« AnteriorContinuar »
have dreamed or wished them, nor merely because men thought them out. They are the product of thought applied; and applied with many zealous passions of the human soul, and with much labor of brain and muscle, with sweat and toil. At every inch of surface the spiritual force has touched and shaped the material effect.
And has the spiritual force itself been unaffected, unchanged? Many a human body has been killed by a blow of joy or grief struck through the human soul. The pang was first felt within. The outward death came of the inward
are, indeed, trials by which," though the outward man perish, yet the inner man is renewed day by day.” But this is because the soul is wrought into harmony with a higher nature, or is made more completely a “partaker of the divine nature;”—is regenerated of an “incorruptible seed, which liveth and abideth for ever.” And by the same reason, if worse and baser passions sway the soul, they may bring it down toward a real death. The decay of the faculties by vicious habits of thoughts — the deterioration and mental and moral disease so often observed who shall say, in the assumption of an unrevealed immortal nature, that these are not incipient stages of dissolution, in which, unarrested, the soul itself may become extinct ?
The argument may be more plainly stated in its stronger form. The material produce of mind is the effect of an unlike
This is the marvel and the inscrutable mystery. But mind is like itself; and though the soul's substance is not itself thought, feeling, and purpose, yet it is far more like them than matter is. The soul's substance is the physical medium, as it were, by which thought, feeling, and purpose, have reached the outer world.
The material produce is both unlike, and at second hand. So much the more may these spiritual agencies work changes in the being of spirit, as kindred substance, close at hand as substance to its attribute.
Another form of the metaphysical or psychological argument should be glanced at. I often hear persons say that they are conscious of immortality. Well, they have a higher power of consciousness than I have; yet I will confess no inferiority to
them. To be conscious of immortality is to be conscious of being alive to-morrow, and a billion years hence, and every moment between. My friends do not mean that. They simply mean that they are conscious of a longing and aspiration after immortality ; and so am I. And this proves — indirectly, as we presume that God is too good to tantalize and trifle with
that we were made for immortality. But then the argument comes to the same footing with other longings and aspirations, which are valid according as they are noble and good. It is strictly a moral argument; and its value is settled, I believe, by St. Paul, thus : “ To those who by patient continuance in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life.”
§ 2. The Theology of Salvation. In treating the question of universal salvation, we should inquire how the term salvation is used and applied in the Scriptures, and also what it implies. For
For it is an essential part of the doctrine of forgiveness, involving the question whether we are saved by justice or by grace.
The Greek word for salvation (sõtēria, sõtērion) and the corresponding verb (sõzā) are used in the New Testament, with apparent reference to a final destiny, one hundred times. I may overcount a little; but I may safely say that if the word does not refer to man's final destiny in most of these instances, it does in none of them, and it assures the eternal life of no man. It is also worthy of remark that in the Syriac version it is rendered life, and the giving of life.
And of the hundred instances all except twelve apply the salvation to a class of men. Some of them do so very strongly. Thus Luke xiii. 23, 24: “Are there few that be saved ? . Strive to enter in at the straight gate; for many,
I you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.” Phil. i. 28 : “An evidence to them of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that of God.” 2 Tim. ii. 10: “I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”
Some of the instances not obviously partitive will be claimed by my opponent as implying a general salvation. Thus John iii. 17 : “ God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved.” (Comp. ch. xiii. 47.) But here the previous verses make faith the condition of salvation, even while they commend the divine love: “God so loved the world, that whosoever believeth,” etc. And the world” may easily signify all nations as compared with the Jews, who were claiming a monopoly of salvation. Thus, in another of the passages my opponent may claim, Acts xiii. 46, 47 : “ Seeing ye . . . judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee, to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation to the ends of the earth.” The passage in John iii. 17, seems to me no more to prove the salvation of every human individual than the expression in ver. 26, “ all come to him,” shows that every Jew was baptized of John. When the Pharisees said of Christ, “ If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him” (ch. xi. 48), and again, “Behold, the world is gone after him ” (ch. xii. 19), we do not suppose they meant every individual human being; yet in the last expression they use the same word which Christ used (kosmos, the world). Christ's promise might be as large, even larger than the Pharisees' complaint, and yet there be many unbelieving, and unsaved.
