ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

ARTICLE III.-IS THE DOCTRINE OF THE FINAL RESTORATION OF ALL MEN SCRIPTURAL?

DOES the Bible furnish ground for the belief that all men will finally be restored to holiness and happiness? There need be no apology for discussing a subject so close to human feeling, and which attracts increased attention daily, in the theological world. As we naturally desire salvation for ourselves and for others, so we sensitively shrink from the idea that any should be eternally lost. The thought is also attrac tive to our reason, that the universe will finally be in complete harmony with itself; that God will use methods, in the lapse of ages, by which sin and misery shall be terminated, and holiness and happiness characterize all his rational creatures. We can hardly conceive that a good man should be without sympathy with such longings and hopes. They are the views of those called "Liberal Christians." They were entertained by John Frederick Oberlin and John Foster, after an examination of the subject in the light of reason and of the Word of God. Not a few Christians decidedly lean towards this belief, while the contrary view is accepted by yet others only with painful doubt, and a sense of conflict. Learned and orthodox German commentators, such as Tholnck, Neander, Olshausen, and Lange, also intimate that the Bible gives an occasional hint, in some large-hearted and far-reaching Pauline expression, of such a restoration. Let us approach the subject, then, in a spirit of candor and charity, endeavoring to gather up all the facts which can shed light upon it; let us come to it gradually, patiently, thoughtfully, asking divine guidance in exploring the divine counsels.

First of all, then, we confess that the doctrine of the final restoration of all fallen souls comes to us with this suspicious mark upon its front, that it has never been the faith of the church of Christ. Doubtless individuals, like Clemens, Alexandrinus, and Origen, were found in the early church (and, at

a later period, now and then, a heretical or mystical sect or school) who favored this doctrine. But nothing is more clear than that the church, as a body, has ever maintained the opposite view, and made it a prominent part of the Christian faith. Now it is to be conceded, that no opinion can be settled in any age merely by being put to vote. The majority on a given point has often been wrong; the minority may be the wiser and better party. But the fact before us has to do with something beside mere numbers. It can support the verdict of the church by a threefold consideration of great power.

(1). The majority in this case can abide any comparative test of learning or piety which may be applied to ascertain quality as well as numbers. It is not an ignorant, superstitious, and morally debased majority against a learned, liberal, and pure minority. Certainly the current doctrine of the Christian church on this subject has been supported by the overwhelming weight of scholarship and piety among those who accept the teachings of Scripture as inspired. From age to age, in the light as well as in the darkness, before, during, and since the prevalence of Romish usurpation and corruption, by bodies of Christians who differ widely in other respects, and who embrace the Oriental churches, the Latin church, and all but one or two small sects of Protestantism, has the doctrine of restoration been rejected, as utterly inconsistent with Scripture.

(2). The value of this rejection is increased by the fact that it is contrary to the natural tendency. Here the very claim which, in one aspect, favors the doctrine, is seen to operate against it. The question must be answered, How comes it, that the church has been thus agreed in interpreting the Bible contrary to man's natural desire, and to plausible demands of the reason? Every man, thinking of his personal danger as a sinner, would incline to the less terrible view of the penalty of sin, and to the larger view of the results of redemption. The same inclination would arise in the minds of parents, children, and friends, as they contemplated the final destiny of those they loved. The longing for universal happiness and holiness must always have been strong in pious souls, and must have predisposed them to regard with favor an interpretation

of Scripture which would warrant the addition of faith to such a hope. Yet the doctrine of restoration, although supported by natural feeling, and by many desires and sympathies in regenerate souls, has utterly failed to command the faith of the Christian church.

