Facts and
Theories as to a Future State
APPENDIX SEVEN
THE
ANDOVER THEOLOGY
THE Andover theology claims as its character to be
"Progressive Orthodoxy,"* and as compared with most of the systems we have been
reviewing, it may justify the claim. It is not annihilationism, neither is it
restorationism, although it would not be inconsistent with a modified form of
Mr. Dunns views. So far as it may concern us here, it is simply a
speculation or belief, which does not attempt to ground itself upon precise
passages of Scripture, but only upon general principles and the ethics of the
case, that those who have not in this life had the gospel-offer made to them
must yet receive it, - how, is not defined. And this view we might simply
decline to entertain as founded upon inference merely, always uncertain where
so many questions have to be considered as are involved in the present.
*"Progressive Orthodoxy: a contribution to the Christian interpretation of
Christian doctrine." By the editors of the Andover Review.
But we do
not propose either to decline the inquiry or to limit it to the eschatological
question which it is easy to see is connected with the theology as a whole, and
with nearly every thing in it. This is not, nor intended to be taken as any,
discredit to it. It is the contrary. All truth is thus connected necessarily,
although we may not always be able to trace the connection. Thus to affirm the
unity of the "New Theology" is to give it commendation, and to ascribe to it at
least one of the characteristics of truth.
But on this account we
shall, if briefly, yet as we hope sufficiently, examine the main positions of
the volume in which the editors of the Andover Review have embodied their
thoughts; and we trust to do so with candour. In the governmental ways of God,
with which we have in this matter largely to do, we have enough in the
Scripture-assertion, fully borne out by the histories both of the world and of
the Church, that "clouds and darkness are round about Him," to check the spirit
of pride and dogmatism, and make us go no further than as the Word of God
"leads us by the hand."
The first portion of the book (after the
introduction) takes up the subject of -
THE INCARNATION
And here
the significance of what is said seems to be mainly this, that Christs
humanity was not assumed simply for the purpose of accomplishing atonement, but
that (with the atonement itself) it is the revelation of God to His creatures,
the abiding link between Him and them. Thus Jesus is not only the Head of the
Church, or the Head of man, but of all created beings also. And this is surely
true.
The writer points out that "the uniqueness of Jesus
humanity appears in its universality." Men differ by their respective
limitations and preponderances, -
"The uniqueness of Christs
humanity appears in this, that it was not thus circumscribed. He was an
individual man, but His individuality is His universality. He was the Son
of Man. That which distinguished Him from all other men is that He
represents them all. His separation from any one of us is that which brings Him
near to every one of us. His peculiarity is that no mans nature is so
peculiar that He cannot comprehend it. He has kinship with us all by being our
common Head."
This is very true and very blessed. In his thoughts on
the "unity of Christs person" the writer, on the other hand, fails
grievously and loses himself. He speaks plainly of the Word as the "second
Person of the Trinity," and yet afterward as "a particular mode of the divine
being, not itself a person, but the bearer of a personal principle, and capable
of self-realization in a human life." Similarly, "the human [nature] is only
potentially personal." "The act of incarnation is the union of these two." But
is this as he represents it? The very word "incarnation" shows how opposite is
the real thought, which Scripture expresses in "The Word was made flesh." Could
you say equally "flesh was made the Word"? Two natures equally only
"potentially personal," as he represents it, unite to form the One Person -
Christ. On the contrary, it is, according to Scripture, the Person of the Son
of God that assumes humanity.
Were it as he says, what he seeks escape
from would be realized exactly: "a Person would be the object of supreme
worship exterior and additional to the one only God." Or does he really not
worship Christ? We may be sure he does; we may not doubt it. But the
inconsistency upon this ground remains.
What is the seat of personality
in man? Is not the body part of the human person? But changing as it is said to
do every seven years, does the person change? No; it is the spirit which endues
the body with personality; and if body and spirit alike form part of the living
person, yet these are not co-equal in it but communicator and recipient. This
may illustrate at least, if not actually typify, the way in which the divine
and human are united in the one person of our Lord.
