Ezek. xiv. 9, xx. 25; Am. iii. 6; Ps. cv. 25,
&c. Thus is text heaped upon text, line upon line. It is most strange to
find all these brushed away, by the very men who contend for a literal meaning
elsewhere? They say, 'It is wrong to press these, because they are unworthy of
God." Be it so. But, if so, pray remember that you cannot play fast and loose
with a principle. If you brush away a mass of plain texts, because they are
unworthy of God, will you explain why I may not brush away texts (quoted to
prove endless pain) that are far from plain, crowded with metaphor, ambiguous,
and in their cruelty, as generally interpreted, unworthy, I will not say of
God, but of any decent human being Observe, that I do not desire to brush them
away, but to interpret them rightly; yet it is well to show once more that our
opponents do not carry out consistently their own principles, p. 254. Nor is
this all. When they brush away texts because unworthy of God, they are again
inconsistent, for they thereby affirm the capacity of our moral sense to judge
of religious truth and the ways of God, see pp. 14-7, which the traditional
creed nearly always in effect, and very often in words, denies.
Nor can we say that in the Old Testament God is represented as doing that
which He permits to be done; for the New Testament is emphatic on this point.
"Whom He will He HARDENS. Rom ix. 18. "HE HAS SHUT up all men unto unbelief.".
- ib. xi. 32. "GOD GAVE them a spirit of stupor, eyes that they should not
see," v. 8. "God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a
lie." - 2 Thess. ii. 11. Such is S. PAUL'S emphatic testimony. S. JOHN, too,
echoes and reaffirms (ch. xii. 39-40) ISAIAH'S saying that the Jews COULD NOT
believe, BECAUSE God had blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts. And so
our Lord declares that God had "hid certain things from the wise," - S. Matt.
xi. 25 - and that He spoke in parables in order that seeing His hearers might
not perceive. - S. .Mark iv. 12; S. Luc. viii. 10; cf 1 Pet. ii. 8. The
uncompromising, fearless tone of Scripture is remarkable: everywhere it sees
the divine hand, and in everything traces a divine Purpose and Will. It seems a
false reference for the Bible to explain away all this. Indeed, to a thoughtful
mind light comes from calmly facing these hard sayings. And so S. PAUL adds:
The law was given in order that the "offense might abound." - Rom. v. 20. The
law "reveals - ib. iii. 20 - provokes -
ib. vii. 7-13 - multiplies - ib. V. 20 - sin or transgression." - LIGHTFOOT on
Gal. iii. 19. This, he adds, is S. PAUL'S leading conception of the function of
the law.
* We are not entitled to evade this,
because it is sometimes said in Scripture that men harden their own hearts -
which is, of course, most true.
Here let me sum up briefly and with due reverence:
- The facts that the law was given "in order that the offense might
abound," and that the law was our "tutor" (Gal. iii. 24), suggest the
educational aspect of evil: we seem to understand better the statements of Gen.
iii. 5, 22. Fresh light falls on the significant words, "GOD HAS SHUT UP all
men unto disobedience," and on these, the Creation "was made subject unto
vanity," not willingly, but by reason of Him who has subjected the same in
hope.
- God's sovereignty is everywhere to be traced: the error lies in
failing to see that this sovereignty is that of Love.
- Again it has been well said that there is no such thing as "pure
evil ;" "so unrestrained is the inundation of the principle of good into
selfishness and sin itself." - EMERSON on Circles. "There is a soul of goodness
in things evil," says the greatest of Englishmen.
- We have hints in Scripture that by evil permitted and overcome,
something is gained which, perhaps, could not have been otherwise had, e.g.,
there is "more joy over one repenting sinner, than over ninety-nine just
persons who need no repentance." And if there is more joy in heaven, there is
more love on earth from the same source, "for to whom little is forgiven the
same loves little."
- Sin is very often the result of ignorance; how far this
consideration goes I do not decide, but may there not be an element of
ignorance in all sin?
- Nor should we forget that in sinning, if I may say so, the raw
material is very often the same as in the practice of virtue, but turned the
wrong way - "there is," says EMERSON, "no moral deformity but is a good passion
out of place. I have steadily enforced in these pages the guilt of sin, but it
remains true that to sin greatly often demands the same qualities, that rightly
used would have been great virtues.
- Whatever the value of the above considerations, the larger hope
has nothing to fear from any theory of sin that can be maintained. Take a
lenient view of human guilt, and you thereby shut out endless penalty. Take the
very sternest view, and the perpetuation of this awful hostility to God becomes
inconceivable.