(3). But more significant still is the relation of such a unity and permanence of church belief to the promised guidance of the Holy Spirit. We may properly reject the idea of Papal Infallibility: we may doubt such a quality even in an Ecumenical Council that should be truly representative of the universal Christian church; but we cannot explain away the promised illumination of the abiding Comforter, so that it shall mean nothing practical or valuable. Rejecting any enthusiastic and mystical appropriations of it by individuals, in a sense that would render them inspired authorities, and avoiding the other extreme of applying it to an outward organism or corporation, we are warranted in understanding it to mean, at least, that the body of true believers, the succession of those regenerated by the Holy Spirit, shall be taught the truth as revealed in Scripture concerning the grand facts which constitute the working power of the gospel on earth. And this would seem necessarily to include the truth respecting the final destiny of men, which stands so closely related to the whole doctrine of sin and redemption. Can it then be, that the Holy Ghost has allowed almost the entire church to abide in serious error on this solemn subject? But while deeply impressed with this opening suspicion, this ear-mark of error, we will not regard it as conclusive against all argument. Perhaps too much light could not be allowed to flood the church at first; perhaps the lapse of eighteen centuries has so elevated its character and increased its intelligence, that now it is prepared to be taught by the Holy Spirit, that its past anxiety for the fate of the wicked has been unwarranted and excessive, and its confident interpretation of Scripture quite mistaken! This does not seem very probable; let us admit it to be possible. We observe, then,

Secondly, That we regard it as another unfavorable circumstance, that the argument for a final restoration is so largely based on mere sentiment, or else on abstract, philosophical

arguments concerning the divine character and government, called sometimes "the principles of the Bible." We have been struck with the fact, that in the minds of many who advocate this doctrine, it seems to be an ebullition of feeling rather than a careful exercise of judgment. "It must be true! They cannot bring themselves to believe the contrary! They will sooner reject the Bible, or even become atheists at once !" One can hardly be expected to convince such a state of mind, or to be convinced by it. To us it does not seem like an act of reason, or a state of humility. We confess that we are very ignorant of the consequences or deserts of sin, except as God teaches us by his word. The future world is an unexplored realm, save as Christ, who came to reveal some of its mysteries, has put on record his testimony. Conscience prophesies evil we dare not trust natural hopes: we are shut up to the words of Him who said "I am the Truth!"

Thus, if any one arrays against the Biblical declaration that those on the left hand of the Judge "shall go away into everlasting punishinent," the objection that these words of Christ offend his sentiment of justice; that no earthly sin can justly entail an eternity of woe; we cannot be made to believe that Christ was without the sentiment of justice, or that He carelessly used language to shock that sentiment in his hearers. Hence, if no other reply were possible, we could refer the solution to the disclosures of the next life, as a course wiser and safer than to deny or to change the words of Christ. Yet reason assures that sin in the human soul is not a mere act, or series of acts, but is an abiding state, and is so viewed in the Bible always; that the penalty of "eternal death" has relation to this fundamental fact; and that a soul which persists in sin through this life is in confirmed and hopeless depravity, aud is therefore properly sentenced to a corresponding exclusion from the society and bliss of heaven. Thus our conception of justice is in no respect wounded: which teaches us to suspect that a sentimental religion may not be a rational religion, and should not be allowed to give law to exegesis.

For somewhat similar reasons, we lack confidence in thosewhether called theologians or philosophers-who build a universe of perfect order and beauty out of abstract principles,

[blocks in formation]

and who have vast knowledge, aside from Scripture, of what God can and cannot do. We can only take the kosmos as we find it, and interpret its past, and predict its future, by reading the word of Him who rules it; in which word He supplies facts not otherwise discoverable, and announces purposes which reason could not anticipate. Perhaps Tennyson, in his "In Memoriam," has presented a fair specimen of the intermingling of the sentimental and rationalistic process of thought on this subject, and of the small certainty of its conclusions:

“Oh, yet we trust that, somehow, good
Will be the final goal of ill,

To pangs of nature, sins of will,

Defects of doubt, and taints of blood;

"That nothing walks with aimless feet;
That not one life shall be destroyed,
Or cast as rubbish to the void,
When God hath made the pile complete;

"That not a worm is cloven in vain;
That not a moth with vain desire
Is shrivelled in a fruitless fire,
Or but subserves another's gain.

"Behold! we know not anything;
I can but trust that good shall fall
At last, far off, at last, to all,
And every winter change to spring.

"So runs my dream: but what am I?

An infant crying in the night:

An infant crying for the light;

And with no language but a cry."

But this "dream" has its nightmare. The poet is oppressed by horrible doubts, which crush his rising faith, and he breathes out his difficulties in such stanzas as these:

"The wish, that of the living whole
No life may fail beyond the grave-
Derives it not from what we have
The likest God within the soul?

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »