t 4 - 9 . ctf 4 . PRINCETON, N. J. ^ Presented by ""Dv"'. S- c>s5^/6 under the perfect government of God; and when that possibility of pardon is secured—when the grand edifice of moral government shall have been sustained in its integrity by the sacrifice of Christ, magnifying the Law and making it honorable,” then the moral power of that sacrifice can safely and properly come in to touch the sensibilities, awaken the conscience, and soften the hard hearts of men in penitence and love, and may even be used for influencing moral beings hereafter and forever. On the other hand the Moral Influence Theory is, that the primary design of the Atonement is to so exhibit God’s affection for sinners as to lead them to repentance. It does not ignore at all its Governmental relations, only makes them of secondary consideration as compared with its influence in saving men. 1 . This single feature of this Moral Theory—that it gives the Governmental relations of the Atonement the secondary place in God’s Moral government, is enough of itself to condemn it. For place the two in contrast—on the one side is the integ¬ rity of God’s character and administration as the primary matter, and on the other the salvation of the sinner as the primary matter. In the Governmental view, therefore, God and his administration are to be saved, come what will. In the Moral Theory view, the sinner is to be 3aved, come what will; as if the salvation of a guilty and hell-deserving sinner was intrinsically of more consequence than God and his government—the creature than the Creator ! If this be not enough to condemn it, reverse the matter—suppose God or the sinner is to be sacrificed, which shall it be ? And the 160 question needs only to be asked, and the matter is settled: and the Moral Theory is shown to be false from the foundation.* 2 . A second feature of this Moral Theory, as generally ad¬ vocated, is this—That the main design of the Atonement is “ to succor and save men” ( 1 .) One objection to this view is that it logically involves Universalism. If human salvation be the main design of the Atonement, then, as the Atonement is the great central fact of the universe, and every thing else subordinate and subservient to it, so must every thing else be subordinate and subservient to its main de¬ sign. And if the main design of it be human salvation, then every thing else must give way to that, and mankind be saved to a certainty, and universalism is the logical result. (2.) Another objection is that, to make the salvation of men merely the main object, would appear utterly inharmonious with the magnitude of the expenditure. The atonement is an in¬ finite provision—a work in which omnipotence travails in the greatness of its strength, and whose results are to “ satisfy ” the Redeemer for all his mighty sufferings. (Isa. 53:11.) And no results reached here in this world, where sin and not holiness, re¬ bellion and not salvation, have been almost the universal rule for six thousand years, can possibly be made to harmonize with so mighty a work—so vast an expenditure—indeed, nothing finite —no achievement that is limited in its results—can harmonize with it. And no conceivable view but that which makes the whole endless universe of moral beings, endlessly enlarging, to be de¬ pendent on the sacrifice of Christ for final confirmation in holiness and happiness, will fully correspond with the infinite greatness and grandeur of the expenditure. The only position that fully harmonizes with the Bible, is that the main design of the Atonement is not to save men , but the universe of moral beings so far as this can be safely accom¬ plished—to secure the salvation of moral beings anywhere and everywhere where salvation is possible. Wherever in the wide universe, Christ can accomplish salvation so as to compensate him for his infinite sacrifice, or at whatever time—now, hereafter, or forever—he will do it. And this sweeping statement is borne out by the Scriptures. “ Now” says the Apostle, in Ephesians 3:10, “ now ”—in these incipient stages of the moral universe—God is revealing himself in the atonement, and through the redeemed “church,” to the angels of heaven. The “principalities and pow- * This is believed to be the fundamental error in the system, of Dr. Bushnel —subordinating the governmental relations of the Atonement to the moral relations, instead of reversing the matter, and giving the Gov¬ ernmental relations the prime place in the general system; and this is believed to be the reason why he was never satisfied with his own system. 161 ers in heavenly places ” have been all comprehended in its pro¬ visions. Why and wherefore, if it be not to draw them in loving obedience to himself ? Notice again, in Ephesians 2:7, that “in the ages to come” —the long ages of eternity—the same manifestation will be made, and God will continue to “ show the exceeding riches of his grace, through Christ Jesus,” it does not say to ivhom, but why should we not reverently assume to all moral beings who shall come after them through the endless ages, and with the same grand ob¬ ject in view—the endless confirmation of them also in holiness and happiness? Such, at least, is the theory of the atonement sketched in these pages; and it is believed to be the only one per¬ fectly harmonizing with all the facts and intimations of the Bible. This makes salvation its prime object everywhere and forever: in this world, to save all who can be led to repentance for their sin; in the “ ages to come,” to save all/rom sinning. And this is entirely reasonable; for the salvation of moral beings elsewhere is just as important and valuable as their salva¬ tion here in this world. Also, it is just as important and desirable to keep moral be¬ ings from sinning as to save them after they have sinned. And even more so ; for sinless beings have done nothing to forfeit God’s favor, and may be kept forever from transgression; while the sinful have wickedly rebelled against him, and set in opera¬ tion a train of causes and effects, whose final influence can only be destructive and disastrous; all of which would have been pre¬ vented had they only been kept from sinning. 3. A third feature of this “ Moral Theory” scheme is, that its advocates have come quite generally, in their efforts to save men, to ignore the sterner doctrines of the Bible, and rely almost en¬ tirely on the presentation of the Divine Love as manifested in the Atonement. For example, a minister has been known for years to preach the truth contained in the first part of the Apostle’s declaration (John 3 : 36.) “ He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life,” with great eloquence and impressiveness; and yet ignore the truth of the remaining statement “and he that be¬ lieveth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him,” as completely as if it formed no part of the Divine Record. And it is believed that the advocates of this scheme, quite generally, adopt the same method in dealing with impenitent men. They almost entirely, in preaching, leave out the terrors of per¬ dition. In so doing they practically reject the evangelical scheme, and practically adopt that of the Universalists. This is the calamitous aspect of the Theory in question—It assumes that the presentation of the great truth that “ God is angry with the wicked every day,” and that “ our God is a con- 162 suming fire,” is unnecessary ; and that it is better, for the most part, to leave oat the appeal to fear in dealing with ungodly men. With such views this book has no sympathy, but holds that any theory or belief that proposes to set aside the terrors of per¬ dition, either wholly or in part, is false from the foundation, and utterly at variance with the entire spirit and letter of the Bible ; and that its practical influence in thus softening down the threat- enings of the Divine Word, is to smooth the broadway of sinners to destruction, and secure only meager results in the conversion of men. Matter of Preaching. What is the object of preaching? Answer: To lead men to give up sinning. They love sin. They cling to it. They will not abandon it. They love their own way, aud are determined to have it. How shall they be deterred from following it, is the question. The only way in which this can be done is by giving them a correct idea of their position as the enemies of God. As such they are arrayed against God, and must be made to see it. They are breaking the great Law of God, and daring its tremendous sanc¬ tions, and should be told of it in so many words. The wrath of God is burning against them, and they should be made to fear it. His judgments are abroad in the earth against evil-doing and evil-doers, and they should be made to fear lest judgments in a more aggravated form will meet them in the future world. They should be pressed with the stupendous fact that death, judg¬ ment and eternity are coming on, and will soon overtake them, and that there is no escaping the endless consequences of sin in the future world but by timely repentance in this. So preached the men of ancient times who penned the Bible, and wrote it under the Divine direction. “ The wricked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.” (Is. 9 : 17.) “Upon the wicked he shall reign snares ; fire and brimstone and an horrible tempest; this shall be the portion of their cup.” (Ps. 11 : 6.) “The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites; who among us shall dwell with devouring fire; who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings.” (Is. 33 : 14.) “ Thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness, neither shall evil dwell with thee ; the foolish shall not stand in thy sight; thou hatest all w r orkers of iniquity.” (Ps. 5 : 4, 5.) And modern preachers can do no better than to adopt the same decisive lan¬ guage in portraying the character of God. 163 Shall the minister attempt to draw men to obedience merely by the presentation of God’s love ? Then why did not the Saviour ? Why did not John in the wilderness who heralded his coming ? If the dispensation which he was ushering in was to be merely one of love , why did he not so proclaim it ? Instead of this he says, “ Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner ; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” (Matt. 3 : 12.) And Christ says, himself, “I am come to send fire on the earth.” Luke 12 : 49. / Moreover if love is to]be the only motive, why did the Saviour himself set forth the punishment of the ungodly in such awful representations ? Why exhaust the capacities of language and imagery in pic¬ turing its dreadfulness—“the lake of fire,” the “gnawing of their tongues for pain,” the “gnashing of teeth,” the cry for one drop of water to assuage torment, and even this denied? Shall a weak and short sighted man undertake to improve on the preaching of the Son of God ? What is God himself now doing to lead sinful men to abandon their lives of ungodliness ? Is he merely drawing them b} r the cords of love; merely proclaiming his goodness and mercy and loving kindness ; merely trying to soften their hard hearts by the presentation of his infinite love in Redemption ? Then why the earthquake that buries whole cities; why the march of the pesti¬ lence ; why the tornado with its utter and awful visitation ? What means the Almighty by these and similar dealings with men? What side of his character is he portraying? What impressions is he trying to leave on the minds of men respecting himself? What motives is he appealing to? If not to the motive of fear, then what motive is it ? And if he is stirring men to fear him, why should not his ministering servant do the same ? Most certainly the motive of God’s final judgment upon the ungodly can never be left out of preaching without doing an irre¬ parable injury to the cause of truth, and endangering the salvation of sinful men. If men could as well be saved without presenting the terrors of perdition ; if the}" could be drawn to repentance by the presentation of Christ’s tenderness and love merety, then Christ himself would have adopted that method of preaching, for his pitiful nature certainly shrunk as much from unnecessarily wounding human sensibilities as any one of ours does. But he evidently deemed the opposite method essential , and everywhere in his preaching makes the appeal to / ear fully as prominent as the appeal to affection ; and his ministering servant can do no better than to copy his example. When, therefore, he who insists on presenting the love of God in Christ as the great motive to obedience, insists also in 164 leaving out of his preaching the terrors of God’s warth, let him understand that he does not know enough respecting tlie necessi¬ ties and exigencies of the endless universe thus to tamper in his pulpit ministrations with the Word of God, and keep back a part, and soften down its threatenings, and assume practically that he knows better than the Almighty what kind of preaching to give men. What right has he to undertake to improve on the preaching of the Saviour ? A due loyalty to his solemn commis¬ sion demands that he “ declare to men the whole counsel of God.” (Acts 20 : 27.) If, therefore, he is to preach with clearness and impressive¬ ness the great truth that “ he that believeth on the Son hath ever¬ lasting life,” so is he to preach with equal clearness and earnest¬ ness that “he that believeth not the Son shall not see life ; but the wrath of God abideth on him” (John 3: 36.) As a test question, let every preacher of the word ask himself this: Would the views I entertain of the atonement and of the future of the wicked lead me to say, with Paul, “ I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears?” (Acts 20: 31.) Or does the earnestness of my conduct correspond with the direction of the Apostle—“Others save with tear pulling them out of the fire.” (Jude 23.) Verily, this is no time for the ministry to the faint-hearted; but rather a time for utter fearlessness in proclaiming the whole truth of God respecting wicked men. A fact has been already stated, that a deacon in a prominent Congregational Church in one of our large western cities, made this remark in the hearing of the writer, that “the doctrine of endless punishment was in¬ trinsically absurd.” Some eminent preachers have been giving the strongest utterances for years in the same direction. Pres¬ ident Northup, in a sermon recently read before the Congrega¬ tional Club in Minneapolis, the title of which was “ A silent Rev¬ olution,” sums up what he regards as the present attitude of the churches in relation to the doctrine of Endless Punishment, in these words—“From all this it appears that the church has made a general movement in the direction of modified Universal- ism.” Also this—“ And so—there is a general consent that cer¬ tain doctrines, once held to be true, and of vital importance, are to be regarded as so no longer.” The fact is that the great underlying principles of' God’s moral administration as developed in the bible, are being lost sight of by multitudes of professedly Christian men. Starting with their own preconceived opinions or philosophical specula¬ tions of what is just and right and proper and necessary in the moral government of God, they compel the Bible to fall in with them, instead of starting with the Bible, and making their belief 165 conform to its plain teachings. In this way the declarations of God’s Word are made to suit their o wn wishes or prejudices, even though to do this requires it to be toned down, softened, distorted and even explained away, and made no longer a plain book for the guidance of plain, uneducated men. Especially the threatenings of Future and Endless Punishment are set aside as being only the teachings of superstition and delusion ; and all the while “ the great day of his wrath is coming on, and who shall be able to to stand.” (Rev. 6 : 17.) Now, therefore, the trumpet of the Law and the Gospel—for¬ giveness for the penitent, and endless perdition for the finally sin¬ ful, should be heard in clear and earnest tones whether men will re¬ ceive it or not. The evangelical pulpit should give no uncertain sound upon these fundamental matters of God’s law and govern¬ ment—penalty and pardon, salvation and damnation. They con¬ cern eternal interests. They have to do with men going to the grave and the judgment, to Heaven or to Hell. They have to do with the character of God, with the sanctity of his law, with the honor of the Saviour, and with all the vital interests of his eternal kingdom. And these things should be set in order before men, and they should be made to see the folly, inconsistency and peril of sub¬ verting any one of the great principles of God’s administration— that to disturb a single pillar of it, is to shake the entire edifice, to destroy its harmony and consistency, and to render it impos¬ sible for it to be any longer the perfect work of God. They should be made to see the massive pillars of it—Law and Penalty, Reward and Pardon, all towering together in such majestic pro¬ portions of greatness, grandeur, and harmony , as to be manifestly “ a kingdom which cannot be moved” But the minister should also be moved with pity for the per¬ ishing, so as to be able to speak to dying men with tenderness and compassion as well as faithfulness, even as did the Saviour. If men are going to perdition they should be told of it in so many words, yet in kindness as well as plainness. If the anger of God is burning against them for their sins—if “judgment is only now lingering and damnation slumbering,” they should be roused from their stupidity and insensibility by appeals which they cannot misunderstand, yet at the same time spoken with solemnity and affection. That was a terrible declaration of God to the prophet Ezekiel, and was meant for every one of his watchmen—“ When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his w r ay, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity ; but his blood will I require at thine hand.” (Ezekiel 33 : 8.) CHAPTER V. The Redeemed Church. Sec. 1 . The Relations of the Church to the Angels of Heaven. Here it will be necessary to notice that remarkable passage in Eph. 3: 10, already quoted in other connections, but which is especially applicable here—“ To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places, might be known by the Church the manifold wisdom of God.” This passage is worthy of special notice. The particular points are—That the Plan of Redemption, in its exhibition of the “manifold wisdom of God,” is represented as sustaining vital re¬ lations to the unsinning hosts of heaven. “ The principalities and powers in heavenly places”—the angels and archangels, and all the ranks of holy intelligences that surround the throne of God— are the ones immediately affected by it. Then again, that the moral splendors of the divine character are finding their most vivid illustration, even to the angels of heaven, through the redeemed Church. It is not made merely through the sufferings and death of Jesus Christ himself, but by