Upon what follows
in the book before us, on the "self-consciousness" of the Lord, we do not
propose to enter. It is well to remember that "no one knoweth the Son but the
Father." If we ourselves are riddles to ourselves, how much more must a subject
like this be a mystery before which we need to worship rather than to
speculate.
But with the last section on the "significance of
Christs person," we are again, as intimated at first, in very hearty
agreement. We believe truly that "a theology which is not Christocentric is
like a Ptolemaic astronomy, - it is out of true relation to the earth and the
heavens, to God and His universe." And we believe that Christianity is the
religion of the cross and of redemption; and it is more: it is the religion of
nature and reason as well."
We pass on to consider with the Andover
theologians the doctrine of -
ATONEMENT
The writer objects to
the starting-point of the doctrine being found in the sin of man. But surely
atonement could have no meaning apart from sin. Nor need the insignificance of
the earth trouble us, or even the graver consideration that sin is thus made an
absolute necessity in order to the revelation of God in Christ. Why should it
be a difficulty that the wisdom of God should use the sin of man to bring out
by it His holiness and His grace? Does this really make grace debtor to the
evil which called it forth?
It is asserted that "the correct and
scriptural starting-point is the mediation of Christ in its universal
character." But this mediation could not take the form of atonement apart from
sin. We may reason, if we will, that the incarnation might have been without
this, and even "that the human race would have come earlier into the knowledge
of God through Christ if there had been no sin." But there is no firm ground
for argument in suppositions of this kind. Redemption implies unquestionably
sin as prior and necessary to it; and while it is true that "the work of Christ
has no meaning apart from His person," it seems unnecessary, to say the least,
to remind us "that His work is not something set off by itself on which we can
depend, as if the atonement were a thing, a quantity of suffering endured, an
impersonal result." Who is there who would teach as saving a faith which rested
in the work done without regard to the Person who did the work? But yet there
is a work done upon which we can and must depend in its own place. If "His own
self bare our sins in His own body on the tree," then we can rest in the
consciousness that (as believing in Him) our sins are removed, and forever.
As we go on with the writer, the meaning of this becomes clearer. His
idea of substitution is given in this way: -
"The substitution is not of
Christ standing on this side for the race standing on that side, but the race
with Christ in it is substituted for the race without Christ in it. This Christ
in with the race is regarded by God as one who has those powers of instruction,
sympathy, purity, which can be imparted to His brethren. Likewise the
individual in Christ takes the place of the individual without Christ, is
looked on as one whom Christ can bring to repentance and obedience, and so is
justified even before faith develops into character."
This seems to me
the central statement of the whole paper; but we may supplement it by another
found a few pages further on: -
"The sin of man prevents Gods love
from flowing forth, so that the God of love is in reality hostile to man. In
Christ, God can come to man in another relation, because Christ is a new divine
power in the race to turn it away from sin unto God. God does not become
propitious because man repents and amends, for that is beyond mans power.
He becomes propitious because Christ, laying down His life, makes the race, to
its worst individual, capable of repenting, obeying, trusting; and He does this
in such a way that Gods abhorrence to sin is realized, the majesty of law
honored, the sinner and the universe convinced of the righteousness of the
divine judgment."
This is certainly a new language, and it will be hard
to show that it is that of Scripture. Indeed, it is not, perhaps, presented as
its statement, but as an underlying philosophy of atonement rather, by which
its statement is to be explained and commended to reason. We must remember also
that what is dressed in an unscriptural garb may be in itself not so
unscriptural as at first sight we might naturally believe it. We have therefore
to walk warily here, and look closely, seeking first of all to get hold of what
is meant, and then to see if it is rightly presented.