And when Christ says “the Son of man is come to save that which was lost” (Matt. xviii. 11; Luke xix. 10), the context will show a comparison made between the self-righteous Jews and those whom they hated and despised as having no inheritance with Abraham. Christ came to call not the righteous, or self-righteous, but sinners, to repentance. The poor in sp.rit, and the meek and lowly, were the true Israel. The passage indicates the non-salvation of those who rested securely and proudly in carnal hopes, i.e., in their Jewish blood, as much as it indicates any thing.
So much for the extent of salvation as revealed in the Scriptures. And now for the nature of it. Universalists have well and truly insisted that Christ came “to save his people from their sins ;” that salvation from sinfulness is more important than salvation from punishment — for sin is worse than pain; and that the doctrine of salvation from punishment, aside from the other salvation, is very pernicious, though there is too much of it in the world.
Here I may suggest to my orthodox friends that the doctrine of endless and infinite pain as the result of sin naturally tends to the evil just named. The self-love of man is in advance of the moral sense. And when he is told that he is in danger of undying agony, we may say what we will about his deserving it, still he will care more for the danger than for the guilt. The “great salvation” he will think of as the deliverance from the infinite peril; the deliverance from sinful bondage will be comparatively a slight thing. And this will explain the crouching and cringing attitude of some professedly christian minds before God, and the professed feeling of some we trust unreal — that if annihilation were the end of sin, they would no longer fear God or serve him.
Here I also recognize the Universalist opinion of salvation from this and that sinful habit as a real doctrine of salvation, though not the whole doctrine nor the true doctrine. It seems to me a subordinate sense of the term ; though I am very glad if any hate sin enough to prize such a salvation very highly, and I am sorry if any can not get any sense or meaning from the idea.
Yet a great question remains respecting the doctrine of salvation. Are we saved by grace, or by justice ? Is there strictly any remission of the penalty of sin, or is there none ?
I know that the doctrine of remitted penalty is liable to ahuse; that corrupt human nature is willing enough to sin and then try to get rid of punishment — and that does not speak well or honorably for human nature. And I thank Universalists and Unitarians for insisting, very correctly, that certain bad consequences of sin are always inevitable; that it brings a bad and unhealthy condition of the soul, which no forgiveness or act of pardon can remedy at once ; that the laws of our
moral constitution, like all the laws of nature, are so wisely appointed that even Sovereign grace still respects them; and so when we sin we must suffer.
But here we come at the gist of our question : If a bad condition of the soul, that is, sickness and disease, be the punishment of sin, how long must it last? what is its natural termination ? and may recovery be retarded by unforgiveness, or hastened and even secured by a work of pardon ?
And here I think I find the common objection to Universalism well founded; viz., that in respect to penalty it has no doctrine of salvation. One can not be saved from what he was never exposed to ; nor can one be saved from what he actually suffers. The Universalist, denying both the orthodox and the destructionist view of penalty, finds no salvation in that direction. And the only penalty in which he does believe is always suffered in full tale. Thus, between what is unjust and what is inevitable, there is no salvation.
This result is expressly admitted by Dr. T. S. Smith, in his “ Illustrations of the Divine Government." advocates for the corrective nature of punishment do not believe that all men will be saved, but that, sinners having been reclaimed by the discipline through which they will be made to pass, all men will ultimately be rendered pure and happy." Again: “It is true, that all who suffer future punishment endure the penalty of the law, and therefore, in a popular sense, can not be said to be forgiven.” (Part II. c. 3.)
The obvious conclusion is that we are saved not by grace, but by justice, if we are saved at all. Dr. S. endeavors to turn the edge of this objection by saying that penalty itself is merciful and gracious, of which hereafter. But regarding penalty in the light of justice, which Dr. S. himself must in some sense allow, I can offer no better comment than in the words of Dr. Bushnell:
“ In the school of modern Unitarianism, it is held that God can not deliver us of the just penalty of our sins at all; that we must bear it in the full and exact measure of justice, and that our only hope is to wear a passage through and get our