means of the penitent and pardoned ones who have been rescued by him—through them it is that God is exhibiting his “ manifold wisdom.” Now, what God is doing he always intended to do; and so it comes out that not sinful beings merely, but loyal races were or¬ iginally comprehended in this divine plan; that it was made as truly for them as for us, and that they were destined from the beginning to share with us in its eternal benefits. Not, of course, in the same way that we do, for they have not sinned as we have, and do not need forgiveness; neither do they need sanctification as we do, for they are already holy. The particular design of the atonement in its relations to them is not revealed, and what it is we are left to conjecture. We only know that through the Church, as a redeemed Church, God is manifesting his character and attributes to the angels ; so that while they are ministering spirits to us, we are the medium of Divine favor and blessing to them. And the most natural conjecture is that the wonderful ex¬ hibition of affection which God has made in our redemption and salvation, is the one indispensable motive and influence which has kept, and will forever keep, them loyal to God. * Enough now, apart from all conjecture, that in some way, and for some specific purpose, the great atonement by Jesus Christ, and through the medium of the redeemed Church, is reach¬ ing out in its workings far beyond this world, and laying hold on the hosts of heaven. And if on them, sinless as they are, then why not on all moral beings who may be hereafter created ? For, in the view we are taking, the great problem of eternity is, to have a moral universe forever expanding by the continued creation of moral beings—free moral agents, conscious of their freedom, and loving to exercise it—and still keep them from abusing that freedom, and to bind them in eternal loyalty to the Most High. Which leads to the consideration of the following section. Sec. 2. The relations of the Church to the Future Universe . Here another passage needs to be noticed w hich has been already quoted in previous connections—“ That in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.” (Eph. 2:7.) Also Rom. 9 : 23—“ And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy which he had afore prepared unto glory.” Notice here it is the same work of manifestation mentioned in the preceding section—the same process of revealing the wonders and glories of Redemption, and through the same in¬ strumentality—the Redeemed Church. It is his kindness “ toward us ” which is the leading matter of exhibition. Not merely now to the angels of heaven—the “principalities and powers in heavenly places,” but throughout the long ages of eternity, the same wonderful exhibition is to be made of what God has done in the work of our Redemption. And thus the Redeemed Church is to be held up forever to the universal gaze, and through it the infinite affection of the Godhead for this sin¬ ful world, is to have an eternal exhibition and unfolding. The church is thus to have a kind of mission to the endless universe * The following striking passage occurs in the work of Conybeare and Howson: “ This statement of the infinite extent of the results of Christ’s redemption, (which may well fill us with reverential awe,) has been a sore stumbling-block to many commentators, who have devised various (and some very ingenious) modes of explaining it away. Into these this is not the place to enter. It is sufficient to observe that St. Paul is still led to set forth the true greatness of Christ in opposition to the angelolatry of the Colossian heretics, intimating that far from Christ’s being one only of the angelic hierarchy, the heavenly hosts themselves stood in need of his atonement .” Conybeare and Howson, Yol. II., p. 386, note 5. 168 of being; and even as that same Church was a “ chosen genera¬ tion and a royal priesthood ” on earth, to “ show forth the praises” of Jehovah, so will it occupy the same eternal position. And now should the question be asked—What end or ob¬ ject is to be secured by such an endless manifestation, there is but one answer which appeals to meet all the circumstances of the case, and that is the one already given—To make such an appeal to affection in this infinite sacrifice of the Almighty, as shall be sufficient—in connection with the appeal to fear in the punishment of the ungodly—to bind the endless and ever expand¬ ing universe of moral beings in unchanging loyalty to him. As¬ suming this to be the real fact in respect to the future universe, and that the redeemed are thus standing at the dawning-time of these endless triumphs of Redemption, and that all the future races of moral beings multiplying endlessly, will owe their con¬ firmation in holiness to the influence through them of Christ’s atoning sacrifice, how significant becomes the expression in Rev. 14:4, which characterizes them as being “the first fruits unto God and the Lamb ”—the first in-gathering of the endless harvest. And so all beings in all ages must be ever gazing in rapt ad¬ miration at these monuments of the Divine Mercy—these rescued and sanctified ones whom God has chosen, redeemed and placed at his right hand as “ priests,” and through whom he is to exert that peculiar influence which is to bind the advancing universe in eternal loyalty to himself. As such they are indeed “a chosen generation, a royal priesthood,” to show forth forever the praises of the Most High. Moreover, they are kings as well as priests, and whose kingly authority will be ever recognized, even as in an earthly kingdom, the royal prerogatives are granted to the ministers of the crown; and they occupy, in a certain sense, the very place of the monarch himself. So kingly power is bestowed upon the redeemed Church, and it rules and reigns with God, and will be forever recognized as his vicegerent in the future management of universal affairs ; very likely to be commissioned on errands of love and mercy for¬ ever to all parts of God’s dominions—the plenipotentiaries of the great central administration. This point will be more fully ex¬ panded in the following section. * * Dr. Bellamy seems to have had some general view of the system similar to the one we have been unfolding when he says—“ How know we if God thinks it best to have a larger number of intelligencies to be¬ hold his glory and to be happy with him, but that, he judges it best not to bring them into existence till the present ‘grand drama’ shall be finished at the day of judgment? That they may, without sharing the hazard of the present confused state of things, reap the benefit of the whole through eternal ages; whilst angels and saints may be appointed their instructors to lead into the knowledge of all God’s ways to his creatures, and all their 169 Sec. 3. Employments of the redeemed hereafter. It is sometimes objected to the Bible representations of the employments of Heaven, that the soul is so constituted as to de¬ mand for its highest happiness an unending career of usefulness, and that the mere employment of praise fails fully to exercise its vast and varied powers. The Bible, however, by no means limits the occupations of the redeemed to this-. It does indeed represent this as their em¬ ployment in part; and it must necessarily be; for how could a soul redeemed through the blood of the Lamb, restrain its gush¬ ing emotions of affection for its God and Saviour from breaking out in rapturous expression. Every contemplation of what he was in character, and what he was exposed to in the w^ay of pun¬ ishment, compared with what he is as a forgiven sinner, and what he will be through eternity, must fire his soul with wonder, grati¬ tude and exultation; making the new song forever new ; swelling his bosom with irrepressible rapture and making him strike his golden harp in richer and still richer melody. But this is only one part of his occupation. There is nothing whatever in the Bible to militate against the supposition, that everything which is fitted to develop the powers of the mind and unfold before it the greatness and glory of the Almighty—every kind of research into the mysteries of nature which may be afforded in the almost infinite variety of the works of God—everything which tends to exalt and ennoble the sensibilities and draw 7 them out in delight¬ ful expression, will be thrown wide open to the experience and enjoyment of every redeemed soul. “For the Lamb that is in the midst of the throne shall feed them.” (Rev. 7:17.) Perhaps, however, those who have attempted, like Dick in his Philosophy of a Future State, to sketch the probable employ¬ ment of the soul hereafter, have not given sufficient prominence to that which is its peculiarly appropriate and delightful occupa¬ tion, and have confined it too much , in their speculations, to the contemplation of material things and the study of the natural sci¬ ences. Reasoning from analogy, we should suppose that the pecu¬ liar employment wffiich a renew T ed and sanctified soul as such most delighted in on earth, would be the employment in which it would most delight in Heaven, and w T ould be, therefore, the em¬ ployment which God vrould most probably give it. What is the peculiar work which above all others delights the ways to him, from the time of Satan’s revolt in heaven to the final con¬ summation of all things. And as the Jewish dispensation was introduc¬ tory and preparatory to the Christian, so this present universe may be introductory and preparatory to one after the day of judgment, almost infinitely larger.” 170 soul of the Christian an earth ? The answer unhesitatingly is,— Making known to others the wonderful dealings of God with him¬ self in the way of mercy and forgiveness, that he may lead others also to love and adore him. This is the scripture representation, for says the apostle in the passage already quoted. u Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people ; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light/’ (1 Pet. 2 : 9.) And furthermore, no conceivable employment more perfectly accords with Christian principle and character ; for benevolent action appears to be, tire necessary expression of the Christian life. The thing which above all others ministers to the happiness of one who has been renewed by the Spirit of God, is to follow in the footsteps of his Divine Master and “ do good ” And the par¬ ticular kind of good which most delights him, is that which has for its direct object the glory of the Redeemer ; and therefore, as has been said, the gushing emotions of his heart find no more natural or joyful expression, than when, by proclaiming to others what has been done for himself as a redeemed sinner, he can win them also to the love of his Saviour. The present theory proposes this as the grand employment of the redeemed hereafter and forever— making known to newly created beings the love and mercy of God as exhibited in their own salvation , and thus “ showing the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward them through Christ Jesus.” (Eph. 2 : 7.) Nor does this appear in any great degree improbable. It is by no means incredible that, in time to come, moral beings may be created, and be as liable to transgression as were Adam and the fallen angels; and if tney should be, that the redeemed from among men may be employed on a mission of love and mercy to* them, as the angels are and have been to the inhabitants of this world. Nor is it improbable, that beings thus situated could be very much influenced in their future conduct, by the representa¬ tions which might be made to them by redeemed souls, of the in¬ finite kindness and compassion of God, and even be led by r it, so to regard his character and so to admire this wonderful exhibition of his perfections, as to yield themselves to him in cheerful obe¬ dience, when otherwise they would not. At all events, the explicit declaration of the Bible is, that God is. in some w 7 ay, by means of the redeemed Church, to make an ex¬ hibition in the ages to come” of “ the exceeding riches of his graceand to whatever beings this exhibition is to be made, it is hardly conceivable that the very subjects of salvation should per¬ form no active part in such a manifestation ; especially w 7 hen such an employment vv r ould be to them so surpassingly delightful. It is hardly conceivable that God should merely array them before the 171 universe,, to be gazed at as the objects of his redeeming mercy, while they themselves remain silent. It seems far more natural that he should employ them directly in making known to others the wonderful love which God had shown to them, and send them abroad through his universe to proclaim his “ manifold wisdom” and the “exceeding riches of his grace” in their salvation. And so we conclude it, at least, possible, that this exalted employment may be ours hereafter, to go from world to world as they are successively peopled with moral beings, telling ever the story of redemption—proclaiming ever the love and mercy of Him, “ who hath redeemed us to God by his blood,” and singing ever the “new song,” “Worthy is the Lamb,” and all to lead them to the love and praise of the same adorable Redeemer. This view opens before us, in the future world, a career of usefulness, benevolence and blessedness so magnificent, that the Christian heart can ask for nothing more, for it can conceive of nothing more perfectly corresponding with the highest aspira¬ tions of its own sanctified nature. It discerns in this the employment that it most loves on earth, and would most desire to have prolonged through eternity. And it may be thus prolonged, for there may be an eternity of creation as well as of time, and as space is unbounded, so may the work of creation be without end. And what a result! What glory would accrue to the Blessed Redeemer and to us who are to share in his exaltation, to behold worlds on worlds forever coming into existence, and successively peopled with intelligent beings, and the happiness of all depending on the love and mercy of God as exhibited in our redemption. The spontaneous expression of the Christian heart in the con¬ templation of such a result seems to be, not, “ is it not improba¬ ble, ” but u may I believe it p>ossible ?” And the answer is, nei¬ ther reason nor revelation contain anything which militates against such a supposition. Is it objected, that this gives the redeemed too prominent and important a position in the divine administration ? No more so, it is replied, than the Bible gives them. The Bible makes them “ chosen of God and precious ,” and chosen too for the noblest of all conceivable employments— that of “ showing forth the praises of him who hath called them out of darkness into his marvelous light /” andthe present supposition only gives them in Heaven and through eternity, the same delightful em¬ ployment which God has given them on earth. Sec. 4. The Church a partaker of the Divine Nature. A very wonderful statement respecting the Church is found in 2 Pet. 1:4, “ That ye might be partakers of the Divine Nature .” 172 What is implied in this? Answer : That the Church is a partaker of the internal character, relations and experience of the Godhead; that is, its internal character of benevolence , its internal relations of affection , and its internal experience of blessedness. 1. Of character. “ God is love ;” that is, he is a being whose character is that of perfect and universal benevolence—the out¬ going of whose infinite heart is ever in the direction of securing to the highest extent possible, the holiness and happiness of his en¬ tire moral creation. Before conversion, a man is ready to sacrifice the welfare and happiness of the Almighty, and of the entire universe to his own personal inclinations. In conversion this state of character is reversed, and he comes to have the same moral character as God in its fundamental element. He becomes truly a benevolent man, ready to sacrifice every thing to the glory of God, and the welfare of men, and thus becomes a partaker of the Divine Nature in its internal Character ; as says the Apostle in Heb. 12: 10—“ Partakers of his holiness .” 2. Of Affection. Affection grows out of personal relations. The father loves his children, and the children love the parent on account of the personal relations which they sustain to each other. So there is among the different persons of the Godhead a similar kind of domestic affection. The Father loves the Son, and the Son the Father—“ For thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.” (John 17: 24.) Now sometimes an earthly parent adopts a child, and comes in time to have the same affection for him as for his own children. And the adopted child comes to love the parent and the other members of the family, and they him, just as if he were a natural child. So the Church has been adopted into the family of the Godhead ; “ That we might receive the adoption of sons” (Gal. 4 : 5.), and is loved by them with the same affection which they have for each other ; “ And has loved them as thou hast loved me.” (John 17:23.) And thus the Church becomes a partaker of the Divine Nature, in its internal relations of affection. 3. Of Blessedness. The prayer of the Saviour was “ That they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves,” (John 17 : 13.) Not a part of it, but have his joy fulfilled —the full measure of his blessedness. What was that “joy” that in full view of the garden and the cross could yet fill him with such heavenly exaltation, and even exultation? Several elements entered into it, but mainly that of having finished his work , and finished it satisfac¬ torily. “ I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do (John 17:4.) So also he had said before this at the well of Samaria, “My meat is to do the will of him that sent me and to finish his work.” (John 4:34.) And at this point the Church enters into the very blessedness of the Redeemer, and becomes a “partaker of the Divine Nature.” Hear Paul in his contemplated 173 visit to Jerusalem, going straight into anticipated bonds, impris¬ onment and death—hear the language of his calm and trusting heart—“But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy.” (Acts 21: 24.) And his exultation finds a still grander expression in 2 Tim. 4: 7, 8—“I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith.” O how surpassingly wonder¬ ful is the joy of the Christian as he draws near the end of his course, and looks back upon a life consecrated to the Master in obedience, love and service. Nor let him imagine that the memory of his failings and im¬ perfections and short-comings is to come in then to darken and sadden the experience of the dying hour. No matter what he has left undone, the great, grand fact yet remains that he has accepted the Lord Jesus Christ, and believed in him as his own Redeemer. Said the Saviour— u This is the work of God that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.' 