Now the way which
God has actually chosen to bring back man to Himself must of course be divinely
suitable for its purpose, and chosen, we may say, for its suitability. And
Christ is this way of God, in which we must not exclude His incarnation and
personal preciousness any more than His sacrificial work. Nay, we must not
exclude, either, the work of the Spirit of God upon man, by which alone all
this is made effectual for his salvation. Yet no one would speak of all this as
atonement; not even the theologians of Andover. Nor could we say that God was
reconciled to man or man to God by virtue of the real suitability or potency of
all this.
There is no such thought in Scripture as that of reconciling
God: it is always, reconciliation to God of which it speaks. Nor is it ever
said that the world is reconciled, but "you believers - "hath He reconciled"
(Col. i. 21). "God was," indeed, "in Christ, reconciling the world unto
Himself" (2 Cor. v. 19), but that was in His ministry down here, and for the
present, says the apostle, He "hath committed unto us the word of
reconciliation." What is the consequence? "Now, then, we are ambassadors for
Christ, as though God did beseech by us, we pray in Christs stead, be ye
reconciled to God." Thus the reconciling of the world still goes on, Christ
absent, and others acting in His stead; but it is not atonement, clearly: and
just because the reconciliation is going on, it is not accomplished.
As
for God, He is never said to be reconciled; nor can He need it. Nor is
propitiation, though for the world (1 Jno. ii. 2), available except "through
faith" (Rom. iii. 25).
And when it is said that the "race with Christ in it
is substituted for the race without Christ in it," the juggle of words has
surely deceived the writer. It is not sacrificial substitution that he means at
all: the "race with Christ in it" does not lay down its life for the race
without Christ! The real substitution in sacrifice could only be of Christ
Himself for others.
But was substitution for the "race"? Actually it
was for believers: "He taketh not hold of angels, but of the seed of Abraham He
taketh hold" (Heb. ii. i6). All men being invited to faith, it is in this sense
for the world, but only in this sense. And thus it is that when a man believes,
he comes under the value of the sacrifice, and is "justified" at once "by
blood" and "by faith," and we see, too, in how different ways. Not latent
capacities justify him, but the work of Christ; and not as one of a race with
Christ in it, but as one of the "seed of Abraham."
Nor is Christ the
"last Adam" of the old creation, but of a new "If any man be in Christ, [it is]
new creation" (2 Cor. v. 17, marg. R. V.) so much so, that "from henceforth
know we no man after the flesh; yea, though we have known Christ after the
flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more" (v. 16). As long as He was in
the world, though incarnate, He abode alone, as the corn of wheat to which He
compares Himself "Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it
abideth alone, but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit" (Jno. xii. 24)
There was no "race with Christ in it" then. And having gone out of the world,
He is not head of it, but of a new race, crucified with Christ to the world
(Gal. vi. 14), - no more of it than He is of it (Jno. xvii. 14, 16). "Both He
that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one, for which cause He
is not ashamed to call them brethren" (Heb. ii. 11).
"Progressive
Orthodoxy" is clearly wrong, then. It is not a question of words or modes of
expression merely, but of things. Christs relation to the race is not
what is claimed, nor therefore is atonement what it is made to be. The writer
Says, -
"It must be confessed, however, that it is not clear how the
sufferings and death of Christ can be substituted for the punishment of sin;
how, because Christ made vivid the wickedness of sin and the righteousness of
God, man was therefore any the less exposed to the consequences of sin."
It is simple enough, however, surely, that the penalty of sin being
borne, and the holiness and righteousness of God being maintained, He can
righteously justify the sinner who turns to Him, while Christ, having given
Himself for such, righteousness requires it: "He is faithful and just to
forgive us our sins" (1 Jno. i. 9).
We may leave, then, the question of
atonement here, the last pages of the article we have been reviewing falling
really to be discussed under the next head of -
ESCHATOLOGY
And
here there is no need for taking up the whole discussion. The point contended
for, that in some way or other prior to the day of judgment all men of all
generations will have heard the gospel of Christ, and will be judged according
to the attitude taken with regard to it, is argued -
1. From the
relationship of Christ as Son of Man to all men.
2. From the universality
of the atonement.
