Orthodoxy: Its Truths And Errors Part 36

This view of the final results of moral evil, as destroying personal existence, is hardly an Orthodox doctrine, though quasi-Orthodox. It is the refuge of that cla.s.s of minds which are unable to accept universal restoration on the one side, or everlasting punishment on the other. To them a large number of human beings seem "too good for banning, and too bad for blessing," and in their opinion will be suffered quietly to drop out of conscious existence. The a.n.a.logies of nature, in which out of many seeds and many eggs produced, only a few attain to the condition of plants and animals, tend to confirm this view. The state of human character here appears also to favor it, since mult.i.tudes pa.s.s out of this world in an undeveloped condition, seeming wholly to have failed of the end of their being. The chief scriptural argument in favor of the doctrine is found in the a.s.sumption that "life through Christ" is equivalent to continued conscious existence, and that "death" as the punishment of sin, is equivalent to annihilation. We have so fully discussed the meaning of these terms in the previous chapter, that it is not desirable to argue this point here. We agree with the Orthodox view, and differ from that of the annihilationists on this point. The G.o.d of the gospel is the Father of all his children-of the weakest, feeblest, and most sinful. If he is the G.o.d of _all_, then he is "the G.o.d, not of the dead, but of the living, for all live to him." Indian tribes and heathen nations may be willing that the sickly infants, and those worn with age, should perish; they may expose female infants, thinking them not worth bringing up; but Christian nations establish schools and hospitals for the deaf and dumb, the insane, the inebriates, the idiotic. If we, then, being evil, know how to care for the weak, undeveloped, and vegetative natures, how much more shall their Father in heaven care for them! The doctrine of annihilation rests fundamentally on a Pagan view of G.o.d.

-- 10. The Doctrine of Universal Restoration.

This opinion has its roots, we think, in the gospel. It has prevailed in the church from the earliest times, having been held, as we have seen, by Origen, and a great number of eminent church fathers and doctors. What more Christian word has come to us from the earliest centuries than the cry out of the heart of the great Alexandrian teacher, "My Saviour, even now, mourns for my sins. My Saviour cannot be happy while I remain in my iniquity. He does not wish to drink the cup of joy alone in the kingdom of G.o.d; he is waiting till we shall come and join him there."(59)

Our object in this chapter is to consider the Orthodox view, and we shall not, therefore, enter into any extensive argument concerning universal salvation. We will only here indicate the general scriptural evidence in its support. The alternative to the Orthodox view of everlasting punishment is not, as we have shown, necessarily Universalism. It may be annihilation, or it may be, under the name of eternal punishment, a negative evil, being the privation of the highest kind of happiness.

Still, it seems proper to suggest, if only very briefly, some reasons given by Universalists for their belief.

In the Epistles of Paul there are five or six pa.s.sages, which appear to teach, or to imply, an ultimate restoration of salvation of all moral beings. Among them are these:-

1. Eph. 1:9, 10. "Having made known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure, which he hath purposed in himself, that in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth, even in him."

The apostle is speaking of the "riches of G.o.d's grace," wherein "he hath _abounded_ toward us," and gives as the proof this revelation made in Christ of a great mystery-that "in the dispensation [economy] of the fulness of times" he might bring into one (under one head) "all things in heaven and on earth." The idea of the pa.s.sage seems evidently to be that in the economy, or order, of the divine plan, which extends through indefinite periods of time, all things shall be united under one head in Christ. But if brought under one head (as the Greek word signifies), then all become Christians, all "in heaven and earth." This would seem to be a very plain statement of a universal restoration.

As such, Olshausen, one of the most Orthodox of commentators, regards it.

He rejects all the explanations offered by the advocates of everlasting punishment as unsatisfactory. "It cannot be disputed," he says, "that in it the restoration of all things seems to be again favored-a view which Paul in general, as has already been remarked (on Rom. 11:32; 1 Cor.

15:24; Gal. 3:22) says more to support than the other writers of the New Testament." Olshausen declares the interpretations which suppose a merely external subjection of the world to Christ to be entirely inadequate, and have left unresolved the princ.i.p.al difficulty, which is, "how Paul could say that all have a share in redemption, if he held the common view that the numberless hosts of angels who fell, along with the far greatest part of mankind (Matt. 7:13, 14) are eternally d.a.m.ned, and thus shut out from the harmony of the universe." The defenders of universal restoration, says Olshausen, "understand the harmony of the universe seriously, in its literal meaning, and seem, according to that, to be here in the right."

