Facts and
Theories as to a Future State
CHAPTER XLIV
LAST WORDS WITH RESTORATIONISTS
MUCH of what has been said as to the doctrine of
conditional immortality is true of the other form of the denial of eternal
punishment. Especially the quarrel with Scripture is even more plain, and its
authority as a consequence more directly attacked. There are those, as in the
former case, who must be admitted as exceptions, whose arguments, however
illogical, seek at least to preserve its authority. Yet even Mr. Jukes
maintains, as we have seen, that "taken in the letter, text clashes with text
upon this subject." And Mr. Cox quotes with approbation, from Dr.
Littledales paper already referred to, his averment "that no sufficient
stress has been laid on the cardinal fact that the Scriptures of the New
Testament contain two parallel and often seemingly contradictory statements as
to the last things, one of which. even after being jealously sifted by hostile
criticisms, DOES make for the popular theology, and another which more than
implies a full restoration, and the final victory of good over evil."
Still others speak thus of "irreconcilable antinomies" in Scripture. Canon
Farrar more openly and boldly alleges that the "isolated texts" which seem
adverse to his view may be "a concession to ignorance" or "reflect the
ignorance of a dark age." Prof. Jellett urges, "Even if it be conceded that
according to the most probable interpretation of the texts which are supposed
to contain the doctrine of endless punishment, they do contain this doctrine,
it may still be asked - Does this decide the question? There is no
infallibility attached to the process of interpretation. The reasoning by which
the inspiration of Scripture itself is ascertained is not infallible.
Probability is all we can attain to."
These testimonies might be
indefinitely multiplied. They demonstrate not more the tendencies of
universalism to a denial of the authority of the word, than they do the fact of
that word being almost confessedly against it. They would not need to
depreciate a testimony which was in their own favour. The counsel for a case
does not brow-beat his own witnesses.
(2.) The doctrine of
universalism, in whatever form, tends of necessity, though in another way from
annihilationism, to make light of sin. It represents it as a thing capable of
being reached and done away by a course of salutary discipline, and that in
cases where all the riches of Gods love and grace have been expended in
vain. Sin is thus made the creature of circumstances, by a wise ordering of
which it may be extinguished, and God as the Governor of His creatures becomes
responsible for its continuance. It is His dishonour if evil continue, and He
must at least share the blame of it with man He is responsible to save. Man is
perhaps as much sinned against as sinning. His life here is no proper
probation. "What could have been done to my vineyard, that I have not done in
it?" admits of a plain answer. Mans ignorance, his feebleness, his
manifold temptations, well -nigh balance his account with his Maker; and sin,
as a matter of human responsibility or of divine judgment, becomes evidently
diminished to an indefinite extent.
That full-blown universalism should
be associated with loose morals is not, therefore, to be wondered at. Dr. Rigg
affirms: "The same universalists who speak great words about the universal
fatherhood of God not seldom also hold the doctrines of free love. It has been
my lot to meet with some of these. . . who, in extraordinary rhapsodies, mixed
up all these things, and whose practice corresponded to their principles." But
the practical result of the belief is not to be measured by the mere open
adherents. There are masses who readily take the license without caring to
adhere at all. The theory, if true, renders adherence to it or to anything else
of very little importance in the eyes of many who would accept the consequences
very gladly. And it need not. be doubted that the circle of influence which
such views exert reaches very far beyond the number of its professed advocates.
Just here, indeed, its ripest fruits will be found; mans will set free
from the restraint of divine authority, openly lawless, and completely
reprobate.
But those who cannot go the whole length of universalism,
as, for instance, Canon Farrar, but who either attach no limit to probation, or
at least prolong it beyond the present life, cannot be acquitted of ministering
to the same unhappy end. The meaning of a "day of salvation" now proclaimed is
lost, or at least the point of it. If it be said that only now is preached
complete escape from the need of purifying fire, that to the mass of men is a
very different thing, of almost infinitely less urgency; while souls praying,
striving, agonizing to draw nearer to the light, may be quite unable at any
rate (as they teach) to escape that. How many will think it worth while to pray
and strive and agonize to so little purpose? How many will rather wait with
closed ears to every warning for the fire that is at any rate to do its work,
and which is but the æonian fire of Gods love! For such souls,
Canon Farrar, and such as he, spite of his protest, must be content to be
responsible; and if the "eternal hope" they would fain persuade themselves of,
be (as it surely is) a mere delusion, then are they responsible for the
damnation of those who listen to and approve their teachings.