3. From the announcement that the gospel must first be
preached to all nations.
4. From judgment being in the hands of the Son of
Man.
5. From the hopelessness of mans condition without the gospel,
in view of the righteousness and love of God.
This, I believe, covers
all the ground, and we shall not omit any point within this range of argument.
The first argument, however, is by the writer distributed under the second and
fourth heads, so that we may begin at once with the second - the universality
of the atonement. He says, -
"It may be thought that the battle was long
ago decided concerning the extent of atonement, that the atonement is generally
believed to be universal in extent, not for the elect alone, but for the whole
world, and that no one questions it (?!) But all that is involved in its
universality has not been accepted. Can it be considered universal if a large
portion of the race know nothing of the historical Christ and the redemption
that is in Him? The extent of atonement resides not so much, it is to be
considered, in the thing done, in the ample provision made, but rather in the
personality of Christ. He is the universal Person, as we said at the outset.
His religion, therefore, is the universal, absolute religion. There is no
salvation in any other. He alone is able to bring God and man together. This
would seem to lead us to the conclusion that the final word concerning destiny
is not pronounced for any man till he knows Jesus Christ and Him crucified."
Here, as I have said, the argument from the person of Christ is
identified with that from the extent of the atonement, the person of Christ
being looked at in fact as part of the atonement, as already we have seen. This
is not scriptural, for every where in Scripture atonement is by blood. The
types kept this constantly before the Jewish people (Lev. xvii. 11). In the New
Testament we read, "a propitiation, through faith, by His blood." (Rom. iii.
25, - R. V.) The universality of the atonement, as Scripture teaches it,
consists in this, that there is in it a real and available sufficiency for
every one that trusts in it. It is for all, upon condition of faith. Apart from
faith, it saves none.
But this is plainly a condition for those to whom
the condition would apply. Plainly, it would not exclude infants or idiots, nor
therefore (so far as this goes) the unevangelized heathen. It is the condition
announced to those who hear the gospel.
But if it be so, this speaks
differently from what we might anticipate. If "a propitiation, through faith,
for the whole world," be the terms to be announced to those to whom we carry
the gospel, then we have really no warrant to apply the universality of the
atonement itself more widely than to those to whom the gospel comes. And may we
not in so doing be intruding on what belongs to God alone? The apostle thus
calls the truth that Christ "gave Himself a ransom for all, the testimony for
its own times; unto which," says he, "I am ordained a preacher and an apostle,
a teacher of the Gentiles" (1 Tim. ii. 6, 7). If, then, this be the "testimony
for its own times," does this give us liberty to apply it to all times? Is it
not one other instance of the way in which Scripture refuses to answer
questions which are not practical ones for us, but must be left with Him who is
perfect in knowledge as in holiness and love?
"Lord, are there few
that be saved?" was an inquiry very like the present one. And how does the Lord
answer it? Strive," He says, "to enter in at the strait gate."
The
argument from the person of Christ does not carry us further. "He is the
universal Person, as we said at the outset." Be it so what then? "His religion,
therefore, is the universal, absolute religion." There is nothing else, surely,
for us now; and in it are found in full development all the germs of truth that
ever were. But does not the person of Christ belong to the full development, if
it be meant by this, as I suppose, that the power of what He personally is must
be an instrumentality in the conversion of every saved soul?
Christ is
the full-orbed perfection of all beauty; and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ
defines what is conversion for us now. There is no power such as He for the
conversion of souls, and all that God has ever used in this was, I believe,
some radiance of His glory, if obscure. But there are rays before the dawn; and
it cannot be meant that souls were not converted before Christ came! And yet
this seems to be the argument in what follows: "There is no salvation in any
other. He alone is able to bring God and man together. This would seem to lead
us to the conclusion that the final word concerning destiny is not pronounced
for any man till he knows Jesus Christ and Him crucified."