1 ' 1 (John 6 : 29.) “This the work”—For this God made him, and put him into this world, pre¬ eminently that he might do this greatest and grandest work of all —believing on the Lord Jesus Christ; and he has done it. And now the remembrance of that fact will sweep through his soul with unutterable joy in spite of all his short comings. Even the very perception of his unworthiness will only endear the Savior to him all the more, and open to still deeper depths the fountain of his blessedness. And so in the perception—in the felt con¬ sciousness of having thus finished the great work God gave him to do—that of having accepted of Christas his Saviour, and be¬ lieved in him, he becomes a partaker of the Divine Nature in its internal experience of Blessedness. But there was another element in the Saviour’s blessedness, which is thus brought out in Heb. 12 : 2, “ Who for the joy set before him endured the cross, &c.” There was not only a joy in the retrospect, at having finished his work, but an overpowering joy at what was yet before him—the anticipated results of his life, sufferings and death. Says Isaiah—“ He shall see of the tra¬ vail of his soul and shall be satisfied” (53 : 11.) That is he shall see such magnificent results flowing from his life and work and death, as shall even “ satisfy ” the Redeemer for all his mighty sufferings. This was “ the joy set before him.” A similar joy is set before the Christian. Says Paul, in his anticipation of future glory—“ Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteous¬ ness which the Lord the righteous Judge shall give me at that day, and not to me only but unto all them also that love his ap¬ pearing,” (2 Tim. 4: 8.) And so all the redeemed church will have a similar experi¬ ence. They are “a crown of glory in the hand of the Lord, and a royal diadem in the hand of God ;” (Is. 62: 3.) and God hinr- 174 self esteems nothing so precious as “ The riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints.” (Eph. 1: 18.) Here we get a glimpse of what the Apostle saw in the heav¬ enly vision which God gave him of the final exaltation of the re¬ deemed, and which comes out in that overpowering utterance of his—“ A far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory .” Verily “ eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.” (1 Cor. 2: 9.) To the consideration of this we now come. Sec. 5. The Final Exaltation of the Redeemed Church. In describing the future glory and exaltation of the Redeemed Church, the scriptures exhaust the capacities of language. 1. The Church is to be the eternal companion of Christ. “Father I will that they also whom thou hast given me be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me ; (John 17: 24.) and they “follow the Lamb whiterso- ever he goethC (Rev. 14: 4.) 2. The different members of the Trinity bestow the same degree of affection upon the Church that they do upon each other. “ And hast loved them as thou hast loved me.” (John 17 : 23.) “As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you.” (John 15:9.) 3. They are Priests unto God. “ They shall be priests of God and of Christ.” (Rev. 20 : 6.) The priest was one who stood between God and the people—the Divine representative—the dis¬ penser of spiritual blessings—the medium of communication be¬ tween him and them. So, in the general view we are taking, the Church will be the High Priest of the universe ; the medium of communication between God and the future races of moral beings, and the channel through which will flow the mightiest blessings which God himself can confer upon them—even those peculiar motives and influences which are to bind them to God and holi¬ ness and blessedness forever more. Moreover, so exalted is their position in this regard, that they are called a “royal priesthood,” invested with kingly prerogatives, so as to become “kings and priests unto God.” As says the Apostle in Rev. 1: 5,6—“Unto him that loved us and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father.” 4. They are “heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ” and both are “glorified together .” (Rom. 8: 17.) This characteristic is repeatedly mentioned. “ Wherefore thou art no more a serv¬ ant but a son ; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.” (Gal. 4 : 7.) Also “ heirs of the kingdom ;” “heirs together of the grace of life.” Whatever, therefore, Christ inherits of all the treas- 175 ures of the universe, by virtue of his relations to the Father, the redeemed are also to inherit. Being “ joint heirs with him,” they inherit the universe together with him. “ He that overcometh shall inherit all things.' 1 ' 1 (Rev. 21: 7.) 5. The church is to be the owner and proprietor with God of the entire universe. “ All things are yours whether things present or thmgs to come ; all are yours; And ye are Christ’s and Christ is God’s.” (1 Cor. 3: 21-23.) 6. The Church is to occupy the throne of the universe with the Godhead, and to hold a veritable position of authority over the entire creation of God.” To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne , even as I also overcame and am set down with my Father in his throne.” (Rev. 3: 21.) Neither is it to be a mere temporary arrangement, but an eternal position of rule and authority, “And there shall be no night there ; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun ; for the Lord God giveth them light, and they shall reign for ever and every (Rev. 22: 5.) 7. The Church is to have all the greatness and grandeur and glory of the Godhead itself put upon it—even the infinite glory of the Almighty. For says the Saviour in his last prayer— “The glory which thou gavest me, I have given them.” (John 17 : 22.) Now what glory did God put upon his Son? Answer : “|He raised him from the dead and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places Far above all principality, and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named not only in this world, but also in that which is to come ; And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the Church.” (Eph. 1: 20-22.) Now r the point is that all the glory which God has given Christ, and which is brought out in the preceding statement, Christ has given the Church —even the glory of the Infinite One. How truly is the glory of the Redeemed Church “that far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory ?” 8. The Church is to be a habitation “ of the Almighty in which he will dwell.” “ Ye arebuilded together for a habitation of God.” “ Ye are the temple of the living God ; as God hath said, ‘ I will dwell in them and walk in them’.” (2 Cor. 6 : 16.) This un¬ doubtedly is strong figurative language, but is evidently designed to indicate the most intimate and eternal indwelling and compan¬ ionship. 9. The Church is declared to be “ the fulness of him that filleth all in all.” (Eph. 1: 23.) This is a very remarkable expression, and one difficult to be explained. Notice here first—That the infinite perfections of the Godhead are fully asserted—“ He filleth all in all; ” and now how can the church be the fidness of the Infinite Jehovah? For 176 the passage reads as if, without the church, there w r as a want of completeness and fulness—as if the church came in to complete or fill up a something in which the Godhead was lacking without it; and as though the fulness or completeness of God was only reached through and by means of the redeemed church. * This is a wonderful statement, and how it can be made to appear reasonable is not clear. An answer is attempted, or rather merely suggested in the light of the general plan of the universe herein developed. In the view already presented, the grand work of eternity is to be that of saving from apostasy the newly-created races of future ages and of future worlds. This work can only be accom¬ plished by the manifestation of the Divine perfections ; and par¬ ticularly that manifestation made in the redemption and salvation of sinners—that wonderful and overpowering exhibition of God’s infinite affection for the sinful of this world. Now how can such a manifestation be made? Obviously it is not possible to manifest affection for sinful beings until such beings have been created, and have been made the objects of affec¬ tion. So, in that sense, it is nothing derogatoiy to the Divine perfections to say that God is dependent, as it w r ere, on their ex¬ istence and redemption for such a manifestation—that the grand object he is aiming to secure cannot be reached w ithout them; so that they are thus essential to securing that object and cannot be dispensed with. Because the only manifestation which the infin¬ ite affection of God has ever had or ever will have, is through the medium of the redeemed church; for “ Christ dieth no more” “ He died unto sin once” and once only. Now the motive or influence derived from human redemption, in the view we are taking, is absolutely indispensable to keep the future races of the universe from apostasy ; and, therefore, God must have the redeemed church to be the medium of his mani¬ fested affection. Therefore, God intends to find in the church that “ fulness ” which is necessary for saving the future universe of moral beings. In this view he cannot save the endless universe without the instrumentality of the church ; and, therefore, is it spoken of as coming in to assist in this stupendous w 7 ork; and the “ fulness of God spoken of consists in the addition to himself of the agency and instrumentality of the redeemed church in this peculiar work. And so he calls it his “ fulness ” or completeness, as that without which, for the uses of the future universe in the line of salvation, he w 7 ould be, of himself alone, insufficient and in¬ complete. And so the church becomes the “fulness” or com¬ pleteness of him who yet “ filleth all in all.” * “ This is the highest honor of the church—that the Son of God re¬ gards himself as, in a certain sense, imperfect unless he is joined to us .” (Calvin’s commentary on Eph. 1:23.) 177 10. The redeemed are to be hereafter “ sons of God,” and to sustain to him the same nominal relation that Christ himself does. Christ is called the “Sonof God and of the redeemed it says— “ He that overcometh shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be my son." (Rev. 21 : 7.) 11. Another declaration seems to represent the Church as sustaining to the Godhead still more intimate relations. The redeemed are spoken of as having been adopted unto the Divine family, “That we might receive the adoption of sons,” (Gal. 4:5.) “ Having predestinated us into the adoption of children.” (Eph 1:5.) The representation here clearly is that the redeemed Church are to be members of the Divine family, somewhat as children are now not uncommonly adopted into our families, and as adopted children share in all the privileges and blessings of the other members of the family. 12. And there is still a representation in the prayer of the Saviour which seems to carry the intimacy of the relation a step farther. “ That they may be one even as \ye are one.” “ In them and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one." “ That they all may be one as thou Father art in me and I in thee, that they also may be one in us" (John 17:21-23.) There seems to be a something indicated in these passages in respect to the rela¬ tion of the redeemed Church to the Godhead, transcending the relation of children or heirs or adopted sons—a union with the Godhead itself in some strange and mysterious manner, which it may not be advisable or profitable to undertake either to explain or even characterize. In section 4, of this chapter, the expression “partakers of the Divine nature” was explained to mean—par takers of its internal character of benevolence , its internal rela¬ tions of affection , and its internal experience of blessedness. The expression may mean something beyond this—a union with the nature itself ; and that the Church is to sustain hereafter a rela¬ tion to the Godhead as mysterious and wonderful as the relation of the individual members of the Trinity to each other. On this point speculation is useless and unprofitable. At the same time, in studying the foregoing expressions, they seem almost as if designed to represent the Church as an additional personality in the Godhead itself ; and so entering into it, and being united to it, as to make it hereafter and forever a Fourfold Unity. 8 CHAPTER VI. Plan of the Universe. Says Dr. Edward Beecher, “ A complete system of the uni¬ verse, is a natural want of the mind.” In the progress of the discussion thus far, a possible, if not a probable Plan of the Universe has been developed,which it may be interesting to present at a single view. 1. That the Moral System is yet in its infancy—the Fallen Angels, the Human Race, and the Unfallen Angels being the only moral intelligencies as yet created. 2. That the only trouble with it is the innate tendency of all free mind to break away from the necessary restraints of Law and Government. 3. That at the commencement of the moral universe, there were not such motives in existence as would deter moral beings from gratifying this inclination, and from daring the experiment of transgression ; although amply sufficient to render them inf x- cusable in so doing. In other words, the firmness of God in the execution of pena ty, and his mercy in pardon, had received no such illustration as would either win them to obedience or deter them from rebellion; nor, at tbe commencement of the moral cre¬ ation, was such illustration possible. Herein do we find the ex¬ planation of the Origin of Sin, so far as any explanation is pos¬ sible. 4. That the punishment of the rebel angels, manifesting God’s determination to uphold the majesty of his law and the au¬ thority of his government, has laid securely one of the great foun dation stones of a successful moral administration ; while the cie ation and subsequent redemption of the human race, bringing out the crowning glory of the Divine Character—compassion for the sinful, has laid securely another one of the foundation stones of his moral administration; and that thus tfrese two experiments with sinning beings—the Fallen Angels and the Human Race; the one the experiment of freedom under an economy of Law, the other of freedom under an economy of Grace, furnishing, in their results, an iu finite appeal to fear on the one hand and affection on the other, are indispensable to the confirmation of all newly ere ated beings in holiness and happiness in all worlds forever. 5. That the great work of the universe, and which God has now in hand, is the development of a kind and amount of motive from these dealings with the sinful in the way of judgment and mercy, which will be sufficient, at length, in connection with the 179 workings of the Infinite Spirit, to restrain the tendency in newly- created beings to break away from the law and authority of God. Furthermore, to accomplish this, not merely for a single being, or a single world of beings, but for all the countless myriads who will eventually people the great empire of Jehovah. 6. That the experiment with this wicked world must go on till this amount of motive is secured; and that the accomplish¬ ment of this object will be the signal for winding up of human affairs. 7. That after the judgment of this world, this end will have been reached; and the dealings of God with rebel angels and im¬ penitent men, but above all his dealings with redeemed sinners, will, together, make such a fearful and impressive, as well as ten¬ der and melting display of God’s character,that no newly created being will think of withstanding it; and when he is made fully to apprehend what God has done, written out as the history of it will be upon the records of eternity, and the redeemed and the damned being living witnesses to the truth of it, all thought of rebellion will be forever banished from his mind. 8. That then, after the judgment, God will proceed with the work of creating moral beings through infinite duration, seeing that the certainty will then be secured of their remaining obedient, and therefore supremely blessed ; and so the universe will go on expanding in holiness and happiness forever. Such are the main features of the plan suggested upon which God is building the universe of mind, and which, it is believed, embraces within itself all the main facts and intimations both of reason and revelation. Shall it be accepted as th z probable plan of the Universe ? First —There is a great universal plan embracing in itself all the facts of Reason and Revelation. Now, Secondly —If any facts of Reason or Revelation cannot be comprehended in the plan herein developed, then it must be given up. But Thirdly —If all the facts both of Reason and Revelation can be comprehended in it, then is there this very strong and well-nigh conclusive reason for its acceptance. Fourthly —If any modification can be suggested making it harmonize better with existing facts, such modification is to be accepted. If any plan can be constructed better comprehending within itself all the facts both of reason and revelation, then such plan should be adopted, as being on that account the more probable. But until such plan or modification is suggested, or some new facts are discovered, let the foregoing be accepted as the probable Plan of the Universe. The End. I APPENDIX A. Hereditary Depravity. By Hereditary Depravity is meant that mankind become sinners on account of some kind of a connection with sinful Adam. It is proposed now to substitute in the place of this, as the occasion of sin in all moral beings, the love of conscious freedom, and a consequent disincliuation to submit to the neces¬ sary restraints of law and government. Some may object to this substitution on the ground that an acceptance of the doctrine of Hereditary Depravity is necessary to a belief in the “solidarity of the race.” But the solidarity of the race appears to depend merely on hereditary descent; and this may apparently exist without any transmission of depraved tendencies. To reject, therefore, the doctrine of hereditary de¬ pravity, is not necessarily to reject the solidarity of the race, nor to take a position distinctively Pelagian. Others again may object to this substitution on the ground that it sacrifices the doctrine of Federal Headship. This doc¬ trine has sometimes been held in such irrational and obnoxious forms that almost any possible substitution must be for the bet¬ ter. But it is not proposed to set this aside, but only to modify it. There is undoubtedly a great fundamental truth in the doc¬ trine of Federal Headship. Doubtless Adam stood, in some important sense as the head or representative of the race, per¬ haps on this wise—Adam having been placed in the best possible circumstances for securing salvation, the fact that he sinned showed that any other moral beings, at that stage of the uni¬ verse, would also sin. Human nature, therefore, in this view, had, as it were, a trial in him—the experiment with him demon¬ strating that moral beings, in this world, could not consistently be kept from sinning; and, therefore, that the only question respecting the human race was, as has been already stated, not how could the race be kept from siuning, but how be saved after they have sinned. Of course this is not the usual statement of the doctrine ; but still it involves the trial of the human race in Adam in a certain sense ; and just so far as it does, it involves the funda¬ mental principle of Federal Headship. The doctrine of Hereditary Depravity fails, in several re¬ spects, of being satisfactory. 