- A further consideration remains. As creation is for the Deity to
enter into finite relations, and to subject His plans to definite limits, so,
perhaps, evil, physical and moral, is in a sense inevitable. And it may be
that, by the training and collision, thus involved, a higher type of character
is formed than would be otherwise possible, e.g., self sacrifice, self
restraint, sympathy, mercy, etc., seem to require a background of evil for
their existence; although I believe that certain results of this have not
always been thought out by its advocates. A creation thus advancing to
perfection by a certain, if slow, victory over evil, may possibly be a nobler
thing than a creation so safeguarded as to have never fallen. In S. BERNARD'S
words, "ordinatissimum est minus interdum ordinate fieri aliquid." - Ep. xxvi.,
ad. Eug. iii. I shall neither affirm, nor deny, these propositions. But
morality and reason require one thing, viz., that creation shall be in fact so
advancing; that the victory over evil shall be a victory indeed, and not a
compromise - i.e., they require not partialism in any form, but Universalism.
Evil in process of extinction, nay, in the divine plan already extinguished -
is tolerable. Evil permitted for a time, in order that it may be more
completely vanquished, and men thereby trained - that we can understand. But
when evil, moral or physical, becomes perpetual; when it ceases to be a means
and becomes an end; when it is no merely passing stain, but is wrought into the
very tissue of the universe - enduring as God Himself: when God is taught as
freely and deliberately permitting the entrance of evil, destined, as He knows,
to be an eternal horror in His creation; then we are compelled to refuse
assent, compelled by our very reverence for God, by the supreme voice within,
which if God anywhere speaks with man, is indeed His voice.
Nor would it be true, in my judgment, to
call this ignorance willful in all cases, so vast is the network of illusions
surrounding us. - See 1 Cor. ii. 8 (quoted with a little inaccuracy, p. 22).
"MOST SINS," says S. GREGORY of Nyssa "are committed from a confusion of
judgment as to what is truly good." - De mort. Or. ii. p. 1049.
Thus, if so, what of heaven? Must evil be present there to elicit virtue?
Again, if the highest type of character be the result of conflict with evil,
must the Seraphim and Cherubim, &c., have known evil? and so on up to the
very throne of God.
This prepares us for a very interesting question, viz., whether the evil
effects of long continued willful sin ever wholly pass away. It may be replied,
perhaps never in some cases. Some men, if I may for the moment so apply our
Lord's striking words, may, in some sense, enter into life halt and maimed.
Obstinate persistency in sin may leave on the spirit a wound whose evil effects
are permanent. There may be, for I will not attempt to decide, a permanent
weakness, though the disease of sin he cured. Two results of this deserve
notice. (I.) It furnishes us with a fresh answer to the plausible taunt cast at
the larger hope as leading the careless to say, "if this be true I will have my
fling, for all will come 'right at last.'" On any view, your fling I reply,
will bring on you "the wrath to come" - a retribution terrible in proportion to
the willfulness of your sin. But, further, your fling may involve you in a
penalty strictly everlasting. You may, though pardoned, for ever suffer from
the numbness and spiritual weakness which your sin leaves behind. (II.) May not
this furnish a meeting place for reasonable men on both sides? For final and
universal restoration is not opposed to perpetual penalty in a certain sense;
because the willful sinner, though saved, may yet suffer a perpetual loss, a
paena damni loss of the highest spiritual blessedness hereafter.
For annihilation is no victory: it is
death triumphant over life.
An evil result of the traditional creed has been that it, by exaggerated
threats, deadens men to any true sense of future penalty. Men grown familiar
with endless punishment practically think very lightly of any less penalty,
however awful. Thus a critic of this book maintains that the "tragic" element
in religion is lost except we retain endless penalty! Is, then 10,000 years (or
100,000) of pain and banishment from God a comic thing, and not tragic?
Further, every form of partial salvation is rooted in selfishness. This
selfishness is largely unconscious, but not the less real. Most people will
have noticed a shocking unwillingness, on the part of the so-called religious
world, even to entertain the idea of Universalism. The unspoken feeling is
often this - "If hell is gone, perhaps my heaven is gone too." And then
comes the deduction - What, if so, is to become of ME? We have thus
a heaven actually, in some true sense, built on hell; buttressed on endless
misery and sin. And this is received as the true Gospel of Jesus Christ A
degrading selfishness is popularized, nay, is sanctified; religion is tainted.
Salvation becomes a sort of stampede for life, an universal sauve qui peut, a
chase, in which the Powers of evil are always catching the hindmost. And most
strange of all, this grotesque and tragic scene is gravely asserted to be the
victory of Jesus Christ. I do not know whether all this is more strange, or
more shocking. For what can be more shocking than that any of the Blessed
should be for a moment happy in a heaven literally built over the anguish and
blasphemies of the lost - nay, so long as a solitary mourner sits for ever in
hopeless despair? Heaven is likeness to Jesus Christ; and likeness to Jesus
Christ is undying sympathy with the lost; is love unquenchable towards His
worst enemies. But the heaven which the traditional creed (and every
modification of it) offers to us is a thing so hardened, so awful that merely
to think of it fills the mind with horror. Deadened sympathies; palsied love;
selfishness incarnate; pity for ever withered; such is the heaven too many of
the masters of our Israel teach. "It is a mystery," they reply. It is hell, I
answer, disguised as heaven. Do they then imagine that we have not wit enough
to see that so to answer, where the gravest moral questions are concerned, is a
confession that no answer is possible?