This
principle would carry us very far indeed. We should have to say that all that
ever lived before Christianity had their destiny undecided. And those even who
have lived since Christ, but when the glory of His face was obscured, as it has
been, and His gospel buried under the rubbish of revived ceremonialism - these
too, it would seem, must be waiting for the final word. How many even in
Protestantism? Before or since the gospel, probation (as people speak) must
have been more a failure than it is easy to believe; and the apostles
words, "Now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation" (2 Cor.
vi. 2) must apply to a comparatively few only. Just how far it applies in fact,
who can tell, when such men as Sir Moses Montefiore (Pr. Or. p. 131), living in
the midst of the full light of Christianity are supposed to be exempted from
its application on the ground of "invincible ignorance"? If the power of
education, race-prejudices, and similar influences could excuse one with
exceptional opportunities for knowing the truth, for how many of the hearers of
the apostle Paul could they be pleaded with equal truth?
No, we must in
this case accept the fact that while "he that believeth on the Son hath
everlasting life" may be true still, yet it is not true, or does not apply to
the present time, that "he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but
the wrath of God abideth on him" (Jno. iii. 36); it is not true that "if ye
believe not that I am He, ye shall die in your sins" (Jno. viii. 24); or
rather, shall we say, that dying in ones sins has no such evil in it as
the words seem to convey? Although, indeed, when He said, "ye shall die in your
sins," He added, as if it were the consequence, "whither I go ye cannot come"
(v. 2 t).
But let us go on now with the writer: -
"The view has
been taken that justice condemns the sinner to death before or until atonement
is made, and that Christ rescues the sinner from his just doom."
How
could atonement by blood be otherwise true? If death were not the due apart
from atonement, why need death be taken? And does it not say that "as many as
are of the works of the law are under the curse"? and that because "it is
written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are
written in the book of the law to do them " (Gal. iii. 10)? Is the law
harsh and arbitrary in saying this? And is it the misfortune of the one thus
cursed, that he is under it? And did Christ accept an over-harsh sentence when
He "redeemed us from the curse of the law being made a curse for us"? (v. 13.)
"It has been said, therefore, that God must be just and may be
merciful, as if the exercise of mercy were not necessary to God in the sense in
which justice is necessary. But we must now conclude that justice does not
pronounce its final word till God has revealed Himself in all His intended
manifestations of righteousness and love. Justice is concerned that every
attribute of God should be displayed; is as jealous for the rights of love as
for those of holiness. If it is Gods very nature to love, - if it is a
desire of His to save men from sin, justice sees to it that love is not
deprived of its rights, and is not hindered in any of its impulses. We may go
so far as to say that it would not be just for God to condemn men hopelessly
when they have not known Him as He really is - when they have not known Him in
Jesus Christ."
This involves fully the thought that none before Christ
came could possibly perish in their sins, and none since where the knowledge of
Christ was defective or corrupted. "Moses and the prophets" were not enough,
and the rich mans condition in hades is impossible, and inconceivable.
"The Holy Scriptures," which Timothy had known from his childhood, and which,
of course, were Old-Testament scriptures, were not "able to make wise unto
salvation" except only where there was a receptivity not by any means always to
be found. And when God asks, in Isaiah, as to His people, "what could have been
done more to My vineyard that I have not done to it?" The Andover theology,
with its developed ethics and new light on such questions, can answer this!
Would it not be well to be more cautious, possibly more humble, in
these reasonings, and to accept the probability that here there may be more
data needed than we are in possession of for so positive and sweeping a
conclusion? The equalizing of Gods dealings with men is just one of those
things in which it is positively asserted that "clouds and darkness are round
about Him" May He not ask of those who undertake to do this for Him, "Who hath
required this at your hands?"
But there is more than this to be
considered. For after all, while it is by His Word that God works our
salvation, are men in fact born again of their own will ever? or can any
concentration of light upon the eyeballs of the dead bring them to life? Not
so; if at least we are still to have faith in Scripture. Men must be born
again; and that "not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of
man, but of God" (Jno. 1. 13).