181 1. History of the Doctrine. p The ancient doctrine, as taught by Augustine in the fifth cen¬ tury, was the result of mere human speculation. It was assumed that souls, like bodies, are propagated from parent to child.* Hence, that the whole human race were created when Adam was, the successive birth of the individuals being only the unfold¬ ing of the race ; so that we, of this generation, were created six thousand years before ’we were born. Hence that we, each one of us, ate, with him, the forbidden fruit in Eden; and so all the hu¬ man race, in the language of the catechism, “ sinned in him and fell with him in his first transgression.” “ Therefore,” Augustine says, “all sinned in Adam; the human race were in the loins of Adam.” Calvin held the same view. He says: “ We all sinned before we-were born.” This is the doctrine of the Assembly’s catechism, and which was finally crystallized in New England in that familiar couplet of the primer,— “ In Adam’s fall We sinned all.” This is the ancient and proper doctrine of “ original sin.”| This made two kinds of sin—one committed before we were born, and the other after. The first was called “ original,” the second “ actual.” The first made men sinners “ by nature,” the second “ by practice.” But the doctrine has been greatly modified by theologians subsequently; so that there have been as many as six statements of it among Calvinistic theologians which differ radically from each other. Pres. Edwards differs from Augustine and Calvin in that he rejects the propagation of souls entirely, but holds to a “divinely * Augustine, however, thought he found a scriptural warrant for this doctrine in Rom. 5:12—“ death passed upon all men for that all have sinned” ; the English translation “ for that,” being rendered in the Latin Vulgate by “in quo”— in idiom. The expression in the original Greek, however, admits of three different translations—in whom, for that, and unto which. Doddridge prefers the latter— unto which death all have sinned.” The doctrine of Traducianism, or the propagation of souls, has no scriptural foundation unless it be this translation of the Vulgate— in whom ; while two other translations ‘are equally true to the original. Turretin regards the propagation of souls as heresy. . f Out of this purely philosophical assumption grew the horrible dog¬ ma of infant damnation, and which, owing mainly to the authority of St. Augustine, w r as adopted by the entire mediaeval church; the logical process being that as every infant had committed the sin of eating the forbidden fruit in Eden, and as there had been no opportunity for repent¬ ance, of course, his perdition must be the only possible result. 182 constituted union between Adam and his posterity, by which his sin becomes theirs.” According to Augustine, we are guilty at birth because we ate the forbidden fruit. According to Edwards, because God determined that Adam’s sin should be ours. The Princeton Divines reject all co-existence with Adam, or any real guilt on account of his sin; but hold still that God regards and treats us as if we were guilty. Says Dr. Hodge: “ Adam’s act was regarded as our act; ” he being, in this view, a kind of representative of the human race, and related to us by a sort of “federal headship.” Here is another change. Edwards and Calvin both held that we were guilty of Adam’s sin, though in different ways ; but Princeton, only that we are treated as if we were. This theory is called Imputation; and which Stuart, with a kind of grim facetiousness, characterizes as “ fictitious guilt, but veritable damnation.” Many New England theologians have made another change, and teach, not that we are guilty of Adam’s sin in any sense; but only that we inherit from him a sinful disposition; (vide Wood’s Essay.) Others make another change, and say that the disposition is not really sinful , but only that we are depraved, corrupt, disor¬ dered at birth from our connection with Adam, and on this ac¬ count grow up to be sinful. This is at present the prevailing be¬ lief of the evangelical bodies; though now seldom advanced out¬ side of the theological lecture room. At this point, too, there is a difference ; some, like Stuart, holding that the stream of moral pollution, originating in Adam, has flowed to the human race through the mental channel; others like Pres. Appleton, that its channel has been through the phys¬ ical embodiment. Dr. Dwight says he is unable to explain it, and confesses he has seen “no explanation which did not leave the difficulties as great, and for aught I know as numerous as they were before.” Dr. Taylor narrows down the doctrine to this—“ I take onlv this general position as that, and that only which the Scriptures authorize—that the sinfulness of mankind is in consequence of Adam’s sin.” Dr. Edward Beecher sweeps even this away, and declares that “ the doctrine that our depraved natures, or our sinful con duct, have been caused or occasioned by the sin of Adam, is not asserted in any part of the Word of God.” Also he declares that “ all attempts to explain the connection between the sin of Adam and the ruin of his posterity, have been so unsatisfactory, as to create a violent presumption that the idea is, in itself, incapable of vindication or defence.” And Pres. Fairchild, in the Advance of Sept. 16, 1869, makes this very significant statement:—“ The 183 doctrine of the Fall, in its relation to human depravity, is confess¬ edly an open question .” And perhaps among all our modern theologians, there is not a more conservative man or a more close and careful thinker than Pres. Fairchild. Such are the views of some of the leading Calvinistic theolo¬ gians. Let us notice the position of a few of the more distin¬ guished of the Arminian divines. Says Arminius, “ All those will be saved who have not them¬ selves committed actual transgressions;” thus utterly rejecting the doctrine that infants would be lost. Wesley, in the early part of his life, had embraced the Augus- tinian theology; for he says—“By the sin of tbe first Adam—we all became children of wrath.” Again, “We were all born with a sinful, devilish nature.” But in subsequent years he appears to have entirely changed his theological position; for he says in his later writings—“ Nothing is sin, strictly speaking, but a voluntary transgression of a known law of God.” Notice here the word known; plainly implying that there was no sin, nor the possibility of it, until the age of intelligent respon¬ sibility was reached. Evidently, in his estimation, it was not necessarily heresy for a man to change his theological opinions on this point. It may not be heresy to advance a step further. Says Watson —“Little children, until actual sin, remain heirs of eternal glory”— remain thus; that is thev are heirs of glory from the mere fact of their creation by God, and remain so till actual sin. Says Dr. Adam Clark —“Christ loves little children, be¬ cause he loves simplicity and innocence .” Says Limborch—“ Infants have a certain inclination to sin which they derive, not from Adam, but from their next immedi¬ ate parents.” In this view he would apparently make the de¬ pravity of men to run back to Adam for its prime origin, while he would still reject the theory of Augustine that the entire race existed in Adam. Fletcher probably phrases the prevalent belief correctly when he says : “ As Adam brought a general condemnation, and a universal seed of death upon all, so Christ brings upon them a general justification and a universal seed of life.” To this we add, that if these results of God’s visitation upon men for the sin of Adam, as Fletcher represents them, are not to be regarded as a calamity , there can be no objection to the above statement; but, according to the general belief, they are. Stuart’s view, as he distinctly states it—and which is only im¬ plied in the above quotation from Fletcher—is that the connec¬ tion with Adam is a calamity; and that the atonement of Christ 184 comes in as a “ Compensation ,” to make up for these previously inflicted evils and calamities—this “ general condemnation.” But if so, then God was under obligation to provide the atone¬ ment; and how then is it a purely gracious dispensation—a dorea en kariti , as the Apostle .terms it, and which God was under no obligation to men to bestow. 2. Scripture Argument. The way sin was proved by the old divines to have de¬ scended from Adam was by making the death spoken of in Romans Y. include death spiritual as Avell as temporal. The refutation of this exegesis by Dr. Beecher in his Con¬ flict of Ages, is exhaustive and unanswerable. He shows that this interpretation is not found in the early fathers; was not given to the passage till the fourth century; was never adopted by the Greek church at all; and moreover is entirely at variance with the design and scope of the argument. But, if the doctrine of sin derived from Adam is not taught in Romans Y. then it is not a doctrine of the Bible; for as Dr. Beecher says: “If these things [depravity and disorder at birth] are not asserted in this })assage to have been caused by the sin of Adam, then plainly they are not asserted to have been caused by it at all in any part of the Word of God; for there is no other passage of Scripture, in which it can even be pretended with any show of probability whatever that these things are asserted.” * * Although endorsing thus fully the reasoning of Dr. Beecher upon the connection of the human race with Adam, and feeling that he has done great service to the church in refuting the mischievous dogma of inherited depravity, we do not yet see sufficient reason to accept iiis hypothesis of Pre-existence. His argument may be briefly stated as follows: 1. Men are in a sinful, depraved or disordered condition at birth. 2. No beings can be responsible for it but God and ourselves. 3. “ The principles of honor and right” forbid us to ascribe it to God. Therefore, 4. The responsibility must come on us ; and how can this be unless through a forfeiture at birth by sin committed by us in a previous state of existence ? If the first of these positions be granted, we regard the reasoning as unanswerable; but this is made to rest solely on the authority of the past. He himself makes no attempt to sustain it except by numerous quota¬ tions from ancient and modern writers, and from confessions of faith; none of which prove moral disorder and birth, but are all, without ex¬ ception, mere philosophical assumptions in order to account for the cer¬ tainty and universality of human sinfulness. But if the hypothesis be accepted that the occasion of sin in men lies in the necessary nature of free agency, and is inseparable from it, then the certainty and universality of human sinfulness are accounted for without the assumption of depravity or even disorder at birth ; and the hypothesis of sin committed in a pre-existent state becomes unneces¬ sary. 185 2. Exegesis of Romans 5: 12-19. The only argument of any weight for making the death spoken of in this passage include spiritual as well as temporal death, is that it stands in contrast with the word life ; and as the latter evidently means spiritual and eternal life, therefore the former must mean spiritual and eternal death. Answer: This assumes that Paul, in comparing the respective works of Adam and of Christ, is intending to make a formal comparison —to run a careful and exact parallel between the two, so that what is said of the work of the one, shall find an exact counter¬ part in the work of the other. But this assumption is utterly without foundation. Now let a view be taken diametrically the opposite of this. Let it be assumed with equal, and even superior probability, that the mind of the Apostle, in its rapid and intense workings, dis¬ cerning a certain correspondence between the works of Adam and of Christ, so that one might properly be considered in some re¬ spects, a type ( tup os) of the other, is catching merely at those points of comparison in which the two illustrate each other more or less perfectly, with no thought of an exact correspondence—a rigid and formal comparison, and the entire argument falls to the ground. Certainly this is his manner of writing elsewhere. Wit¬ ness the corresponding passage in 1 Cor. 15 : 45-49—the only other passage in which Adam and Christ are compared. The first Adam was made “ a living soul,” the last Adam was “ a quickening spirit.” The first was “natural,” the last “ spiritual.” The first was “earthly,” the last “heavenly.” Those who are earthly are like Adam, those who are heaven¬ ly are like Christ. Now, to assume an exact correspondence here would be ab¬ surd. For example—Assume that the expression “ a living soul ” was intended precisely to correspond with “aquickening spirit,” and then undertake to ascertain the exact meaning of the one from the other, and the absurdity becomes apparent. No, in both passages, the Apostle is evidently catching only at points of re¬ semblance more or less obvious, and thus the word death in Rom. 5, need not be pressed to an exact fulness of meaning with the word life, and allows , at least, of limitation to temporal death. Verse 19, “ were made sinners .” This verse, as it stands in our translation, teaches Universal- ism out and out; for the unqualified statement is that as all “ were made sinners ” by Adam, so all shall be made righteous by Christ; and if “ were made ” really means what the words im- - 186 ply, that all men actually become sinners through Adam, then all men must actually become righteous through Christ, and Univer- salism is the logical result. Now the word translated “ were made ” occurs in the New Testament twe7ity one times. In all the other places where Paul uses it, it means to ordain or appoint as a ruler, conductor, over¬ seer, judge, elder or priest, but in no other one of them does it mean “ were made,” as here translated. And in neither of the other three places where it occurs, does it necessarily need the translation “ were made.” The exact meaning of the word is to put, place or lay down, that is, to put in a position; and the mean¬ ing of the statement in V. 19, which seems the most natural, is this—That as all are made subject to temporal death for Adam’s sin. aud are so far put in the position of sinners for his sake, so by the obedience of Christ, all are put in the position of the right¬ eous, so far as to receive with them the benefits of Christ’s re¬ demption—the offer of pardon, and the blessings of probation.* A condensed summary of the entire passage is as follows :— First—The Apostle says (v. 12) that by one man sin entered into the world, and death entered by it, and so death passed upon all men; that is, The condemning sentence of temporal death was passed upon the entire race for Adam’s sin. “ In Adam all die.” (1 Cor. 15:22.) “ By one man’s offence death reigned ” That is, the mortality which Adam incurred by sinning, was transmitted, by God’s arrangement, to the entire race. Secondly—He represents the work of Christ as equalling and even in some respects surpassing in its effects the results of Adam’s sin ; for example— V. 15. By one, death comes to all / by one, grace abounds to all. V. 16. “ The judgment ”—the condemning sentence of tem¬ poral death—follows “ one” offence; the “free gift” follows “ many.” y. 17. By one sinner, and he a mere man, death temporal reigns; much more by the Infinite Savior, the elect shall reign in life eternal. * The paraphrase of Knight on this passage is as follows—“ For as by one man’s (Adam’s) offence, the multitudes who have peopled this world, have been placed in the position of sinners by being handed over to death, so by the obedience of One, even Christ, shall the same multi¬ tudes be placed in the position of righteous persons, so far as to be raised from death:” limiting thus, as it would appear, the declared consequen¬ ces of Christ’s death, to the resurrection of all men from the dead. Perhaps the more extended view of Stuart is preferable. He pre¬ sents the consequences of Christ’s death to the entire race thus—“A state of renewed and peculiar probation, attended with many privileges and blessings, with the proffer of eternal life and glory procured for our guilty race by the Lord Jesus Christ.” This certainly is a fair and con¬ sistent interpretation, and meets all that the passage necessarily requires. 187 V. 18. By “one offence” (Greek) all come under a con¬ demning sentence of temporal death ; by “ one righteousness ” (Greek) all come under a provision for justification unto life. Y. 19. As therefore, by the disobedience of one, all are put in the position of “sinners” (by thus suffering temporal death for his sin) so by the obedience of One, all are put in the position of the “righteous,” (by the blessings they enjoy in common with them.) Y. 20. This verse should be especially noticed in its bear¬ ing on the doctrine of hereditary depravity. In v. 12, sin en¬ tered (eise It he) and death entered by it. Now v. 20, the law ( pareiselthen) entered in addition so that (as a consequence) the fall (paraptoma) “abounded”—filled up, extended, filled up the world; but grace met even this additional exigency, so that where even “sin abounded, grace superabounded.” [Note. If we are to believe that the fall extended beyond Adam—“ abounded ”—embraced the race, for the reason that his descendants were connected with him , then here in this 20th verse, if anywhere, we should expect that doctrine would be stated. But that verse says nothing about it, and only mentions as the occasion of this universal sinfulness, that the law came in —either natural or revealed or both—implying that men now become sinners just as Adam did, by an intelligent transgression of it; no allusion being made directly or indirectly to him as the occasion of this universal sinfulness.] Y. 21. That as sin hath reigned in or with death temporal ( e?i to thanato) meaning perhaps in connection with it —attended by it—and commensurate in extent with it, so might grace reign through righteousness unto life eternal. 3. Argument from Reason. But, it is asserted on the ground of reason, that human sin¬ fulness is derived from Adam. It appears , it is said, that the child inherits the depraved constitution of the parent, and there¬ fore, that depravity is thus handed down from parent to child, and hence must run back finally to a depraved ancestor for its origin. Answer: The child inherits from the parent four things ; not always, but generally: 1. Physical peculiarities, as of feature and complexion. 2. Mental peculiarities as of strength or weakness or apti¬ tude for particular studies. 