"Will you SPEAK WICKEDLY FOR GOD ?" asks the indignant Patriarch. "Woe unto
them that call evil good and good evil." Here is the peculiar horror of the
traditional creed. In the very Holy of Holies, it places that which revolts and
degrades. The God it worships bids us love our enemies, while He consigns to
endless perdition His own enemies. Hating sin with an eternal hatred, He
provides for it an endless duration, an abiding home. Because it is so very
evil, therefore it must go on for ever, for this is the meaning of saying that
for the very worst sinners there is after death no hope. Their guilt is so
vast, therefore it must endure for ever; it is so very foul, therefore it must
defile for ever God's redeemed universe. The Blessed are content to gaze
placidly over the abyss of hell, their satisfaction unbroken; their joys
undimmed, if not actually heightened, by the torments of the lost (pp. 43-4).
And when, finally, the curtain falls on an universe darkened by endless sin,
they actually call this the triumph of the Cross; and are content to retire
into a heaven of ineffable selfishness, where love is paralyzed, and the Spirit
of Christ dead; not caring though the wail of the lost for ever rise; the
husband grown for ever deaf to the appeal of the wife; the mother unheeding the
eternal agony of her child.
DANTE inscribed over the gate of the medieval hell, "Abandon hope, you who
enter here." Our teachers bid us inscribe over the gate of heaven, words, if
possible, more awful, "Abandon love and sympathy: abandon the spirit of Jesus
Christ, you who enter here." They bid us sing:
"O saints of God, for ever blest,
In that dear home how sweet your rest."
How SWEET YOUR REST, O wives whose husbands for ever burn; O mothers,
how sweet your rest, while your children for ever agonize. IN THAT DEAR HOME
HOW SWEET YOUR REST!
"You are shocked at reading that the Blessed rejoice over the agonies of
hell," pp. 43-4. But have you any reason, nay, any shadow of reason, to be
shocked, on your principles? Are you afraid to face the inevitable result of
your teaching? MUST not the Blessed acquiesce in, nay be PLEASED with the
divine judgments whatever they be? Pray consider this. These judgments, whether
healing and finite as we think, or vindictive and endless as you think, are
certainly the outcome of the divine Will. They claim your approval as of right
The Bible tells you "The righteous shall REJOICE when he sees the vengeance." -
Ps. lviii. 9. Can you escape the conclusion that the shocking passages, pp.
43-4, are justified substantially if your dogma be true?
To resume, - these horrors are taught when, as now, Agnosticism is so
threatening; when Science looks on the Gospel with hardly disguised scorn. And
too often, an ignorant, if well meaning, clergy are content to cry, "Have faith
;" as though God were not the author of reason; as though loyalty to conscience
were not the supreme duty of every rational being; and a recognition of its
supremacy the very condition by which alone any religion is possible. I am
content at the bidding of faith to accept a mystery which transcends my reason;
but to prostitute conscience, to dethrone the moral sense, is treason to God;
it is "propter, vitam vivendi perdere causam."
I do not mean willful untruth, but I do mean that virtual falsehood stains
almost the whole body of our religious literature.' Falsehood is to say one
thing, while meaning another. Hence, to assert that the world is saved, while
meaning that in fact half the world will be damned; that mankind is rescued,
while meaning in fact that many (or few, it matters not which) go to the devil
for ever: to do this in a thousand forms, in hymns, in sermons, tracts,
treatises, is falsehood; and with such untruth our religious literature is, I
repeat, honeycombed through and through.
"There appears to me in all the English
divines a want of believing, or disbelieving, anything because it is true or
false. It is a question which does not seem to occur to them." - Life of
ARNOLD. - Letter 152.
"It is a terrible business to have a falsehood domiciled with truth, and for
its possessor, when he is only half convinced or not all convinced of its
truth, to take the greatest pains to dress it up like a truth. For the
falsehood gets no good from the truth, but the truth gets all maimed by the
falsehood. They talk of the love of God, and His mercy, and His pity, and
His justice, and His righteousness - while all the time they are speaking, this
hideous companion in their own soul is laughing at all these things. Love of
God - what of eternal torture? Righteousness of God - what of eternal evil?
Good news, salvation - oh, have done with it all." - STOPFORD BROOKE.
So long as the popular creed and the Bible are held together, so long must
this system of untruth continue. We pray to "our Father," to Whom in the next
breath we assign acts towards His own children more cruel than any to which the
worst earthly parent would stoop. We thus degrade the Godhead below, FAR BELOW,
THE LEVEL OF HUMANITY. What is left for us to worship if the truth be a lie -
if love essential be cruelty itself - if God be that, which I dare not write?