Why, then, plead for the concentration
of light upon all alike? Why insist that even love must do this? Why not rather
that that quickening of divine power needed by any for new birth should be put
forth on all? Granted that men are responsible to receive the Word of God, -
grant (as to the lost) that all that the most decided Arminianism could assert
of them is true; yet if their refusal of grace were certain, who could demand
as mercy to them that it should be offered? God asks of His vineyard, "What
more could I do than I have done?" Yet He had not given them this full gospel
which the new theology requires to be given to all. Can they assure us that
there would have been more hope of success, so that the divine love itself
could speak of it as "doing more"?
But Calvinism is not the theology of
Andover, and this is Calvinism! No; it is not even that. Take away, if you
will, all thought of absolute decrees; only leave man his free will to reject,
and God His foreknowledge of that rejection, we may still argue as we have. If
man has no free will or God no foreknowledge, then indeed the argument (and all
argument) is absolutely hopeless.
We find now another: -
"And it
is evidently the intent of God that all men should know Him through Christ. The
judgment does not come till the gospel has been preached to all nations. The
gospel is preached to a nation, not when within geographical boundaries it has
been proclaimed at scattered points, but only when in reality all individuals
of all the nations have known it."
This is quite a new interpretation.
Is it correct? If it had been meant to say "preached to all individuals," why
say "nations"? Would it be just the same to say "all persons" and to say "all
classes" ? I cannot but think not.
But allow that all persons in the
nations are to hear the gospel, would any one not prepossessed by a theory
suppose that one could not preach to a whole nation without its involving the
resurrection of all their dead?
But let us look at the Scripture-usage.
The passage referred to is, I suppose, Matt. xxiv. 14: "And this gospel of
the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness to all nations;
and then shall the end come." Turn back then to the ninth verse: "And ye shall
be hated of all nations for My names sake:" does this mean, "hated by all
persons of all nations" absolutely?
Again, in Rom. xvi. 26, the apostle
speaks of the mystery which "now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the
prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to
all nations for the obedience of faith." Are we to believe, then, that every
individual of all the nations had had it manifested to him, and even all the
generations of the dead?
It is quite useless, I think, to argue this
point further. Not the words, but the ethics of the case, have convinced our
author of what is in this text.
Let us go on to consider with him now
"the principle of judgment."
"The Son of Man is to be Judge of the world.
. . . Now this means more than that, in addition to ills offices of Redeemer
and Master, Christ is also appointed Judge. It means that all men are to be
judged under the gospel - to be judged by their relation to Christ. . . . They
are not to be judged under the light of reason and conscience alone, but under
the light of the gospel of Christ."
The only scripture here appealed to
is that "the Father hath committed all judgment unto the Son; . . . and hath
given Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man" (Jno. v.
22, 27). Nothing is said, however, here about the "principle of judgment." That
He who is Himself Man should be the Judge of men commends itself to us as every
way suitable. That they will all be judged by their relation to Him in the
gospel is not said, and we must be careful about saying it. We are told by the
Lord Himself that "he that knew not [his Masters will], and did commit
things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes" (Luke xii. 48).
This does not indeed absolutely say "knew not his Master;" nor should we expect
that Scripture, reserved as it always is, in dealing with questions that are
not practical ones for those addressed by the Word, should deal at large with
these.
But there is a passage which would seem to decide this matter.