3. Peculiarities of disposition; willful and headstrong- parents, generally having similarly constituted children. 4. Depraved tastes , also, like the appetite in the parent for intoxicating drink, or any other vicious indulgence. But the primary occasion of sin, as we have seen, lies back 188 of all these, in the constitutional nature of the moral being; and this occasion is only modified in its external manifestations by the parental connection; so that all we know with certainty re¬ specting this matter is, that parental peculiarities are apt to de¬ termine what particular form the sin of the child shall take; that is, no matter who or what the parents may be, the child will cer¬ tainly sin, and the sin be sure to take some form; but the pecu¬ liar' form is very apt to be determined by the mental and phys¬ ical habits of either or both parents; so that the form of sin, and ( not the sin itself\ is all that can rightly be charged to parental connection Adam and the angels both sinned without any intervention of a depraved ancestor ; and a child, with no parental connection, were the thing possible, or placed in any other possible circumstances at this stage of the creation than those in which he is placed, would undoubtedly do the same.* 4. The Hypothesis Useless, Unreasonable and Mischievous. The doctrine, therefore, that men sin from a connection with Adam, is taught neither by Reason nor Revelation, and is a mere hypothesis of human invention, to account for the certainty and universality of human sinfulness. And now regarding it as an hypothesis merely, it is both useless, unreasonable and mis¬ chievous. 1 It is useless. For the sole value of an hypothesis lies in its accounting for facts. Now we have three facts or instances of sin—the Angels, Adam and ourselves ; and the hypothesis accounts only for our sin, leaving the other two instances with no explanation whatever. And what is an hypothesis worth that explains only one-third of the facts ! 2. It is unreasonable. Much confusion has arisen in theo¬ logical discussion from not properly discriminating between * It will be obvious to the theological student that we have adopted, as a philosophical basis, the doctrine of Creationism, rather than that of' Traducianism; for although, as Prof. Shedd observes, “the doctrine of Traducianism is unquestionably more accordant with that of Original Siu, than that of Creationism,” still we are not able to see that, as a philosophical hypothesis, it explains and harmonizes as many of the facts of Reason and Revelation as that of Creationism. Indeed, as an hypothesis, it applies only to the human race: while that of Creationism* admits of application to this world, and to all worlds forever. Whether, however, the theory of Creationism or Traducianism be adopted makes no difference with the point in question. For suppose souls are propagated, the only necessary inference is that Adam begat a being like himself—a free, moral agent, and as such having in him the same occasion of sin that Adam himself had, and that the angels had: and that he sinned, not because derived from a depraved ancestor, but simply and solely because he was a moral being, and sinned for the same reason that Adam and the angels did. 189 human nature and human character. Men often say that human nature is bad when they only mean human character. Now, properly speaking, human nature is what God makes men to be by virtue of their creation. Human character is what men make themselves to be by their own acting. Human nature, God makes “ in his own image .” (James 3:9.) Human character, men make after another pattern ; as our Saviour said, “ Ye are of your father the Devil, and the lusts of your father, ye will do.” (John 8: 44.) Human nature therefore, or what men are at birth, is God¬ like ; human character , or what men make themselves after¬ wards, is devilish. (1.) Human nature. This is the nature God gives men. All men are made “after the similitude of God.” (James 3 : 9.) By this is meant that they have powers of thinking, feeling and acting—an intellect to know and understand God, sensibilities wherewith to love him, and a will to choose his service. This is God’s image in the soul. (2.) Human character. Some hold that men are born sin¬ ful —that they inherit a positively sinful nature. This is so absurd that nothing can be more so. For in that case a man cannot avoid being a sinner ; and, if he cannot avoid it, then he is not to blame for it; and if he is not to blame for it, then he is innocent; and we have the manifest absurdity of a sinful inno¬ cence, or an innocent sinfulness. With the same propriety might we speak of an honest thief, or a truthful liar. Also “ sin is the transgression of the law; ” and how can a being transgress law, when too immature and undeveloped even to know what law is ? Others, therefore, would not say that the infant was born sinful , but only that he inherits a depraved nature because he will certainly sin by and by. And such often speak of the in¬ fant in terms of reprobation ; calling him “ a little viper,” for example, only undeveloped as yet. This is wicked. It is tra¬ ducing God’s image. It was certain that Adam would eventually sin, but think of God as calling him a viper —a moral monster during his innocence because he would sin at some future time ! * * True, there is in every man a ground of certainty in his love of conscious freedom, that he will sin as soon as he reaches the point of in¬ telligent responsibility, and feels the restraints of law; but until he has felt those restraints and resisted them, there is no sin in him nor the possibility of sin. The infant, therefore, in character, is neither sinful nor holy—not holy because he lias obeyed no law, and not sinful because he has transgressed none. He is simply innocent, and as such is spoken of by our Saviour. “ Of such is the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt. 19 :14.) But as soon as he meets the restraint of law, he will refuse to submit to it. Every one does. As soon as he knows enough to sin, he will sin. 190 There is no reason for calling the infant depraved because he vrill sin, any more than there would have been for calling Adam depraved before his fall, because he would sin eventually. Such statements respecting the infant are unreasonable. There is no depravity in any being but such as results from responsible sinning; and no other sinful character is possible but such as results from an intelligent and willful ti ansgression of the law of God; and the idea of inherited sinfulness, or even inherited de¬ pravity, as the expression is generally understood, violates our necessary ideas of moral and responsible action.* 3. It is mischievous. First —It traces our sin to an arrangement of God ap¬ parently designed to secure it, and confuses all our ideas of his holiness and uprightness. Indeed the very idea that God should, by any of these arrangements, of which he is the sole and re¬ sponsible author, accumulate obstacles in the way of submission to himself, is monstrous, and would convict him of being a worse tempter to human sinfulness than the Adversary himself. For the Devil did not create the laws of propagation, nor can Even his first truly moral act will ever be a sinful one. He will resist the Almighty at the very outset, and “ will not have him to reign over him.” And to this there are no exceptions in this world. “ All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” (Rom. 3 : 23.) And then this sinful act of rebellion becomes afterwards a sinful state —becomes “ the carnal mind, enmity against God and not subject to his law;” (Rom. 8:7.) and while this state continues, nothing that he can do will be acceptable to him. The moral character of every act will be determined, in God’s estimation, by the ruling, and rebellious principle of his heart. From the time he commences sinning, until repentance and conversion take place, he is “ totally depraved, ” or, as that expression has been caricatured to mean, as bad as he can be, which is not true, it may be better to call him entirely sinful. His heart is “ full of evil,” (Ecc. 9:3), and not until conversion does he do one right and holy act. He is not perhaps as bad as he can be, for while his heart is “ full of evil ”—full of ingratitude to God and forgetfulness of him, it might be full of profanity and blasphemy; and that would make him a worse man than if he were merely ungrateful and disobedient. * In this view the phraseology of Prof. Shedd in the caption of the article “ sin a nature and that nature guilt,” seems not the best. Nor does the passage referred to (Eph. 2 :3) appear necessarily to sustain it; since the expression en phusei may be properly rendered adverbially, making the entire passage read thus: “ And were naturally (that is, in our natural, unconverted state) children of wrath, &c.,” without mean¬ ing at all to imply that the nature itself was sinful. Properly speaking nature is never sinful, but only character, principle, choice; and a better statement would be—sin an intelligent act, and that act a “ transgres¬ sion of the law,” (I John 3 :4.) The scripture statement cannot be im¬ proved. 191 he mold the essential elements of character. As we are born into this world, so God made us to be born; and for all that is in us at birth , he alone is responsible. Secondly —It impugns the benevolence of God. The very first question of theology is, “ who made you ?” “ Answer, “ God ” And he made me as I am, so that everything in me at birth is his work , even all the consequences of parental sinful¬ ness. This he claims. “ I visit the iniquities of the parents upon .he children.” Therefore for all that is in us at birth, God alone is responsible ; and if depravity be inherited, then is he its responsible author; and how could such an arrangement be reconciled with infinite and perfect benevolence ? Every Chris¬ tian shrinks from saying that Gjd is the responsible author of depravity. Thirdly —It hinders the Spirit’s work of conviction of sin. If men under conviction of sin are taught that they are born with a depravity, or tendency to sin, or hindrances in themselves to right living and acting of which God is the responsible author, the very next thought is that they are not entirely to blame for their sinful conduct. They must be, to some extent, excusable. And the writer has known lamentable instances where conviction of sin has been thus stifled. Is it said in reply that powerful re¬ vivals of religion have occured under such preaching ? Granted, but only in spite of it, and through the influence of other bible truth which the Spirit could use. Revivals have increased in number and in power since such doctrines have been omitted in preaching. Fourthly —It embarrasses the doctrine of the true humanity of Christ. The scriptures teach that Christ was “ made in all things ” like us ; and if we inherit depravity at birth, then he did ; and we never say that Christ inherited depravity . Fifthly —It has a calamitous bearing upon the doctrine of future punishment. It is believed that the wave of Universalism that is now sweeping over the Orthodox Churches, and threaten¬ ing to overwhelm the entire system of evangelical faith, is due, to a very great extent, to the general belief in this doctrine of hereditary depravity. To hold and teach in the first place that God has connected the hum in race with a depraved ancestor, and that this connection is the occasion of human sinfulness—even more that by virtue of this connection he has poured one stream of moral pollution down through the entire race, so that on account of it everv member of the human family is born depraved; and then, in the very next breath, that he damns men eternally for being sinners —(and this is precisely the shape in which the doctrine lies in the minds of vast members of professing Christians, even, as it is believed in the minds of a very large majority)—is so manifestly inconsistent 192 with the dictates of benevolence and common-sense, that men have come to feel quite generally that either the doctrine of Hereditary depravity, or the doctrine of Endless Punishment must be given up; and they have begun, all over the land, to give up the latter, and to conclude that the doctrine of Endless Punishment is u intrinsically absurd The explanation of the theologians that this hereditary con¬ nection does not, after all, destroy human freedom and responsi¬ bility, and therefore, that men are still in spite of it, free and responsible, will not be apprehended by the common uneducated mind. Notwithstanding such abstract explanations, the general couviction will still be, that, in such circumstances, endless pun¬ ishment is unjust, unreasonable, and inconsistent with the divine benevolence. And it is believed, that the main reason why the members of our Orthodox Churches, are, to so great an extent rejecting the doctrine of endless punishment, is their belief in this doctrine of hereditary depravity. But to reject this is not only to set aside the plain teachings of the bible but to subvert the very foundations of the Orthodox faith—taking away all necessity for an infinite Savior’s vicarious atonement, and driving men headlong into the rankest Unita- rianism and Universalism. 5. The Real Consequences of Adam’s Sin to the Race. 1. Temporal death. Adam having sinned, an immortality on earth for him was not desirable ; and hence the sentence of temporal, death on him. Then, as the race would be a sinful one in any possible cir¬ cumstances, God determined so to connect them with Adam, that he should beget only mortal descendants like himself—so that their mortality should be the result of this connection ; and thus, all men died in him ; immortality on earth for them , as a sinful race, being as calamitous an arrangement as for Adam ; therefore the statement, “ As in Adam all die ; ” (1 Cor. 15 : 22) that is, mortality is inherited from mortal Adam. 2. Physical labor and toil. “ In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread.” (Gen. 3:19.) And all know that the necessity for continuous labor is one of the greatest blessings to a world of sinne?'s. 3. Physical evils of various kinds, pain, suffering, disease nd wretchedness, coming on men, not merely on account of Adam’s sin, but the sins of their immediate parentage, and com¬ ing thus mainly perhaps, to make men fear sin from seeing its terrible consequences in those they most love. 4. Weakened intellects. Stronger intellects in those who will sin , might only result in greater sinners. 5. A tendency to indulgence in the same forms of sin of which the parent is guilty. The child will sin any way, but the particular form which the sin shall take, may be determined, or at least modified by the sin of the parent. This is all that can be proved either from reason or revelation. And whatever this hereditary result may be, there is no reason for assuming it to be a calamity, for without this parental connection, it may be certain that the child would sin in some other and worse way— sin perhaps as the Devil did, from the impulses of his original constitution merely, and perhaps be thrown by it, as he was, beyond the possibility of repentance and pardon. APPENDIX B. I. Divine Limitations or what God Cannot Do. The impression is not uncommon that God, on account of his Omnipotence, can do anything and everything. The truth is that Omnipotence can do anything coming within the proper domain of Power; while there are many things that do not properly belong to the region of power at all, and cannot be reached by it. Some never think of this, and suppose for example, that God, on account of his Omnipotence, could make a moral system move on in harmony, holiness and happiness as easily as he could make the sun to rise in the heavens ; when, as a matter of fact, physical power, even though it be omnipotent, cannot touch the moral universe. Let us notice the Divine Limitations. 1 . “ God cannot lie.” Such is the declaration in Tit. 1 : 2. Also 2 Tim. 2 :13 reads “ He cannot deny himself ; ” the mean¬ ing in both passages being that he cannot act inconsistently with the perfections of his own character. Not but that he has the same physical power to falsify his word, and neglect the welfare of his kingdom that any other monarch has ; for without this he would not be a free moral agent; but First —There is no power lying back of him to compel to such a course of action. Secondly. —There is no motive whatever prompting to such a course. Thirdly. —All existing motives are prompting in an opposite direction. Fourthly. —There is an absolute certainty, therefore, that he never will thus falsify himself. In this sense “ God cannot lie ” —“ cannot deny himself,” nor act in any way inconsistently with the perfections of his own character. 2. God cannot act inconsistently with his own works. If he create a stone , he binds himself to treat it as a stone ever after. Having created a moral system , he binds himself to gov¬ ern it by laws corresponding with the nature he has given it. As has been already said, He cannot convert men with crow¬ bars, nor govern the solar system by the ten commandments. 3. He cannot make a moral being with any better elements in his original constitution than those he has given him. For such a one is made, as was Adam, “in his own image,” and there can be no better pattern. He gives him an intellect to know and understand; whose distinguishing glory and excellence is that by it he can know and understand God. 195 He gives him sensibilities to feel; whose peculiar excellence is that by them he can kindle with emotions of gratitude and love, and thus reciprocate the affection of the Almighty. He gives him a will to choose; by the voluntary and respon¬ sible action of which he acquires moral character; and whose loftiest qualification is, that he can choose God as his Father, Friend and everlasting Portion. And this understanding to know, sensibilities to feel, and will to choose, are what constitute God’s image in the soul. And so, in these fundamental elements of his nature, he is made “ in God’s image ; ” and there is no higher or better pattern ; and therefore no better kind of being can be made even by Omnipo¬ tence, than a moral being. 4. God can give him, as a moral and responsible being, no better Law than he has given him. That Law is comprehended in two main particulars—supreme love to God, and loving our neighbor as ourselves. And no better law is possible or con¬ ceivable. If obeyed perfectly it would make the entire moral universe as good and blessed every way as God himself could make it. 5. He can maintain the dignity and inviolability of that Law by no higher sanctions than those with which he has sus¬ tained it. When he promises an eternal residence with himself in glory as the reward of obedience, he can promise no higher reward ; and when he threatens eternal banishment from himself as the penalty for disobedience, he can threaten no greater pen¬ alty. So that the sanctions with which he sustains the dignity of his law are limitless, and cannot, in the nature of the case, be increased in effectiveness. 6. He could provide no better Savior, and no better plan of salvation for the sinful of this world, than he has provided. A Redeemer was needed who could “ magnify the Law and make it honorable,” even while the sinner was allowed to go free from the claims of justice ; and no one could do this but an Almighty Savior. God’s only and well-beloved Son was the only one who could make an adequate atonement for sin ; so that no other Savior was possible but he who became “ God manifest in the flesh.” 7. No stronger motive is possible to win moral beings to the love and service of God than the motive with which God is drawing them by this infinite sacrifice. It is an infinite appeal to affection, and nothing can transcend it in persuasive power. If this fails there is no effort that God can put forth that will have any greater power and influence in leading moral beings to lives of holy obedience. No higher or more influential motive is possible, even to bind the whole moral universe to himself. 8. There is no greater power or influence to render 196 motives efficacious than that which God exerts in the person of his Holy Spirit. It is God’s omnipotent Spirit working out the infinite unwillingness of God that men should perish—in its nature the mightiest, and in its exertion the mightiest, and nothing can transcend it. 9. God cannot do the sinner’s work of repentance and faith for him. It is a work which the sinner must do for himself, or it must remain forever undone. 10. God cannot prevent sin in a moral system. He may prevent sin by the non creation of the system, or he may arrest the spread of it by the annihilation of the system. But if the system is to be created and perpetuated, then the inclination of moral beings to have their own way, and to resist the necessary restraints of law and government, will, at least, at the commence¬ ment of the system, break over all the motives, influences and instrumentalities proper to be used against it, and result in actual sin and rebellion. Perhaps if there were but one moral being in each world, and he alone by himself, with no revelation of God to him, and no law imposed upon him, he might be kept from sinning ; and such an arrangement might be called a moral system, because composed of moral beings ; but it would be useless to God, and worthless in itself. Under the conditions of society , and made amenable to law and government, moral beings will sin, at least in the earlier stages of the moral universe, notwithstanding all that God can properly do to prevent it. In view of the foregoing, we see how utterly untenable, and even devoid of common-sense, is the position of those who as¬ sume that omnipotence has no limitations ; as if the Almighty, on account of his omnipotence, could shake a geometrical dem¬ onstration with an earthquake, or govern the solar system by the ten commandments. II. Limitations of Grace. Why cannot God accomplish more than he does for the removal of sin by the power of his Spirit, and even convert all men through the powerful provisions of Divine Grace ? He sways the minds of men oftentimes in a most wonderful manner by the influences of his Holy Spirit, moving whole communities at once, and so awakening attention to the salvation of the soul that the question with multitudes is—What must I do to be saved ? This shows the power and working of an Omnipotent Spirit. Why are not his influences exerted to a greater extent than they are ? The Atonement also is infinite in its provisions, and the resources of the Almighty in the line of gracious exer¬ tion, are beyond all our computation. Why may not these pro- 197 visions of Divine Grace, therefore, arrest the consequences of sin, and even avail for the restoration, at length, of all sinners to holiness ? Answer: Grace has its limitations. When God was about to abandon Israel, and destroy them for their perverseness, he says, “ What could have been done more to my vineyard that I have not done in it; ” where the plain declaration is that he had done all for them that could be done , and they brought forth the “ wild grapes ” still. Grace therefore, has its limitations. Whence do they arise ? Not from any willingness of God that men should be lost; for he declares that he is “not willing that any should perish.” (2 Pet. 3 : 9.) Not from any insufficiency in the Atonement; for Christ is declared to be “ the propitiation for the sins of the whole world;” (1 Jno. 2: 3);.and the declaration also is that “he tasted death for every man.” (Heb. 2 : 9.) Not from any want of cordiality in the invitations of the Gospel; for they are as full and free and hearty as God can make them—“ Ho every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters.” (Is 55 :1.) “ Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavv laden.” (Vfatt. 11: 28.) “The Spirit and the Bride say come.” (Rev. 22:17.) Not from any lack of efficiency in the Holy Spirit, for he is an omnipotent agent, and his influences are given to all men. “ He shall convict the world of sin.” (Jno. 16 : 8.) Moreover if all men would accept of the provisions already made, and yield to the influences already exerted, no interests would be jeopardized—“Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” (Eze. 18 : 23.) Where then do the limitations of Grace come in ? Here we must tread lightly, for God has not plainly revealed them. 1. Perhaps they may appertain to the nature and necessi¬ ties of God’s moral government over the universe. To illustrate—Ahasuerus is the governor of a hundred and twenty seven provinces. Twenty seven of these revolt upon an edict of the government. He sends letters and embassadors en¬ treating them to submit ; urging them not to persevere in their rebellion, and insisting on their allegiance. He even sends his own son to negotiate with them, and to offer a free pardon on condi¬ tion of repentance and obedience. But all refuse submission. Now suppose that by some mysterious power of his own he can draw them all to obedience. Suppose him also endowed with omniscience, and to see distinctly that, should he exert it to the full extent, and reduce them all in this way to submission, then, upon some future requisition of the government demanding a sac¬ rifice, there would result a wider spread and far more disastrous 198 rebellion on this very account—his subjects presuming on his goodness, and regarding disobedience as safe ; and assuming that, because on a former occasion the government was resisted, and no permanent evils followed, therefore, a like experience will again follow rebellion. Suppose him even to foresee that this unlimited exercise of his goodness and mercy would be perverted to the final rebellion of his entire empire. In these circumstances he must not restore all. Benevolence will not admit of it. But suppose him in his omniscience to foresee that a certain number can be thus restored without any such detriment to the general welfare ; then plainly benevolence will admit that such a number be thus restored ; and will also require, where all are equally undeserving, that he select such to be the subjects of his clemency, as in his wisdom, shall appear on the whole for the best. Now, for aught any man can prove to the contrary, this may illustrate the limitations of Divine Grace in the present system, and these limitations, therefore, may lie in the nature of moral government. 2. Or perhaps the limitation of grace is found in the fact that the peculiar influences of the Holy Spirit have an unavoid¬ able tendency to weaken Law. They are apparently brought in to supplement authority ; that is, when law with its sanctions has failed to produce obedience, it is an influence brought in still to secure that obedience. Now if a parent should lay a command upon his child, and when obedience was refused, should under¬ take in some way, to supplement his authority—-to secure obe¬ dience, say by the offer of a reward, he would lay the foundation of rebellion in his entire family—at least, such an act would have that tendency. And very possib.y, the influences of God’s Spirit, in their necessary relations to law and government, have a simi¬ lar tendency to weaken authority, and need therefore, to be used with the utmost carefulness, and, as we might say, sparingly ; and that an unlimited’exertion of them might be fraught with mischief to the entire universe. The truth may therefore be not only that God converts all whom he wisely can—which is certainlv true—but all whom he safely can ; and that to convert even one more soul than he does, in the way he is obliged to , would be, on the whole, injurious and mischievous—very likely, somewhere or somehow, in the progress of the universe, and when all his past dealings have become mat¬ ters of history, leading moral beings to presume upon his mercy, and to dare the experiment of rebellion when otherwise they would not. 3. The influences of the Holy Spirit are also limited appa¬ rently by the workings of Providence. The Spirit works through the truth—through means, motives and instrumentalities denom- 199 inated truth. His peculiar effort is apparently to render these efficacious; and perhaps the efficiency of his operation on the hearts of men, keeps exact pace with the development of provi¬ dential dealing. It is “when God’s judgments are in the earth that the inhabitants of the world learn righteousness (Is. 26 : 9.) while it is also true that without the Spirit’s work in connection with them, their only influence would be to harden. In the anti- diluvian period the Spirit strove with men almost to no purpose ; and but for the Deluge, the record of the world would very soon have been one of complete apostasy. But this wholesale exter¬ mination of mankind for sin was a warning voice against trifling with the commands of God, that could not fail to be understood. From that time the drowned world became “ an example to those that after should live ungodly (2 Peter 2: 5.) and from that time the Spirit had this solemn Divine testimony against sin wherewith to work in human hearts. Then, as time and distance were beginning to dull the im¬ pression of this warning, came the rain of fire and brimstone upon the cities of the Plain for their wickedness, and they also were “ set forth for an example.” (Jude 7.) The occasion of this remarkable providence God was pleased to reveal in person and in the most impressive manner, to his servant Abraham, the progenitor of his chosen people Israel, that, through him, the meaning of it, in its relations to sin, might be fully understood ; to be at length recorded in the volume of In¬ spiration, and so enter as a power into the mind of the world. What an overwhelming impression of the nature of sin must that awful morn have left upon the mind of the patriarch, when hast¬ ening to the place where the day before he had pleaded with God for guilty Sodom, and from which he had beheld the vast plain, dotted with cities, and glowing in beauty and verdure “like the garden of the Lord,” he now saw only the smoke thereof going up “ as the smoke of a furnace,” and all for human wicked¬ ness. And how often, during the seventy-five years of his after life, 'must the story of that fiery storm, together with the atten¬ dant circumstances of his interview with the Almighty, when ten righteous men would have prevented it, have been told over to his children and grand-children ; and, in those days when oral communication was almost the sole medium of information, been rehearsed also again and again to circles of eager and awe-struck listeners, accompanied by his own pious warnings and reflections, until it became wrought as a permanent tradition into the mind of succeeding nations, furnishing thus a mighty warning for the Spirit’s operat on. So the dealings of God with his people Israel in the way of judgment and mercy through a long series of years—their great deliverance from bondage, the overthrow of their Egyptian per- 200 secutors, and their forty years of wandering in the wilderness, culminating in the ruin of the temple, and the captivity of the nation for their sin, have entered into history as a potent warn¬ ing, which the Spirit of God is ever using ; for “ these things were our examples , to the intent we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted." Also, “All these things happened unto them for examples; and they are written for our admoni¬ tion. upon whom the ends of the world are come.” (1 Cor. 10 : 6, HO The point is, that the strivings of the Spirit may go so en¬ tirely hand in hand with Divine providence, that the former are, to a great extent, limited by the latter ; for the Spirit works through truth and motive; and only as motives are created by these Providences can the Spirit use them. At all events, as God’s providence works on, and motives multiply, the conver sion of men is manifestly keeping pace with them, and the world advancing to the glory of the millenium. 4. But doubtless the great limitation to the work of Divine Grace is found in the disinclination of the free will to submit to the necessary restraints of God’s law and government. It is well for those who have been accustomed to regard the operation of the Spirit as adequate to the production of all moral results, and human conversion and salvation a matter as easy of accomplishment by the Almighty as the creation of material things, to remember how entirely contrary to this are the repre¬ sentations of the Bible. That speaks of men as resisting God, and resisting him successfully. The Almighty Savior “ could not ” do the mighty works because of human “unbelief.” He was thwarted in his gracious designs towards Jerusalem, and “ would often have gathered her children together ” under his protection “ but they would not.” Stephen’s declaration was.—“Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost.” (Acts 7 : 51.) In Eph. 1:19, the conversion of men is likened to the “working of God’s mighty power which he wrought in Christ when he raised him from the dead.” The righteous even are' “ scarcely saved,” so that although subjects of God’s converting grace, they yet barely escape per¬ dition ; and although the omnipotent Spirit of God is working in them, it is still necessary for them to be ever, “ with fear and trembling, working out their own salvation.” Also nothing more astonishes a Christian than the internal consciousness of the desperate wickedness of his own heart, and the constant and painful effort required to make anything like suitable progress in the divine life. But whatever the limitations of grace may be, of one thing we are certain, that, so far as God is concerned, they are un¬ avoidable. It is ever to be held as a fixed and fundamental fact 201 that the entire heart of God is set on the salvation of all his creatures ; that he “ will have all men to be saved ; ” that Christ died for all; that the Spirit strives earnestly with all; and that no possible efforts in tne direction of salvation have been omit¬ ted. Furthermore, that ail might be saved if they would ; that God would be supremely delighted if, with the vast amount of effort he has made to save all men, all would repent and believe ; and that the economy of Divine Grace, as w T ell as that of Divine Providence, have been exhausted in the securing of human salvation, It appears therefore, that the position assumed by many that, because the provisions of the Atonement are infinite, they will certainly overpower, at length, both sin and its evils throughout the universe, and restore all moral beings to holi¬ ness and happiness, rests on no defensible foundation. III. Individual Salvation. . Why is one saved and another not ? For example—In a certain community, and perhaps in the same family, A repents, believes and is saved. B refuses to do either and is lost. Why the difference? Is it asserted as a reason, that God gives to A more of the influences of his Holy Spirit, or influences differing in kind from those B has? The assertion cannot be proved from anv source whatever. •j Is it said as a reason, that it was owing to some difference in the original constitution of each ? The assertion is incapable of proof. ' Is the reason said to be a difference in external circum¬ stances, or in Providential dealings ? There is no evidence of the truth of this What God does, if anything, 'more for thos^ who re¬ pent and believe, than for those who do not, as a reason v:hy they repent, we know not for he has not told us. He certainly does more for some than others. For example—He met Saul of Tarsus in his journey, and spoke to him in an audible voice from heaven, and thus arrested him, and he declared to Annanias that he was a “ chosen vessel ” unto him. He has other chosen ves¬ sels, and has his own way of leading them to repentance ; some¬ times, apparent^, by some striking providence, but generally by nothing special that we know of, except the truth that is preached to all alike. We know that God uses in the conversion of men truth, providence, and motives of all kinds, and also that they all would be powerless without the Spirit; but what that exact truth or influence or instrumentality is which the Spirit uses, and which determines salvation, we know not. “ We hear the sound thereof but cannot tell whence it cometh and whither it goeth.” (Jno. 3: 8.) 202 But now let the simple question be—Why does A repent? and to this there is a clear and satisfactory answer—Because God “ began the good work ” by what he did for him ; giving his Son to die for him ; sending the Spirit to strive in his heart; and exerting various influences of his Providence to lead him to repentance ; and he saw and felt that repentance was reasonable ; and his voluntarily yielding to and following these influences, was only the natural and reasonable exercise of his moral fac¬ ulties ; so that about A’s repentance and salvation there appears to be no particular mystery. He was urged to repent; he was free to repent; he knew he ought to repent; he did repent. But why does B not repent? To this no good answer can be given. Here all is mystery. Why B, for whose salvation God does all that was necessary, and all that he could consist¬ ently do, and even, for all that can be shown to the contrary, all that he does for the salvation of A, should still resist him and remain in impenitence, there is no satisfactory explanation, any more than why he should sin at all• and his persistent resist¬ ance of God, like all his other sin, is the height of folly and mad¬ ness. As the Scripture expresses it, “ Madness is in his heart.” (Ecc. 9 : 3.) He shows wisdom in consulting for his temporal good in a great variety of ways—laboring diligently, practicing self-denial, and seeking the help, favor and good opinion of his fellow-men; and why he should not consult as well for his spir¬ itual and eternal welfare by seeking the favor and friendship of God, no one can say. Indeed there is no reason for it. His course is eminently imreasonable—without reason, and his neglect of personal salvation, unnatural and monstrous, as well as an inexplicable mystery. We can only say, he dislikes hearty and affectionate submission to God, and so refuses to yield it. He prefers rather his own way, though he knows God’s way is the best; and therefore, determines to have his own Cay and dare the consequences.