Nor is this all. Having thus assigned to God acts of infinite cruelty, the
popular creed goes on to assure us of His tenderness that never wearies - His
love that never fails. What falsehood, what cruel mockery is this, coming from
those who really mean, that this unfailing, eternal Love watches to all
eternity, callous and unsympathising, the undying evil, the endless agony of
its own children. A merchant who has two contradictory measures is dishonest;
but what of the theologian, of whom the same is true, is he less dishonest? It
is cruel to torment a cat or a dog for five minutes, but to be callous to all
eternity about the endless misery of a wife or a child, is quite right and
good. The transient wrongs of a chimney-sweep excite the sincerest pity; but
the eternal anguish of the lost human spirit awakes not even a passing gleam of
pity in the Blessed. Let a criminal be tortured for an hour by human law, and
all the civilized world is roused; but let the same criminal pass to torture
without end, and these endless pangs do not disturb for a moment the raptures
of the inhabitants of heaven. Vivisection is odious on this earth, but is most
just in hell. Is it, then, odious when temporary, and most righteous when
endless? e.g., is it most righteous for Eternal Love to vivisect for ever, or
at least permit to be vivisected, His own children, in the sight of the Lamb,
and the Holy Angels - Rev xiv. 10, (for the true meaning of this passage see p.
278-9.)
That Philanthropists (whom we honor) should be unable to bear the sight of
the momentary suffering of the outcast here, while they are prepared to accept
heaven's joy unmoved by the endless agony of the outcast hereafter, fills the
mind with thoughts, for which amazement is too feeble a term.
The apologies offered for the traditional creed are truly worthy of it. Thus
many shelter themselves under the phrase, "God will do His best for every man"
I can only suppose such an apology meant, not as an argument, but as an
ill-timed piece of pleasantry. For what are the admitted facts? An Almighty
Being, Who is, on any possible hypothesis, perfectly free to create or not, yet
forces on myriads of hapless children of His own the fatal gift of existence,
knowing that in fact this life of theirs will ripen into endless misery and
woe. To call this doing His best for them is an abuse of language -- could
He do worse for them?
Some actually try to defend endless evil
by asking, "would the lost be happy if put into heaven??" As if the
larger hope did not expressly teach the conversion of the lost in the first
place.
Another plea for endless evil is made. This I shall state and answer in Mr.
FOSTER'S words. "It is usually alleged that there will be an endless
continuance of sinning, with probably an endless aggravation, and therefore the
punishment must be endless. Is not this like an admission of disproportion
between the punishment and the original cause of its infliction? But suppose
the case to be so - that is to say, that the punishment is not a retribution
simply for the guilt of the momentary existence on earth, but a continued
punishment of the continued, ever aggravated, guilt in the eternal state: the
allegation is of no avail in vindication of the doctrine, because the first
consignment to the dreadful state necessitates a continuance of the
criminality, the doctrine teaching, that it is of the essence, and is an awful
aggravation, of the original consignment, that it dooms the condemned to
maintain the criminal spirit unchanged for ever. The doom to sin as well as to
suffer, and, according to the argument, to sin in order to suffer, is inflicted
as the punishment of the sin committed in the mortal state Virtually, therefore
the eternal punishment is the punishment of the sins of time." - Life and
Corresp. vol. i. If, indeed, the sentence on the ungodly involve a virtual
necessity to sin for ever, then the excuse offered is the deepest accusation
possible of the traditional creed : Further, there is a duplicity in this plea
when urged by those who quote texts, e.g., S. .Matt. xxv., which state the
future punishment to be inflicted for sins already past.
Few things are more wonderful in this whole question than the reluctance so
many feel, to follow out these unhesitating convictions to their only possible
legitimate conclusion - the rejection of that dogma, which flatly contradicts
them. I do not assert, that these convictions are an infallible guide; for
indeed of what can it be said that its directions reach us in an infallible
form? Can that be said of the Bible itself? Are those who translate it, or who
comment on it, infallible? Are those who read it free from error, from
prejudice? But no Christian, therefore, doubts its divine authority, or fails
to see in it a guide practically sufficient, and binding. So in the case of
that other, and PRIMARY REVELATION of God to man. We do not claim infallibility
for it, yet we do claim that the deliberate verdict of our moral sense
represents to us the voice of God speaking for our guidance in daily life, and
on which we are absolutely bound to act.
Our opponents will not remember that the moral sense is God's revelation to
us; that it is His WORD, speaking to us, quite as truly as from the pages of
any book. It is pure sophistry to say, "you must yield your ideas to God's
revealed will," as though our true moral feelings were not God's revealed will
to us.
