Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God abideth in him and he in God. And we know, and have believed the love which God hath in us. God is love; and he that abideth in love abideth in God, and God abideth in him. Herein is love made perfect in us, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as he is, even so are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear, because fear hath punishment; and he that feareth is not made perfect in love. We love, because he first loved us. If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar for he that loveth not his brother, whom he hath seen, cannot love God, whom he hath not seen. And this commandment have we from him, that he who loveth God love his brother also." (1 John iv. 7—21.)

If

I have quoted this passage at length because it proves, beyond the power of contradiction, that in the Apostle's opinion, love in God and love in man are precisely the same in character, and only differ in degree, and puts an end, as far as Scripture is concerned, to that most dangerous position, that love in man may be one thing, and love in God a thing widely differing from our human conception of love. This being so, the same is true of all His other attributes. then this utterance has a divine authority attached to it, nay, if it is even true, it proves that when God will judge the world in righteousness, He will judge each individual man in conformity with the attributes of justice, holiness, mercy and love, according to our human conceptions of them, and not in conformity with a standard which, for aught we know, may differ widely from those conceptions. This truth is fundamental to our present argument.

Let us now proceed to test the chief theories which have been propounded respecting the principles in accordance with which God will execute judgment hereafter, and which have attained a wide acceptance among different sections of the

Christian Church, by the Divine attributes of justice, holiness, mercy and benevolence, as we have proved them to be affirmed by reason and enunciated by revelation.

I. Those theories which affirm that all those who do not accept a particular form of dogmatic creed will be excluded from salvation.

A large portion of these creeds make affirmations on subjects of a very abstract character, involving a number of the most profound questions respecting the ontology of Deity, the Incarnation, the nature of the Divine decrees, predestination, the mode in which the atonement has been effected, the modus operandi of the Divine Spirit in the regeneration and sanctification of man, and various other highly difficult questions, which it will be unnecessary to enumerate. Now the number of those whose mental capacity is such as to enable them to enter on the discussion of such subjects, to grasp the meaning of the propositions in which they are expressed, and to form an opinion of the value of the evidence on which they are alleged to rest, is extremely limited. What then is meant by the affirmation that these are such essential portions of Christianity, that those who cannot receive them will be excluded from salvation? Obviously, that God will punish a large portion of mankind for intellectual defects for which they are irresponsible. To do so is evidently inconsistent with the possibility of ascribing either justice, holiness, mercy, or benevolence to the Creator. It will doubtless be urged that all that is intended by these denunciations is that only those will incur the penalty which they threaten who wilfully, and with full light and knowledge, reject the dogmas in question. But if this is the thing intended, why is not this expressly stated in the creeds in question? For if that is their true meaning, the number of those who thus reject them will be comparatively few.

II. The theory which affirms that every man born into

the world is, in consequence of the sin of Adam, the jusť subject of God's wrath and damnation.

Such an affirmation means neither more nor less than this, that it is just to punish one man for a sin committed by another, and in the commission of which he had no share. Surely it is unnecessary to offer proof that to do so is absolutely inconsistent with any possible conception of justice, holiness, mercy, or love.

III. Closely akin to the above is the theory which affirms that men are justly punishable for the tendency to evil which they bring with them into the world. That such a tendency to evil is transmitted to each of us from our ancestors is an unquestionable fact; and that evil of all kinds is offensive to God, I firmly believe. But a man is no more responsible for being born with a tendency to moral evil, or with a corrupt nature, than he is for being born blind, or with a tendency to disease. Such a tendency, instead of appealing to the Divine justice for punishment, loudly appeals to the Divine compassion. Our conscience and moral sense would unhesitatingly condemn a human judge who would punish a man for being born a cripple, or with a constitutional tendency to consumption; and what our conscience and moral sense would condemn in a human judge cannot be reconcilable with any possible conception of justice or holiness in God. What His attributes of justice, holiness, mercy, and love will cause Him to do with those who die in this condition we will consider in a subsequent chapter.

IV. Closely allied to the conditions of our birth are the conditions of the surroundings into which we are born, and the moral atmosphere which we inhale from our earliest childhood. These conditions, which unquestionably exert a powerful influence on the formation of our characters, have been determined not by us, but for us. Consequently all theories which represent God as consigning multitudes of

men to everlasting damnation, without taking into consideration and making allowance for the condition of the surroundings into which they were born, are inconsistent with ascribing to Him either justice, holiness, or mercy.

I by no means wish to affirm that men born, with tendencies to evil, into a corrupt moral and spiritual atmosphere, which they habitually inhale from their birth, are totally and absolutely irresponsible for their characters; but that in estimating the degree of their responsibility, justice demands that these unfavourable conditions of probation should be taken into consideration, and that when justice has pronounced sentence, mercy pleads.

V. The theory which affirms that God has elected a certain portion of mankind to eternal life, and consigned the remainder by a direct decree to everlasting damnation, or by simply passing over the remainder has thus rendered that result inevitable.

This decree of predestination is alleged to be irrespective of all moral characteristics in the predestined. Both those who are fore-ordained to everlasting salvation, and those who are fore-ordained to damnation, are affirmed to be in an equally lost condition; and the choice is made irrespective of anything good or bad, either in the elect or the nonelect.

Those who propound this theory, in order that they may hide its awfulness from themselves and others, affirm that this choice has been made in conformity with what they euphemistically designate God's good, i.e. holy, pleasure; but choice, will, or pleasure, independent of all moral considerations, cannot, in conformity with the affirmations of reason or the teaching of Christianity, be a holy pleasure it is simply pleasure divested of holiness. Under a sense of this, and for the purpose of averting our eyes from the terrible reality, it has been affirmed that this election has been made by God for

the purpose of manifesting His glory, and it has even been said, the glory of His grace. But a glory which is irrespective of all moral considerations is the glory of power only; and power, pure and simple, may be an attribute of an Ahriman. This theory, therefore, is utterly inconsistent with ascribing to God the attributes of either justice, holiness, mercy, or love, as they are affirmed to exist in Him alike by reason and revelation.

VI. Precisely similar are the results which flow from the various modifications of this theory, such, for example, as that Christ died for the sins of the whole world, but that the non-elect, not having received "an effectual calling," will derive no benefit from his atoning work; or that they can partake in its blessings if they so will, but that the will in them to do so is and will be ever wanting, and many similar ones, which it is unnecessary to particularise. What, I ask, can be more inconsistent with the conception of a Being who possesses the attributes of either justice, mercy, holiness, or benevolence than to represent Him as having chosen a comparatively small portion of mankind to deliver from the consequences of the fall and of their own transgressions, and as leaving the remainder, who were no more guilty than the elect, though Christ has died for all men, the certain inheritors of everlasting damnation, because they are unable to embrace His atoning work from want of an effectual calling?

But it may be urged, You admit that from one cause or another transmitted evil exists in man. Does not this admission cover the predestinarian theory? I reply, that it is impossible to deny its existence, except by closing our eyes to the most unquestionable facts. We see this daily in the existence of numerous bodily imperfections, and in terrible diseases, which have been transmitted by ancestors more or less remote, and which have been caused on their

« ZurückWeiter »