* To sum up what has been said, the questions men ask may be answered thus : “ To how great an extent does God exert the influences of his Holy Spirit in the salvation of sinners?” Certainly to the full extent that he 'wisely can, and perhaps that he safely can. “ Why does any one repent ? ” For the single reason that * Exception is sometimes taken to the expression in the Assembly’s Catechism which speaks of God as “ renewing the will.” Undoubtedly this phraseology perfectly accords with the doctrine of irresistible grace, but not whh an intelligent conception of moral freedom. A more truth¬ ful conception of the matter of conversion is that God never touches the will—is very careful not to, lest the freedom of the agent be impaired; that he affects only the antecedents of volition; and even these only in the most careful manner, so as to leave the moral being absolutely free. A •change, therefore, in the above phraseology seems desirable. 203 God “ begins the good work ” through his Truth, Providence and Spirit working within him and without him ; and were it not for this, he would never take a single step in the direction of penitence and salvation. “Why does any one not repent? ” For no conceivable rea¬ son, and his continued impenitence like all his other sin, is inex¬ plicable folly. “Why is any man saved?” For two reasons—First, on account of what God does for him through the workings of his truth, providence and Spirit; and Secondly, on account of what he does for himself, by repenting of his sins and believing in Christ, “ Why is any man lost ? ” Because notwithstanding all God has done for him, he will do nothing for himself. He will not he saved. “ Ye will not come to me that ye might have life.” * “Is there any possibility of all being saved?” If with what God has done for the salvation of all,—and he has con¬ fessedly done a vast deal—all, even Judas, would repent and believe, God would be supremely delighted, for he “ sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world but that the world through him might he saved,” and he even “tasted death for every man.” “ Why does he not exert the influences of his Grace to save men to a greater extent than he does, even to an unlimited ex¬ tent, so as to secure the holiness and happiness of all created beings?” Because, for some reason not revealed, he cannot. Somewhere or somehow there comes into the Divine administra¬ tion limitations of grace which must not be transcended; so that there is a point beyond which God cannot wisely use those in¬ fluences even for the salvation of those whom he loves with an infinite affection, and yearns over with an infinite pity. Foreknowledge, Foreordination and Election. Can there not be a statement of these doctrines which shall commend itself to all as being entirely scriptural ? The follow¬ ing is an effort in this direction : * Some, by a careless and unwarrantable use of language, say that God permits some to be lost. Whom does he permit to be lost ? There is not a sinner on earth for whose salvation he has not made an infinite sacrifice in the sufferings and death of his own Son; not one whom he has not followed tenderly and lovingly with every kind of providential dealing tending to his salvation; not one to whom he has not given the strivings of his infinite Spirit; thus showing his entire unwillingness that he should perish. To say, therefore, that God permits a man to be lost, is an utter perversion of language; because the word permit always implies a willingness respecting the thing permitted; and God is “ not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” (2 Pet. 3:9.) 204 1. Foreknowledge. In the scripture representation, Foreknowledge appears to come, in the order of nature, before the Electing Purpose— “Whom he did foreknow he also did predestinate” (Rom. 8:29.) What does God foreknow ? 1. All possibilities as when Christ says, “ If the mighty works which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.” (Matt. 11 : 23.) Such events are mere possibilities , not actualities ; there having been no determination in the Divine Mind that they shall take place. Therefore, in accordance with this— 2. He foreknows, as possible, that if he should create A a free moral agent, and deal with him as a free moral agent,—as a sinner provide for him an Atonement, bring his mind in contact with the Truth, work in him by his Holy Spirit, and surround him with all the varied and constant round of Providential deal¬ ings which he meets with in this world, he would repent, believe and be saved. Notice here, that we are contemplating the Divine Mind as regarding this only as a possibility, and not an actuality—some¬ thing not yet foreordained; no purpose of his that he will actual¬ ly create him and make these efforts with him, having 3 7 et been formed. In this view his foreknowledge is contemplating his future efforts for A’s salvation, and their certain results, as pos¬ sibilities and not actualities. But now, 3. He foreknows that, as a matter of fact, in the case of A, he will thus create, and thus deal with him, and that these efforts in his behalf, will, as a matter of fact , result in A’s repentance, faith and final salvation. He foreknows, therefore, that A will be saved. Thus much for the matter of foreknowledge. 2. Foreordination. 1. God does not foreordain that A shall repent, and shall believe and shall be saved, but 2. He does foreordain the mighty agencies and instrumen¬ talities that he will set in operation for A’s repentance, faith and salvation, and which he foreknows will be successful in accom¬ plishing the work. 3. By foreordaining, or predetermining to make these efforts in his behalf, knowing what the result will be, he, in this way , “ predestiuates him to be conformed to the image of his Son (Rom. 8 : 29) that is, he settles the certainty of this result. Also foreknowing what the result of “ calling” him would be, he also predetermined to “ call ” him ; and when he had heard and obeyed the call* and not till then, he “justified” him; and then completed the work in his final “ glorification.” 203 , 3. Election. The matter of Election is stated more fully than in any other single verse in the Bible, in 2 Tlies. 2 : 13—“God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the spirit and belief of the truth.” Here notice 1. To what A (elect) is chosen, namely, “ salvation” 2. That the electing purpose or determination of God, does not refer merely to the fact of A’s salvation, but to the fact also that he will use the Holy Spirit to accomplish it—He is “ chosen through sanctification of the Spirit.” The purpose is thus car¬ ried out into action, and the action gives the purpose all its effi¬ ciency for good. The mere purpose of God does not save ; but that which saves is the carrying out of the purpose in efficient effort to secure the salvation. And this efficient agency or effort is comprehended in the electing purpose. It is not a mere pur¬ pose to save, but to save in this particular way—“ through” his own personal agency in giving the sanctifying influences of his Holy Spirit”—or by means of this Divine Agency. God’s electing purpose, therefore, is that he will use the Holy Spirit for A’s salvation, knowing that the effort will be suc¬ cessful ; so that he is “ chosen through ” the sanctifying agency, effort and operation of the Divine Spirit. 3. That the salvation is actually accmoplished only by an additional agency—the man’s own “ belief of the truth .” And, in the Divine choice to salvation, this is as distinctly taken into the account, as is the bestowal of the Holy Spirit; and no pur¬ pose of God, and no agency of the Spirit, would be sufficient without this. He is “ chosen to salvation” as truly “ through^ his own “ belief of the truth,” as “ through ” sanctification of the Spirit ; that is—the mail’s own co-operating agency is just as truly essential to the result of salvation, as is the agency of God in the bestowment of his Holy Spirit, and is as distinctly taken into account in the Divine purpose of election. 4. Election Conditional and Unconditional. It will be noticed that in this passage 2 Thes. 2; 13, the final result of salvation is secured by two distinct agencies—The gift of the Spirit by God, and the faith exercised by man. Now, 1. So far as the election to salvation depends on the man’s exercise of faith, it is conditional election ; that is his salvation is conditional on this exercise of faith; for he could not be saved without it. 2. So far as election to salvation depends on the gift of the Spirit, it is unconditional j for God gives the Spirit as he will — when he will, how he will, and with what “ measure 1 he will. Election to salvation is, therefore, partly conditional and 206 partly unconditional—conditional so far as it depends on the man’s work ; unconditional so far as it depends on the Spirit’s work. But how about “ foresee faith and good works ?” Is there election to these ? Answer All good deeds which precede sal¬ vation, and on which salvation depends—all Christian graces, are “ the fruits of the Spirit,” (Gal. 5 : 22), and are the result of God’s efforts; and these efforts God puts forth of his own free will alone ; they are conditioned on nothing ; and his eternal purpose to put them forth is unconditional —“ Of his own will begat he us.” James 1 : 18). Election, therefore, to good works , and the purpose to make those efforts that will result in good works , is entirely unconditional. Some insist that election is election to salvation only. But in that case it would seem that the passage in John 6 : 37 should read : The father givetli me all that will come to me ; (which is most certainly true) but the declaration of the Savior is more than this. “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me,” as if the election of the Father was the reason of their coming to Christ— as if, therefore, they were elected to come to Christ , as well as to be saved. This reads like election to the faith in Christ as w T ell as to salvation. But now notice— How does God “ give” the elect to Christ ? How does he elect them to the faith in Christ ? Answer—By making those efforts with them by his Word, Providence and Spirit, which he foreknows will be successful in leading them to the exercise of faith ; and it is only in this sense that they are elected to the good works of repentance and faith. Notice again— Why do they come to Christ? Answer— Because of these efforts of God in their behalf; and were it not for these, no man would, of himself, ever take a single step in the direction of repentance and faith ; so that here also it appears that, in this sense only, they are elected to the good works of re¬ pentance and faith, as well as to the final result of salvation— God elects them to these good works, by making such efforts to lead them to do them, as he foreknows will be successful. The declaration, therefore, “Elect unto obedience?” (1 Pet. 1:2), means this—God’s eternal purpose to make efforts with a man by his Word, Providence and Spirit: foreknowing that they will result in this “obedience.” In the same way are to be inter preted other similar passages. “Chosen that we should be holy.” (Eph. 1 : 4 .) How chosen ? Answer—By an eternal purpose to make efforts to secure the holiness. “ Begins the good work.” (Phil. 1:6). IIr,w is the good work begun? Answer—By an eternal purpose to make efforts for it. Paul says—“ (Jailed me by his grace.” (Col. 1: 15). How was he called? By the eternal purpose of God, to meet him on the way to Damascus. “ Pre- 207 destinated to be conformed to tlie image of his son.” (Rom. 8:29). How predestinated ? By an eternal purpose to make efforts to have them thus “ conformed,” in full view of the actual result. But whatever influences or agencies may be exerted by the Almighty in the work of human conversion, the man’s own free, voluntary, co-operating agency is indispensable to securing the final result of salvation; and this is why he is called upon to “give diligence to make his own calling and election sure." (2 Pet, 1:10) On the whole then—How does God elect a man % Answer : By his eternal purpose to make those efforts for his conversion through his \v ord, Providence and Spirit which he foreknows will be successful; so that he is “ elect according 'to the fore¬ knowledge of God.” The following is sometimes heard—“The elect are whoso¬ ever will, and the non-elect are whosoever won’t.” 1. “ The elect are whosoever will.” This is true but omits the most important part. T Vhy does the man will ? Answer— Because of God’s mighty efforts to induce him to, and were it not for these, he never would take a single step in the direction of repentance. And so, about the conversion of A (elect) there is no real or apparent mystery. God urged him to repent. He was free to repent. He knew he ought to repent. He did re¬ pent. 2. “The non elect are whosoever won’t. This states cor¬ rectly the entire case respecting the non-elect; but for it there seems to be no conceivable explanation. The fact appears to be that God determines to follow them also with his Word, Prov¬ idence and Spirit, knowing still that they will resist all his kind efforts for their salvation and be lost; but why they should thus resist is a profound and iuexplicable mystery. 5. Definition of Election. God’s eternal purpose to introduce into this world of sin¬ ners a system of grace adequate to the salvation of all men, and which he foreknows will, in the case of certain individuals, be successful in leading them to repentance. These certain individ¬ uals are the elect. More concisely stated thus—God’s eternal purpose to make efforts for a man’s salvation, foreknowing that they will be successful. # V. Rep rotation. It has been taught that as some are elected to be saved, so all others are elected to be lost : and this election to Perdition was called Reprobation—a perfectly outrageous and unjustiha- 208 ble representation of the entire teachings of the Bible. For, to say that God chooses that any man should be lost, flatly con¬ tradicts the plain declaration, “ Not willing that any should per¬ ish, but that all should come to repentance.” (2 Pet. 3:9.) But, it is asked—If God foreknows that if he creates a moral system some will be lost, why is not his determination to create the system, in full view of this result, equivalent to choosing them to be damned ? Answer : 1. The only reason why God determines to create a moral system is for the sake of the holiness and happiness which will ultimately be secured by it. 2. In his purpose respecting a moral system, two distinct matters enter into it—First, that he will create a system of free moral agents, and Secondly, that he will throw on each individual the entire responsibility for the formation of his own character. 3. He purposes to use a vast amount of instrumentality to induce every man in this world to become righteous and be saved. Therefore : 4. The only reason why any man is lost is that he resists all of God’s efforts to save him; so that the foreknowledge of God respecting him is just this—He foreknows that the man will destroy himself, notwithstanding all that He himself can consistently do to prevent it. 6. On the whole, therefore, the case amounts to this—If benevolence demand the existence of a moral system, then moral beings must be created , whatever use they make of their free agency; and if God does the best he can to save them, and they resist him, the responsibility of their ruin rests not with him ; they alone are responsible for it, and assume the entire burden of their condemnation. And even as in the case of the Elect, the certainty of their salvation is not settled merely by the purpose, of God to create them and place them in this world, but by their own personal efforts in “ working out salvation with fear and trembling,” and thus rendering “their calling and election sure,” so the perdition of ungodly men, is not rendered certain merely by God’s creation of them as a part of the moral system, but by their own willful and wicked resistance to all of his mighty efforts for their salvation. Even it will finally appear that the sinner is not only the responsible author of his own perdition by his sin and impenitence, but that in his life on earth, he absolutely fought the Almighty at every step in his kind efforts to save him. He neglected the great salvation, trampled on his Savior, re¬ sisted the Holy Spirit, turned his back upon all. the warnings, invitations and efforts of his Maker to draw him and even drag him from his sinful course, and with devilish persistency fought his way through to perdition, and is, therefore, at every step, the responsible author of his own sin and ruin. 209 It is evident in this view that the doctrine which has some¬ times been taught, that God created men expecting and intend¬ ing that they shall be lost, when he might save them —choosing some to be lost; or the representation that God permits moral beings to perish eternally that he may illustrate thereby the per¬ fections of his own character, and thus promote his own glory in the eyes of his universe, is exceedingly repulsive, and contradicts his own plain declaration that he has no pleasure “ at all ” in the death of the wicked; which he certainly would have, were it on the whole for his glory. No, God created beings only to be saved—“ He sent his Son into the world that the world through him might be saved,” and is “ not willing that any should per¬ ish.” As Dr. Tyng once said in his pulpit in the hearing of the writer—“ The doctrine of Reprobation is not between the lids of the Bible.” 