Let us consider how false it is to say, "We must yield our ideas." Must we?
what! our ideas of truth, are they to be yielded? May God say that which we
call false, and, if so, does it become truth? But if I must not yield up my
idea of Truth, as applied to God, why am I to yield my ideas of Mercy, and
Right, and Love? Does God perhaps hate in fact, while professing to love, the
righteous? This question is vital. It is bad and terrible to use a cruel plea:
it is far worse to use it when you do not, just because you dare not, use it
honestly all round. If our human ideas of Right and Wrong are not to be trusted
when applied to God, then anything may happen; anything may be right, anything
may be wrong; anything may be true, anything may be false. All is Medley,
Chaos, Anarchy: hell and heaven may change places. And so, for all we know, may
good and evil- see pp. 11-2: 15-7. We are in fact Agnostics, for we know
nothing really. We may call ourselves anything we please, but (moral) Agnostics
we are, and we remain.
This volume has strongly urged the moral degradation due, directly and
indirectly, to the doctrine of endless penalty. Here I may state a final
instance in an unexpected quarter. It has helped in large measure to promote
that immoral casuistry against which at length the human conscience rose in
open revolt. This it has effected because that system had its origin in the
distinction between mortal and venial sin. Now, as the results of mortal sin
were supposed to be so unspeakably awful, if in any way unrepented of, a direct
incitement was furnished to narrow, as far as possible, the range of these
sins. And thus a perverted ingenuity was set to work in breaking down great
moral distinctions, and in attenuating systematically the guilt of the graver
crimes, in order to stamp them as merely venial offenses. - MAINE, Antient Law,
p. 352.
I have shown further by abundant evidence, the wide currency, in the early
ages, of the broadest Universalism, a fact too little known and ignorantly
denied. May I again point out that this Universalism was essentially based on
Scripture, and that it has been reechoed in later years by the most saintly
souls. You may search in vain in all the annals of English religion for a name
more saintly than W. LAW, the Universalist. Men talk of the "laxity" of
Universalism. Was it this "laxity" that recommended it to the glowing devotion
of LAW, to the sainted MACRINA, (whose deathbed is the most impressive in all
primitive annals, p. 121,) to ORIGEN, whose life was one continuous prayer; to
a crowd of men like-minded in the early Church? Was the devout ERSKINE of
Linlathen drawn by this "laxity" to Universalism, or CHARLES GEORGE GORDON, or
FLORENCE NIGHTINGALE? Was the holy KEN attracted to a wider hope than that
current in his day by this "laxity?" Or was it not that these, like so many of
the early saints, had caught more truly the Spirit of Him, the All-Father, Who
loving, loves to the end, Who seeks the lost, till He finds them?
Next we have seen (ch. vi.) how close is the connection between Universalism
and Creation, Incarnation, Atonement, and Resurrection; and have inquired
carefully into the meaning of "Election," "Death," "Judgment," "Fire." I have
attempted to show that the true teaching of Holy Scripture, and of Antiquity,
on these points is in absolute harmony with the larger hope, that to insist on
one and all is to bring into clearer relief the doctrine of universal
salvation.
To attempt to introduce fresh ideas, especially in things religious, into
minds saturated with doctrines taught in childhood, and hallowed by so many
ties, has been well compared to trying to write on paper already scribbled
over. Hence the many compromises, excuses, modifications, now current, on the
part of those half convinced that the traditional creed is false. The first
shelter that offers is accepted, thus many snatch at Conditional Immortality,
not pausing to inquire (even writing volumes without inquiring) whether it so
much as fulfills the great primary point of teaching the victory of Jesus
Christ, p. 9.
I have steadily sought in these pages, even when necessarily most outspoken,
to recognize the perfect sincerity of my opponents; my quarrel, when most
earnest, is not with individuals, but with a system. Here I would make a final
appeal and ask, if some who read will not try to rise to higher levels, and to
see in the larger hope the only view worthy of the All-Father, and of His
Justice, which is the handmaid of His Love. Alone this hope explains the
wonders of our creation in God's Image; alone it satisfies the majesty of Love
and its unquenchable thirst to raise the fallen, and most of all to save
finally the most hopeless, the most unrepentant. Alone it really teaches that
with God "All things are possible :" alone it sweetens every sorrow, and wipes
away every tear. By its light alone are we able to gaze at the very saddest
depths of sin, and in its worst discords to hear an undertone of hope. It alone
enables us to believe truly in the Eternal Goodness, and its final victory: by
it alone do we gain a full and adequate idea of the divine Unity (pp. 209, 245)
- One Will, One Love, One Law, One Lord, and "One far-off divine event to which
the whole creation moves."
We have carefully considered the all-important question of the teaching of
Holy Scripture. We have noted even in the Old Testament, intimations from the
very first of a future blessing, designed to embrace all the race of man. These
become more distinct as the plan of God is more fully disclosed; and both
Psalmists and Prophets unite in their promises of an age yet to come, when the
knowledge of the Lord shall cover the earth as the waters cover the sea.
Nor have we forgotten the argument for the larger hope from the tendencies
of the Bible, pp. 68, 232, and from the great principles that pervade its
teaching, pp. 68, 75, 234-5, 236. I have also tried to show how completely the
traditional creed misapprehends the language and usage of Scripture in its
threatenings, pp. 266-8, a subject well worth careful study.
The New Testament received the attention, due to its supreme importance. The
passages supposed to teach the popular creed, have been carefully considered,
and we have seen reason to conclude that they, one and all, while emphatic.
ally warning sinners of the wrath to come, teach nowhere an endless
punishment.
Lastly, a chapter has been devoted to pointing out how full the New
Testament is of passages too often explained away, and yet teaching, or
implying, the final salvation of all. So important is this evidence, that I
here append a brief summary. We have seen how to Christ is assigned a kingdom
absolutely without bound or limit, how all flesh shall see the salvation He
gives. You have read how the Good Shepherd seeks on, till each sheep He has
lost is found, and how the Son of Man came to seek and to save, not some of the
lost, but simply "that which was lost". This might also be rendered, "the
destroyed", so little does "destruction" involve final loss. His mission is
exactly described as having for its object the salvation of the world, and He
is said to take away the sin of the whole world. Do these terms represent a
partial salvation? Are they honestly consistent with it? Again, it is said all
things have been given to the Son, and that all that is so given shall come to
Him. He is repeatedly described as the "Savior of the world", which yet He does
not save on the popular view. He is called the "Light the world". He is said
not to offer, but to give life to the world, a totally different thing. He says
(no words can be more absolute), speaking of His Cross, that He will draw all
men unto Himself. He adds, that He came not to judge, but to save the World.
Can you, on any fair theory of the meaning of human language, reconcile all
this with the horrors of endless evil? If the sin of the whole world be taken
away, how shall there be a hell for its endless punishment. If all things
without exception (the original is the widest possible) are given to Christ,
and all so given to Him shall come to Him, can you reconcile this with unending
misery? Let us go on, however. We find language employed by the Evangelists
quite as decisive against the popular creed as that just quoted. When, for
instance, we read in S. John how God's Son was manifested for the very purpose
of destroying the works of the Devil, we are forced to inquire if that is
consistent by any possibility with preserving these works in hell for ever?
Is there no significance in Christ's telling us that He is "alive unto the
ages", and has the keys of hell and death? Then again, what do the promises to
make all things new, and that there shall be no more curse or pain mean? If
these be not promises of universal restoration, what are they? Lastly, ponder
over the vision of the Apocalypse, where every creature in heaven, on earth,
and under the earth (the dead), joins in the song of praise to God. Can you
truly say that anything less than a universal salvation can satisfy the plain
sense of these words!!
To (virtually) evade such words is bad enough, but having done so, to
charge Universalists with fearing to appeal to Scripture is surely not
fair. Take next, a very large body of fresh passages teaching the
larger hope, from the Epistles of S. Paul, S. Peter, and Hebrews. S. Paul,
especially, is full of glowing anticipation of the assured triumph of Christ's
kingdom over all evil. Thus ABRAHAM is to receive the world and no less as His
portion, i.e., in the elect, all are to be saved. Whatever sin has done to
injure man is to be more than repaired by the grace of Christ. Is it, however,
possible to undo all that sin has done, if a single soul (1.) be left in
endless evil? Would not S. Paul be speaking untruly in such a case? Surely a
fair answer is due to this inquiry (even though a fair answer seems to lead to
Universalism). Further, the Apostle says that the whole creation shall be
delivered into the glorious liberty of God's children. Again, all Israel is to
be saved (and being the firstfruits, their salvation involves that of the
entire world). The Apostle affirms that God's gifts and calling are without
repentance (irrevocable). This is very significant, for what is the popular
creed but an assertion that God's gifts can be set at naught finally. Further,
what S. Paul asserts is echoed in the Epistle to the Hebrews, which assures us
of the immutability of God's counsel. Again, if God has shut up all in
unbelief, it is, as S. Paul says, that He may have mercy upon all. Does "all"
mean "some" in the latter clause, and not in the former??
Again, he assures us that if the first ADAM brought death universally,
then the last ADAM brings universal life, and that if sin abounds, much more
shall grace abound. However, in saying that the last ADAM has failed in myriads
of cases to undo the evil caused by the Fall, you are giving these words a flat
contradiction. Then, as to Christ's empire, we are told that to Him every
knee shall bow, i.e., "All creation, all things, whatsoever and wheresoever may
be." -- (LIGHTFOOT on Phil. 2:10) and every tongue confess -- the original term
means thanksgiving, rather, is the very term used of our Lord's giving His
Father thanks -- S. Matt 11:25. Finally, we are told that one day -- at the End
-- God shall be All in All. It is the Father's good pleasure to sum up all
things in Christ, to reconcile all things unto Himself through Christ. Are we
indeed to believe that anything can be reconciled to God by being consigned to
hopeless evil? For it is a virtual, if unconscious, evasion to say that all
things are reconciled to God, if, after countless generations have sent their
contingents to the devil, some one generation and those succeeding it, shall be
fully saved. Further, the Apostle assures us that the living God is the Savior
of all, that Jesus Christ has abolished death, and that the grace of God brings
salvation to all men. Are these statements fairly consistent with a partial
salvation? Why also, do our opponents never allude to the noble and most
inspiring hope, suggested by such a passage as Rom. 11:36?