It is the apostles statement of the guilt and condemnation of the
Gentiles which occupies the first half of the second chapter of the epistle to
the Romans. It is thus referred to in the paper before us: -
"The only
other passage which is claimed as explicit and decisive is in the second
chapter of Romans, where Paul says that as many as have sinned without law
shall also perish without law. But even this statement, direct as it seems, is
found in the midst of a discussion the aim of which is to show that all men
have absolute need of the gospel; that for Gentile and Jew alike there is no
hope apart from the gospel; that all men, by reason of their sins, are shut up
to the gospel; that the nations left to themselves would perish; having not the
law, they would perish notwithstanding, as the Jews having the law would perish
notwithstanding. The apostle was describing the actual present condition of the
Gentiles amid Jews, to show that there is universal need of the gospel. And at
the end of the same sentence he affirms that all men at last are to be judged
according to my gospel by Jesus Christ. "
The argument is
apparently that "as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without
law, and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law" does not
refer to what actually will be, but only to what would be if the gospel did not
intervene. The actual judgment is according to the gospel, - that is, by the
reception or rejection of it. Who can believe this? The apostles words
are, "For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law, and
as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law . . . in the day
when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my
gospel." I have merely omitted the verses which are confessedly parenthetic,
and brought the two parts of the interrupted sentence together. So connected it
is impossible to read it as anything but positive assurance of what will
be.
This is a day of judgment for men of which the gospel assures us.
In that day, those that have sinned without law shall perish without, they that
have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law. To add any thing to so plain
a tale would be but to obscure it. It is as plain as can be.
It is true
that this does not settle that every heathen perishes, any more than it does
that every one under the law does, though judgment by the law would be
necessary perdition. But it does speak of what will be the lot of many (if not
all),- of an actual, not a hypothetical, doom.
Another text, which is
of force to show that probation (as it is called) is ended with this life, is
the passage in Hebrews (chap. ix. 27), which the writer of this paper spends
but a few words over: "It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the
judgment." His comment is, -
"If it means that death, as we believe, is a
great crisis, It seems to mean also that judgment is the other great crisis for
every man. It is silent concerning the period between death and judgment."
True, it is silent; but silence may sometimes have a trumpet-tongue.
Why after death the judgment, if it should be rather, after adequate testing
with the gospel? Does not "after death" imply that judgment is for the life
which death has closed? And does it not agree perfectly with that receiving of
the "deeds done in the body" (2 Cor. v.10), which certainly no other scripture
would limit, as the new theology suggests, to any special class? With these the
words of the preacher make a threefold cord not quickly broken: "Let us hear
the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep His commandments, for
this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment,
with every secret thing, whether it be good or whether it be evil" (Eccles.
xii. 13, 14).
The passages which seem positively to favor the
evangelization of the dead, according to the Andover professors - 1 Pet. iii.
18-20; iv. 6; Matt. xii. 32; xxv. 31 seq. - have been all examined fully. I
would point out again as to the second text what I have said before (p. 376),
that it really confirms the thought of the fixed condition of the dead. But I
must refer my readers to what has been already said. There would be no apparent
profit in a repetition of it.
Nor need we follow the book we have been
looking at further. We have examined the Scripture bearing on the subject, and
for speculation we have no taste, even though it be in the interest of ethics.
To "justify the ways of God to man" is not free from danger, as Jobs
friends found who meant sincerely to show that His governmental dealings were
always as plainly as they are really right. But look at the history of
Christendom itself; see how they who were to preach the gospel to every
creature lost it for themselves; see the world groaning under the rule of the
church; the reformation in the sixteenth century splitting up into
ever-multiplying and discordant sects. It is mans failure, you say, not
Gods. Truly; and so is the lapse from the truth man once knew, and the
resulting heathenism: "when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, but
became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened." Let
us not put this upon God either. And if He says and swears, "As I live, saith
the Lord, I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth," let us believe
Him, and rest.
The day of manifestation is coming, and God is not in
haste to justify Himself. The darkness is the discipline of faith, but in the
face of Christ is glory without a vail. If the question put to Himself, "Lord,
are there few that be saved" brought no direct reply, can we force an answer to
a very similar question? "Secret things belong unto the Lord our God:" we may
not rob the future of what is to be revealed by it, when at last every eye
shall see what faith unseeing knows and rejoices in, that "the Lord is
righteous in all His ways." Where agnosticism means, not unbelief, but faith, -
where it is the confession of nothingness, and the refusal to be wise above
what is written, is it a reproach to be thus far agnostics?
Go To Appendix Eight
Home | Links | Literature