(3.) And where is atonement; where the value of Christs
blood-shedding? It is well known that universalism in its complete development
denies atonement altogether; and to this denial all forms of it, however
modified, necessarily tend. Mr. Jukes has no gospel; Dr. Farrar none. The "poor
in spirit," the strivers after the light go down helpless to æonian fire,
because, if there be an eye to pity, there is no hand to save. And there men
become their own sin-offering, for the worm and fire of Gehenna speak of that.
They are saved by their own suffering, not by Christs; and there will be
souls in heaven by and by who can never join in the song of the blood-washed
ones; if indeed there be any such song at all. For the many striving ever to
get nearer to the light would no doubt gladly have washed their robes, but
either it could not, or did not avail. .Æonian fire was their sharp and
only remedy.
It is Scripturally certain that for those who count the
blood of the covenant an unholy thing, and do despite unto the Spirit of grace,
"there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins."* And as salvation is the fruit of
this sacrifice, and æonian fire the alternative of salvation, and its
opposite, its contrast, - those who go into it must find (if salvation at all)
another than by Christs work. This Mr. Jukes virtually admits. The sinner
becomes his own sin-offering; and although under the law a spotless and
unblemished offering was needed, he has discovered that in the antitype God
will not require that. Nor is vicariousness to be insisted on. A sinner
suffering for his own sins is purified sufficiently by the process. For him,
therefore, there can be no such thing as that "the Son of Man must be lifted
up." Atonement is for him unneeded.
*Heb. X. 27-29
John
iii. i4.
Thus, as God is justified in doing, and certain to do, all
that can be done for His creature, a purgatory is quite capable of taking the
place of Christ and His work. And at any rate the mass will go to purgatory.
Carry that out, and where is atonement gone? The denial of "eternal judgment"
is thus the denial of the very "word of the beginning of Christ," and is
essentially antichristian. That some may be involved in it who are very far
from meaning this is no doubt quite true, but the doctrine is Satans lie
to destroy the truth of Christ; and wherever it is fully developed it
effectually does so. Witness the constant connection with unitarianism in the
body that has adopted the name "Universalist" as its distinctive title.
Heb. vi. 1, marg.
Here let us close: it is useless to proceed
further. Beloved reader, vicarious sacrifice is Gods only means of
blessing as surely as Scripture is true and "cannot be broken." The faith of a
saved man is a faith which can say with the apostle: "Himself bare our sins in
ills own body on the tree." "The Lord hath laid upon Him the iniquity of us
all." Jesus is now risen from the dead, and in testimony of the full acceptance
of that work accomplished is gone into the presence and glory of God. The sins
then that were laid upon him are gone. Whose are they? Are they yours? Beloved,
they are those of all, who in the consciousness of sin and helplessness, "have
put their trust in Him" for their eternal salvation. Their peace is made. Their
sins, borne by Him, are gone. And the coming of Jesus will put them, without
question or challenge, into the blessedness of His Fathers house, which
He went to prepare as their abiding home. It is yours to choose, reader,
whether you will have your "part" in the lake of fire with the devil and his
angels, or with the "blessed and holy" of the first resurrection in the only
really "Eternal City."
It may suit you, alas, to soften down the
terrors of the day of wrath, but what if you should find God just in inflicting
severer punishment than now your conscience, or your want of it, can allow as
righteous? O, ponder those words of the very One who came to save! "Everlasting
fire," "undying worm," are after all realities. They abide, the solemn figures
of judgment to come. On the other hand, Gods grace invites you - whoso
comes to Christ, He will in no wise cast out.
Reader, if you be one of
His redeemed, trifle not with that which undermines the reality of His blessed
work, and with that the reality of sin, and of its judgment.
"A little
leaven leaveneth the whole lump."
THE END - - Go to Appendix?
Home |
Links | Literature