2. Phil. 2:9, 10. "Wherefore G.o.d hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of G.o.d the Father." Here we have "_things under the earth_"

(?ata???????) added to "things in heaven and on earth." This word only occurs here in the New Testament, but is by Bretschneider (Lex. Man.) translated "subterranean" or "infernal," and applied to the inhabitants of Hades, with a reference to Origen, who uses the word in relation to the demons. De Wette applies the language to angels, living men, and the dead.

At all events, it appears to include all moral beings, and to declare that the whole human race shall bow to Christ, and accept him as Master. But this cannot mean a merely outward submission, for such a forced and reluctant homage would bring little honor to G.o.d, nor be worth such admiration on the part of the apostle. It must therefore mean that all men, not only all who now live, but all who have lived, shall finally become Christians and enter into the glory of G.o.d.

3. Col. 1:20. "And, having made peace by the blood of the cross, by him to reconcile all things to himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth or things in heaven." Here a new feature is added to the statement by the word "reconcile," which evidently expresses the entire conversion of the heart, and therefore of human beings, to the law of Christ.

4. 1 Cor. 15:22. "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." The "all" must be as extensive on one side as the other. Now, whether the death in Adam be physical or moral, whether it mean the dissolution of the earthly body, or the loss of innocence by sin, it certainly includes _all_ human beings, in the fullest sense. All men die, and all men sin. It would therefore seem that the other "all" must be quite as comprehensive. It must include all human beings. All men shall "be made alive in Christ." But this cannot mean a mere physical immortality, or an immortality in misery; for one cannot be said to be "alive in Christ" who is suffering endless torment. To be "alive in Christ" means to be spiritually alive, for "he that hath the Son hath life."

5. 1 Cor. 24:28. In this pa.s.sage Paul declares that _all_ enemies shall be subject to Christ. But this, again, cannot mean a forced submission, for that is in no sense being subject to Christ. _Christ's_ subjects are willing subjects. It therefore must mean that, finally, all human beings shall become Christian in conviction and in heart.

These five texts from the apostle Paul seem to us very plain and conclusive as to his opinions. But perhaps the strongest evidence in proof of a universal restoration is to be found in Christ's own parable of the prodigal son. For in this the genuine spirit and purpose of the gospel is shown to be that G.o.d _never_ loses his fatherly love for his rebellious and lost children. On the contrary, his heart yearns towards them with a more earnest affection than towards the holy and good. The prodigal son represents those who are "dead in sin." (Luke 15:24-32.) The parable teaches that G.o.d loves them all the while they are away, and that "there is more joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth than over ninety and nine just persons who need no repentance." Now, if G.o.d loves the sinners thus whose bodies are yet alive, does he cease to love them when the bodily change takes place which we call death? Does his nature change then? And if not, does it ever change? After millions of years, if they have been lost and dead so long, has his love become weary of waiting, or does "his mercy endure forever"?

To us it seems clear, that if the parable of the prodigal son is to be taken as a true statement of the feeling of G.o.d towards every sinner, that every sinner must at last be brought back by the mighty power of this redeeming love. The power of the human will to resist G.o.d is indeed indefinite; but the power of love is infinite. Sooner or later, then, in the economy of the ages, all sinners must come back, in penitence and shame, to their Father's house, saying, "Make us as thy hired servants."

If so, if universal restoration does not mean primarily restoration to outward happiness, but to inward obedience, it seems to us that the doctrine may be so stated as to be a new motive for _present_ repentance and obedience. May we not say to the sinner, You may resist G.o.d to-day, to-morrow, for a million years; but, sooner or later, you _must_ return, obey, repent, and submit? G.o.d will spare no means to bring you. His love to you requires him to use all methods, all terrors, all suffering. The "worm that never dies," the "fire that is never quenched," the "outer darkness,"-these are all blessed means, in the providence of the Almighty, to bring the sinner back to a sense of his evil state. In the other world, as in this world, G.o.d will "chasten us, not for his pleasure, but for our profit, that we may be partakers of his holiness."

CHAPTER XV. THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

-- 1. The Question stated.