S. Peter, too, speaks to the same effect. He tells of Christ's preaching the
Gospel to the dead, who had been disobedient and died -- a story whose
significance is the greatest possible, as indicating how behind the veil Christ
works on to heal and to save even those who died in sin. He adds, that the Lord
is not willing that any should perish. Is God's deliberate counsel -- such is
the original word -- to come to nothing? Then, in the Epistle to the Hebrews,
we have this same remarkable testimony, e.g., the assertion that all things are
to be put under Christ. It is stated that His object in dying was to destroy
the devil -- that once, at the conclusion of the ages, He has appeared to put
away, i.e., abolish sin by His sacrifice of Himself. Can anyone explain how the
abolition of sin can be consistent with maintaining evil in hell for ever?
Thus, the traditional creed seems to stand hopelessly opposed to the teaching
of Scripture. Does it not almost deny God Himself, because if we are to believe
in God at all, there is no room for a defeated God. Therefore, either God
really wills to save all men, and if so, He will assuredly accomplish this, or
He does not so will. The first proposition involves the larger hope -- the
second is mere Calvinism. I can see no rational alternative.
Such is a brief outline of the teaching of the New Testament, for I have not
quoted all its promises of universal salvation. It is no case of building upon
Eastern metaphors, of dogma resting upon mistranslations or misconceptions of
the original, as in the case of the traditional creed. It is evidence, clear
and unambiguous, and repeated. We have without doubt line upon line, promise
upon promise, assertions reiterated, accumulated, yet amid all their variety,
closely linked and pointing to one central thought. This thought is none less
than the completeness of the triumph of Jesus Christ!! It includes the
boundless nature of His saving empire over all, to the assurance of a victory
won by His Incarnation, His death, and His Resurrection over all the powers of
evil. "The Father willed through Christ to reconcile the universe once more
unto Himself, and so to restore all things whatsoever and wheresoever they be."
-- LIGHTFOOT on Col. 1:19,20.
"If but one soul were to remain in the
power of the devil, death, or hell, to all endless eternity, then the devil,
death, and hell would have something to boast of against God. Thus death would
not be entirely swallowed up in victory, but always keep something of his
sting, and hell would ever more be able to make a scorn of those who would say,
'O hell, where is, your victory?'"- The Everlasting Gospel -- Paul Seigvolck,
1753.
This being so, let me next ask, have you, who maintain the traditional
creed, ever quietly thought over the terrible slight you unconsciously offer to
the whole work of Christ, to His Incarnation and His Passion, by asserting the
final loss of countless myriads of our race, or even of any soul for whom He
died? He has come, we know, to save the world, He, very God of very God, but
you proclaim in all your writings, in all your pulpits, that which is, in fact,
His defeat. His Apostles announce, in language strong and clear, in words that
still throb with life, His victory over death. You announce death's victory
over Him, for hell filled to all eternity with its wailing millions is His
defeat, nay, His utter defeat. Could you more effectually make light of His
Atonement? I read in the Bible that in His death all (actually) died (so vital
is the union between Him and all the race of man). Are they, then, to go down
to endless evil and woe, those lost ones, who died with Jesus - (2 Cor. v. 14,
Rev. Ver.) - these souls of His creating, still wet, so to speak, with His most
precious blood, still pursued by His love (for love is unfailing); are these
souls to spend an eternity in sin and pain? Is our Lord's Passion to be for
these, endless, fruitless, hopeless? Am I to proclaim this as the victory of
Jesus Christ, this as the glad tidings of great joy? I do not impugn, I fully
recognize, the honesty of my opponents; but it is something more than strange
to see thoughtful men teaching that Christ "sees of the travail of His soul and
is SATISFIED," while He surveys to all eternity even one immortal spirit for
whom He died - one child of His Love in the grip of endless evil, or
annihilated.
Permit me further - for I want again to protest against the dishonor done to
Scripture by the popular creed - permit me to ask what the meaning is, on the
popular view, of the oft-repeated promises of the New Testament assigning to
Christ an universal .empire? Is IT TRUE, that it is the Father's pleasure that
in Christ all things, Eph. i. 10 - the original words are the widest possible -
are to be summed up? Is it true that Christ has actually abolished death; nay,
that He has been manifested for this very end, that He might destroy all the
works of the devil? Or is it a mere dream of the Evangelist, when He tells us
that God has given to Him all things, and that all things that the Father has
given to Him shall come to Him? But if all this is actually written in
Scripture, how can it be truly taught that sin and hell are endless ? Can sin
be everlasting, and yet the sin of the world be truly taken away by the Lamb of
God? Can hell for ever prey on the lost and yet the whole creation be delivered
into the glorious liberty of the children of God? Once again, let me say, that
a fair answer is due to these questions, and not an answer which is, however
honestly meant, in fact an evasion.