One of the most interesting questions of the present time, in practical theology, concerns the nature, authority, organization, functions, and future of the Christian Church. The interest in this subject has recently much revived, in consequence of a reaction towards the Roman Catholic or High Church view. This has appeared in the tendency among Protestants to join the Catholic Church as the only true and saving Church of Christ. The same tendency has taken into the Church of England, and into the Episcopal Church of the United States, those who were not ready to go as far as Rome. It is therefore important and useful to ask, What is the truth and what the error in the different views concerning the Church? These differ very widely. The Roman Catholics declare that theirs is the only true Church, and that out of it is no salvation. Many Protestants reply that the Roman Catholic Church is Antichrist, and the only true Churches are those which hold the Evangelical or Orthodox creed. The Swedenborgians say that the Old Church came to an end in 1758, and that since then the New Church has taken its place. Finally, a considerable number of persons maintain that all these churches are worse than useless, and that it is the duty of Christians to come out, and be separate from them all. They do not believe in the need of any church, but would subst.i.tute for it societies for special purposes,-lyceums and literary clubs for purposes of mental instruction; temperance societies, peace societies, and other a.s.sociations for moral purposes; and Odd-Fellows a.s.sociations, Masonic a.s.sociations, and clubs for social purposes.

The question then is, Is a Christian Church needed for the permanent wants of man? Was such a Church established by Christ? If so, which Church is it? And what is to be its future character and mode of organization?

It is scarcely necessary to discuss here the abstract question-Is a church an essential want of man, so as to be needed by him forever? It is enough to show that a church is needed now, and will be, for a long time to come.

Every religion has had its church. No sooner does a new idea arise, than it is incorporated in some outward union. The new wine is put into new bottles. Confucius has his church, Mohammed has his church; even Mormonism and Spiritualism have established their churches. The Christian Church arose immediately after the ascension of Jesus; it came as a matter of necessity, born not of flesh, nor of the will of man, but of G.o.d. It has continued ever since, in ever-varying forms, but one undying body. Other inst.i.tutions have risen and pa.s.sed away. The Roman empire has disappeared.

The barbarous nations overflowed Europe, and then were civilized, Christianized, and absorbed into the Christian Church. Protestantism separated from Romanism, but _the Church_ remained in both. Other sects, Presbyterian, Independent, Quaker, Methodist, Baptist, Swedenborgian, Unitarian, Universalist, separated from the main Protestant body, but each took with it the church; each has its own church. Even the Quakers, the most unchurched apparently of any, who renounced the visible ministry, and the visible sacraments, made themselves presently into the most compact church of all. So the word continues evermore to be made flesh. So all spirit presently becomes incarnate in body. The body is outward and visible; the spirit inward and invisible. Both are necessary to the life, growth, and active influence of the gospel. Without the spirit of Christianity, the body would be good for nothing; it would be only a corpse. Without the body of Christianity, the spirit would be comparatively inactive; it would be only a ghost. A body without spirit corrupts and is offensive; a spirit without body is inoperative and alarming. Through body alone the spirit can act; through spirit alone the body can live.

Without asking, therefore, for any other authority for the Church, than its adaptation to human wants, we may safely say, that it is a great mistake to suppose we can dispense with churches. You cannot overthrow the churches, not the weakest of them, by any agency you can use; for all came up to meet and supply a want of the human soul. They are built on that rock. What will you put in their place? A lyceum? A debating society? A reform club? What are you to say to the souls of men, hungering and thirsting for G.o.d? What to the sinner, borne down by the mighty weight of transgression? What to the dying man, who knows not how to prepare to meet his G.o.d? We need the Church of Christ-the Church whose great aim it is, and always has been, to renew and regenerate the soul from its foundation, to lay the axe at the root of the tree of evil, and the very sound of whose bell, rolling its waves of music over the sleeping hills on the Sabbath morning, is worth more to the soul than a thousand lyceums and debating societies.

No; the Church is not to be destroyed; it is to be renewed with a deeper and fuller life. We want a better Church, no doubt-one more free in its thought, more active in its charity, with more of brotherhood in it. We want an apostolic Church, fitted to the needs of the nineteenth century.

The theological preaching which satisfied our parents is not what we wish now. We need Christianity applied to life-the life of the individual and of the state. A better Church, no doubt, is needed; but we want the churches _fulfilled_, not destroyed.

-- 2. Orthodox Doctrine of the Church-Roman Catholic and High Church.

Admitting, then, the permanency of the Christian Church, we next ask, "What is its true form?" or, "Which is the true Church?" or, again, to state it in another way, "Is the form of the Church permanent, or only its substance? Is _any_ union for Christian purposes, for worship and work, a Church, or must it be found in some particular organic form?" To this question Romanism and High Church Episcopacy reply, "It must." The rest of Protestantism answers, "No." Romanism says-Jesus established an essential form for his Church, as well as an essential substance. The true Church is an organization as well defined as any corporation for secular purposes.

It has the monopoly of saving souls, a patent right of communicating spiritual life, which cannot lawfully be infringed by any other corporation. This right was originally bestowed on St. Peter, and has been transmitted by him to his successors, bishops of Rome. The proof is in the original deed of gift, "Thou art Peter," &c., and in the regularity of the succession of subsequent bishops.

"According to the Catholic dogma," says Guericke,(60) "the Church is an outward community, by which all communion with Christ is conditioned and mediated. This outward community is the true Church, with the signs of unity, universality, apostolicity, and holiness, and is both the only infallible Church, and only one which can save the soul." This Church, according to Bellarmine, is a wholly visible and outward a.s.sociation; as much so as the kingdom of France or republic of Venice.(61) According to Moehler,(62) the Church "is the visible community of believers, founded by Christ, in which, by means of an enduring apostleship, &c., the works wrought by him during his earthly life are continued to the end of the world." The Roman Catholic idea is of a visible Church only, and not of a Church at once visible and invisible, which is the Protestant notion. It is composed of good and bad, while the Protestant notion makes the true Church consist only of the regenerate.(63)

The chief refutation of this claim of the Romish Church is to be found in the very vastness of its a.s.sumption. a.s.suming itself to be the only true Church, and the only one founded by Christ, we of course require full and exact evidence in proof of its a.s.sertion. It must prove, (1.) That Jesus founded an outward Church of this kind; (2.) That he made Peter its head; (3.) That he gave Peter power to continue his authority to his successors; (4.) That the bishops of Rome are the successors of Peter; (5.) That this succession has been perfect and uninterrupted; (6.) That the Roman Catholic Church _is_ infallible, and has never committed any mistake; (7.) That it _is_ Catholic, and includes all true Christians; (8.) That it _is_ at one with itself, having never known divisions; (9.) That it _is_ the only holy Church, bearing the fruits of Christian character in a quality and quant.i.ty which no other Church can rival. If any one of these nine propositions fail, the whole claim of Rome falls prostrate. But they _all_ fail, not one being susceptible of proof. It cannot be made to appear that Jesus ever intended to found a Church having such a monopoly of salvation; nor that the apostle Peter was ever placed at its head, with supreme authority;(64) nor, if he had this authority, that he ever was bishop of Rome; nor, if he were, that he transmitted his authority to his successors; nor, if he did, that the bishops of Rome are his successors; nor, if they are, that the succession has been unbroken; nor that the church has been actually infallible; nor that it includes all true Christians; nor that it has been free from schisms; nor that it has always been so pure and holy as to show that Romanism is eminently Christian, and Protestantism not so. The chain of proof, therefore, which, if one link parted, would be a broken chain, is broken at _every_ link, and cannot carry conviction to any unbia.s.sed mind.

In a little work lately published in France by the Protestant Pastor, Mr.

Bost,(65) the author gives as a reason for not being a Catholic, that while the Church calls on us to submit to its authority, it cannot tell where the authority resides.(66) The Ultramontanes place it in the person of the pope; but the Gallicans have never admitted this idea, and place the supreme authority in a universal council.

Besides, what sort of infallibility is that which has tolerated the Inquisition, applauded the St. Bartholomew ma.s.sacre, preached crusades against the heretics in France, ma.s.sacred the Protestants in Holland, burned ten thousands at the stake in Spain? If it be said that Protestants also have persecuted, we reply, that they did it _against_ their own principles, but that the Catholics persecuted in accordance with theirs; and that the Church which claims exclusive infallibility and holiness has no right to excuse itself _because it has done no worse_ than those which it denounces as being in error and sin.

-- 3. The Protestant Orthodox Idea of the Church.

Protestantism does not claim for its Church exclusive holiness or infallibility. It defines the Church to be "a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure word of G.o.d is preached, and the sacraments duly administered."(67) Why, then, the reaction towards Romanism? It is partly owing to the pa.s.sive element in man-the wish to be governed, the weariness of independent thought, which led Wordsworth to say,-

"Me this unchartered freedom tires,"-

and which, in "Van Artevelde," declares that,-

Thought is tired of wandering through the world, And homeward fancy runs its bark ash.o.r.e,-

and partly because the Protestant Churches are often less active and diligent in the practical part of Christian work than the Roman Catholic Churches. Instead of a manly Protestantism, they give us a diluted Catholicism. They insist on a creed which has neither antiquity nor authority to recommend it, on sacraments that are no real sacraments, but only symbols, and on a ritual which has neither the beauty nor variety of the Roman worship.