Reflect what it is the popular creed is, in fact, teaching - see its
inconsistencies - the contradictions of Scripture, to which long usage has
deadened its supporters. Christ "holding the keys of hell" and never opening;
Christ "making all things new," and yet things and persons innumerable not
renewed; the Good Shepherd "seeking till He finds," and yet never finding those
precisely who need Him most; "no more pain," and yet pain for evermore; "no
more curse," and yet hell echoing for ever with the curses of the lost; "tears
wiped from every eye," and yet the lost for ever weeping; every creature which
is in "heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are on the
sea, and all that are in them, saying, 'Blessing and glory and honor to God,"'
and yet a number of creatures shut up for ever and ever in misery; "all made
alive in Christ," and yet many sunk in hopeless, endless death.
I plead for the acceptance of the larger hope, as taught by so many in
primitive days (a fact fully proved); a hope, that it has ever been the purpose
of "Our Father" to save all His human children. To believe or to hope for less
than this would be, not alone to contradict Scripture, as I have tried to show,
but to mistake its whole scope and purpose. For the Bible is the story of a
Restoration, wide; deep; mightier than the Fall, and therefore bringing to
every child of ADAM salvation. It is not, as the popular creed teaches, the
self-contradictory story of One Almighty to save, and yet not, in fact, saving
those for whom He died. It is the story of infinite Love seeking "till it find
;" a Love that never fails, never, though heaven and earth pass away: a Love
that is, from its very nature, INEXTINGUISHABLE - being the Love of a divine
Father. It is the story of the unchanging purpose of the unchanging Lord God
Omnipotent.
Further, by this larger hope, and by it alone, can we
accept and harmonize every line and letter of Holy Scripture, its solemn
threatenings to the sinner, no less than its repeated promises of life to all.
These threatenings I accept implicitly. They are, as we have seen, fully
reconciled with the promises of universal salvation the moment we have learned
to realize the true meaning of God's judgments and penalties, and have been led
by His word to see in "the ages" yet to come His purposes being steadily worked
out. Yes, I believe, because the New Testament so teaches, and all reason
confirms it, that to this brief life there succeed many ages, and that "through
these ages an increasing purpose runs." In these "ages" and during their
progress it is that God's threatenings find their complete fulfillment for the
ungodly; and the many successive scenes of the drama of Redemption are slowly
unfolded, and carried to completion. For God's purpose to save all men once
declared must stand firm for ever from His very nature; and to this end it is
that His very penalties are inflicted, that in Jesus Christ, one day, all
created things may be summed up. And this being so, we who hold the larger hope
are prepared fully to believe that there await the sinner in "the ages "yet to
come, God's fiery judgments; that aeonian discipline protracted till the will of
man yield to the will of "our Father," and till, as in the silent prophecy of
the familiar words, "that will be done on earth as it is in heaven."
For this I plead, for a HOPE, wide as that which swelled the Savior's heart,
when looking steadily at the Cross He said, "I, if I be lifted up, will draw
all men unto Me." I plead for the simple truthfulness of the explicit promise
made by all God's holy prophets, "that there shall be a restitution of all
things." - Acts iii. 21. The issue may be simply stated, is this promise true
in its fair and natural meaning, or is it untrue ?? The dilemma cannot be
avoided -yes or no?
For my part, in this promise I believe - in the sole true catholicity of
the Church of Christ, as destined to embrace all mankind - in the power of His
Redemption, as something which no will can resist, to which all things must
yield one day in perfect submission, love and harmony. I plead for the
acceptance of this central truth as the great Hope of the Gospel, that the
victory of Jesus Christ must be final and complete, i.e., that nothing can
impair the power of His Cross and Passion to save the entire human race. I
believe that He shall see of the travail of His soul, and be satisfied. And I
feel assured that less than a world saved, an universe restored, could not
satisfy the heart of Jesus Christ, or the love of our Father. I ask all fair
and reasonable minds to reject as immoral, and incredible, the picture of a
heavenly Parent, Who, being absolutely free and absolute in power and goodness,
creates any children of His own, whom He knows to be, in fact, certain to go to
endless sin and ruin. Therefore in these pages I have pleaded for the larger
hope. Therefore I believe in the vision, glorious, beyond all power of human
thought fully to realize, of a "Paradise regained," of an universe from which
every stain of sin shall have been swept away, in which every heart shall be
full of blessedness in which "God shall be All and in All." - Amen.
THE END.
|