10 APPENDIX C. Bible Testimony. No candid examination of Bible teaching upon the doctrine of Endless Punishment is possible, except as a man heartily con¬ cedes in his own mind this is at least—“This doctrine may be true. I cannot prove that it is not. I do not know enough to assert that the foundations of au endless administration over an endless universe can be securely laid without it. It is not there¬ fore intrinsically unreasonable.” And it is believed that no one can have attentively read what has thus far been written, without reaching at least, this conviction. But it appears also, that the candid mind will see clearly that our argument has gone beyond this, and that, not only has it been shown that the unreasonableness of endless punishment can¬ not be demonstrated; but that there are principles of Moral Government universally recognized, which involve its entire reasonableness , not to say probability. And now with whatever degree of conviction the foregoing argument may have produced, we come reverently to consider the simple teachings of the Word of God. These are so plain and obvious that men of the strongest minds, who reject the doctrine, are yet compelled to admit that the Bible teaches it. Says Starr King—“ I freely say that I do not find the doc¬ trine of the ultimate salvation of all men, clearly stated in any text or in any discourse that has been reported from the lips of Christ.” Says Theodore Parker—“ To me it is quite clear that Jesus taught the doctrine of eternal damnation, if the Evangelists— the first three I mean—are to be treated as inspired. I can un¬ derstand his language in no other way,” A reference to the leading passages bearing upon the doc¬ trine in question, will show how well founded are the above con cessions. And here let the reader, without raising the question whether the passages about to be quoted do certainly prove the doctrine or not, come to the reading of them in some such way as this— Let him assume that the doctrine of Endless Punishment is probably true, and then see whether the general drift of these declarations is not just what he would expect them to be on such an assumption. Do they not at least lean very strongly in this direction? And then think—Would the Bible be likely even to lean towards an infinite falsehood ? 211 1. The Wicked Excluded from Heaven. Matt. 2: 20. Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. 7: 14. Straight is the gate and narrow is the way which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. 7 : 21. Not every one that saith unto me Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. 7 : 23. I never knew you ; depart from me ye that work iniquity. 18 : 3. Except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Mark 10:15. Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. 12 : 9. He that denieth me before men, shall be denied be¬ fore the angels of God. Luke 13 : 24. Strive to enter in at the straight gate; for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in and shall not be able. 13 : 27. Depart from me all ye workers of iniquity. 13: 28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out. John 3 : 3. Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 1 Cor. 1: 9. The unrighteous shall not inherit the king¬ dom of God. Be not deceived ; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind; 10, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortion¬ ers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. Gal. 5: 21. They which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Epli. 5:5. No whoremonger nor unclean person, nor covet¬ ous man who is an idolator, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Heb. 4 : 1. Let us therefore, fear lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. Rev. 21: 27. There shall in no wise enter into it anything that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie. Now if these passages do not imply an unqualified exclusion of the wicked from Heaven—such an exclusion as would be incon¬ sistent with their being ever admitted there, then the idea cannot be conveyed in human language. 212 2. The Wicked Sent to a Place of Punishment. Matt. 7 : 13. Wide is the gate and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat. 3 : 12 The children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness : there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.. 13 : 40. As therefore, the tares are gathered and burned in the fire ; so shall it be in the end of this world. 41. The Son of Man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity. 42. And shall cast them into a furnace of fire ; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 13: 49. So shall it be at the end of the world ; the angels shall come forth and sever the wicked from among the just. 50. And shall cast them into the furnace of fire; there shall be wail¬ ing and gnashing of teeth. 22: 13. Bind him hand and foot, and take him away,Tand cast him into outer darkness ; there shall be weeping and gnash¬ ing of teeth. 24: 50. The Lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of. 51. And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 25:30. And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness ; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 25:41. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me ye cursed into everlasting fire, prepared for the Devil and his angels. Luke 16:22. The rich man also died and was buried. 23. And in Hell he lifted up his eyes being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off and Lazarus in his bosom. 24. And he cried and said, “Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue ; for I am tormented in this flame. John 5: 28. All that are in the graves shall hear his voice. 29. And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resur¬ rection of damnation. Rom. 2: 5. But after thy hardness and impenitent heart, treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath, and revelation of the righteous judgment of God. 9: 22. What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction. Phil. 3: 19. Whose end is destruction. 2. Thes. 1:7,8. The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance 213 on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 : 12. That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. Heb. 10: 26. If we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of truth, there remainetli no more sacrifice for sins. 27. But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28. He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy, under two or three wit¬ nesses. 2 j. Of how much sorer punishment suppose ye he shall be thought worthy who hath trodden under foot the Son of God. 30. Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. 31. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. 12: 29. For our God is a consuming fire. 1 Pet. 4: 18. If the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner ajDpear % 2 Pet. 2: 4. God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of dark¬ ness to be reserved unto judgment. 2:9. The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptation, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished. 2 : 12. And shall utterly perish in their own corruption. 3 :7. The heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment, and perdition of ungodly men. Rev. 14: 9. If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead or in his hand, 10—The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation, and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone, in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb. 19: 20. And the beast was taken and with him the false prophet. * * * These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. 20 : 15. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life, was cast into the lake of fire. 21:8. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abomina¬ ble, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idol¬ aters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burn¬ etii with fire and brimstone ; which is the second death. 3. The Punishment of the Wicked Endless. Matt. 18:8. If thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off and cast them from thee ; it is better for thee to enter into 214 life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. (Mark.) Into the fire that never shall be quenched; where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 25 : 46. “ And these shall go away into everlasting (aionion) punishment; but the righteous into life eternal.” {aionion.) Now if the “life” of the righteous be endless, and the “punishment" of the wicked be not endless, then, in this verse, the same word, and in the same connection, is applied to things between which there is an infinite difference; an inconsistency and absurdity in the use of language which has no parallel in the weakest of human productions. 26 :24. “ It had been good for that man if he had not been born.” What is this but existence a curse ? This was spoken of Judas. But if Judas had, at length, an eternity of happiness, after no matter how much of finite suffering, his existence would have been an infinite blessing. Luke 3:17. Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thor¬ oughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his gar¬ ner ; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable. 16 : 26. “And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed ; so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us that would come from thence ” And, therefore, can never enter Heaven. John 3 : 36. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life ; and he that belie veth not the Son, shall not see life ; but the wrath of God abideth on him. 8:21. Ye shall die in your sins ; whither I go ye cannot come. 2 Thes. 1: 9. Who shall be punished with everlasting de¬ struction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power. 2 Pet. 2:17. These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved forever. Jude 6. “ The angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting ( aidiois) chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.” This word is used in only one other place, Rom. 1:20; and there in reference to the duration of God’s power—“ his eternal {aidiois) power and Godhead.” 7. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them—are set forth for an example suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. 13. Wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever. 14:11. “ And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for- 215 ever ; and they have no rest day nor night.” But annihilation is eternal rest. Rev. 20 : 10. “ The Devil that deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” (eis tons aionas ton aionon.) But in Rev. 5: 13, John heard , the whole animated creation saying—“Blessing and honor and glory and power be unto him that sitteth upon the throne and unto the Lamb forever and ever.” (eis tons aionas ton aionon) the expression in each being precisely the same, and used by the same writer. Now in view of such language, and used in such connec¬ tions, to assert that the punishment of the finally wicked is any less than endless, is to convict the Author of the Bible with un¬ warrantable and even wicked trifling; because common men, such as the Bible was manifestly written for, could get no idea of limited punishment from such declarations; for if they do not convey the idea of endless punishment, then it cannot be ex¬ pressed in the language in which the Bible was written. Now let any one compare the preceding quotations with the list of Bible references made out by Canon Farrar in the Excursus to his “Eternal Hope,” in his effort to sustain the doctrine of a Future Probation, and he will see how indefinite, how weak and how utterly inconclusive they are as compared with the foregoing. 4. Doctrine of the Old Testament. Many have the impression that the doctrine of Future Pun¬ ishment is not taught in the Old Testament. But note the following passages— Ps. 9:17. “The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.” The hell here spoken of must, mean more than the grave; for the grave is the common lot of both the righteous and the wicked; while this is a particular visitation upon the wicked; and what can it mean but punishment after death. Ps. 11:6. Upon the Avicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone and an horrible tempest; this shall be the portion of their cup. Is. 30:33. For Tophet is ordained of old; yea, for the king it is prepared; he hath made it deep and large: the pile thereof is fire and much wood; the breath of the Lord, like a stream of brimstone, doth kindle it. Is. 33:14. The sinners in Zion are afraid ; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites. Who among us shall dwell with devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings? 2 16 Daniel 12:2, “And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt;” the word translated everlasting , being, in the original Hebrew, the same m both members. Mai. 4:1. For behold the day cometh that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. Quotation from Richard Baxter. And now to the poor, thoughtless ones who are going into eternity with no proper preparation wherewith to meet it, comes the solemn address and warning of Richard Baxter: “ Men and Brethren: The Eternal God that made vou for a life everlasting, and hath redeemed you by his only Son, when you had lost it and'yourselves, being mindful of you in your sin and misery, hath indited the gospel, and sealed it by his Spirit, and commanded his ministers to preach it to the world, that par¬ don being freely offered you, and heaven being set before you, he might call you off from your fleshly pleasures, and from fol¬ lowing after this deceitful world, and acquaint you with the life you were created and redeemed for, before you are dead and past remedy. “ The Lord seeth how you forget him and your latter end, and how light you make of everlasting things, as men that un¬ derstand not what they have to do or suffer. He seeth how bold you are in sin, and how fearless of his threatenings, and how careless of your souls. He seeth the dreadful day at hand, when your sorrows will begin, and you must lament all this with fruit¬ less cries in torment and desperation, if true conversion now prevent it not. “ O sinners, that you but knew what you are doing, and whom you are all this while offending ! The sun itself is dark¬ ness before the glory of that Majesty which you daily abuse and carelessly provoke. O that you did but a little know what case that wretched soul is in that hath engaged the living God against him ! If God be against thee, all things are against thee. This world is but thy prison, for all thou so lovest it, and thou art but reserved in it to the day of wrath. The Judge is coming; thy soul is even now going. Yet a little Avhile, and thy friend shall say of thee, ‘ He is dead; 1 and then thou shalt see the things that now thou dost despise, and feel that which now thou wilt not believe. O poor soul ! there is nothing but a slender veil of flesh between thee and that amazing sight, which will quickly silence thee, and turn thy tone, and make thee of another mind. As soon as death hath drawn this curtain, thou shalt see that which 217 will quickly leave thee speechless. And how quickly will that day and that hour come ! When thou hast had a few more merry hours, and but a few more pleasant draughts, and a little more of the honors and riches and pleasures of the world, thy portion will be spent; and then of all thou soldest thy Saviour and salvation for, nothing will be left but the heavy reckoning. “ Once more, in the name of the God of heaven, I shall do the message to you which he hath commanded us, and leave it in these standing lines to convert or condemn you. Hearken, all you that mind not God, and have no heart for holy things! Heark¬ en, all you that by sinning in light have sinned yourselves into infidelity, and do not believe the word of God! He that hath an ear, let him hear the gracious yet dreadful call of God!” “Reader, I have done with thee when thou hast perused this book; but sin hath not yet done with thee, and Satan hath not yet done with thee, and God hath not yet done with thee. As ever thou hopest to see the face of Christ, the Judge, and of the majesty of the Father with peace and comfort, and to be received into glory, when thou art turned naked out of the world, I be¬ seech thee to hear and obey the call of God.. He that hath an ear, let him hear the call of God in this day of his salvation.” Such, with slight alterations, is the way in which this holy man of God addressed the men of his times. Nothing that I could hope to write would breathe such tenderness and solemnity and persuasive power as this; and therefore I have chosen rather to transcribe it, that it may speak in my stead. Now, fellow-sinner, in God’s name I send you this book to give you one more warning of that coming wrath, from which there is but one way of escape. It shows you that human proba¬ tion is a serious and tremendous matter; that God is greatlv in earnest in pressing the call to repentance, and that the most stu¬ pendous sin possible or conceivable is that of slighting the offers of salvation through Jesus Christ; and that if slighted to the last, there will be no way of escaping the dreadful, endless penalty. Hear, therefore, the warning voice of God: “Turn ye, turn ye, for why will ye die?” Hear also the despairing cry of his in¬ finite tenderness and benevolence, if you persevere in sin to the last: “How shall I give thee up? My heart is turned within me; my repentings are kindled together.” 218 Dr. Bushnel's Theory. * Dr. Bushnel's Theory in respect to the future of the universe, as developed in his “ Nature and the Supernatural,” is this :—He assumes that ‘ ‘ every attempt to establish a moral being in the law of liberty and spontaneous obedience, will be at first a failure; ” that the angels of heaven have sinned and been redeemed; and that “ there is some ante¬ cedent necessity, inherent in the conception of finite and begun exist¬ ences, that, in their training as powers, they should be passed through the double experience of evil and good, fall and redemption; ” (p. 182) thus making it impossible, as a matter of fact, to confirm a newly- created being in holiness without a previous experiment of sin. This commits the universe forever to the incursions of sin with the plan of Redemption so coming in as eventually to deliver the sinning ones from the guilt and power of transmission. But the assumption that sin is to contaminate all created beings in all worlds forever, is repulsive, and throws a dark shadow upon the future of the universe. We shrink from such a view, and have endeav¬ ored to escape it by an equally plausible and more satisfactory plan as we regard it, which is developed in the preceding pages. In the plan developed, the distinct points of difference are the following: 1. In the plan of Dr. Bushnel, sin will be forever invading the universe. In the foregoing plan the progress of sin will eventually be arrested by the increase of motives created by God’s dealings, in the way of judgment and mercy, with moral beings who have already sinned. 2. In the plan of Dr. Bushnel the Atonement is a provision to de¬ liver moral beings from the power of sin committed—the sin which all newly-created beings will commit hereafter and forever. In the fore¬ going plan, the influence of the Atonement comes in to prevent them from committing it. 3. Dr. Bushnel’s plan contemplates an experience for all newly- created beings hereafter and forever, similar in its main features to that gone through with by the forgiven sinners of this world, with all the accompanying guilt, remorse and conscious degradation, as well as the severe and painful discipline and suffering necessary to deliver the human soul from the power of its own sinfulness, and from which, after all, it is “ scarcely saved.” The present plan escapes all this, in that it represents sin as ex¬ cluded, by the increase of motives, from the experience of all beings who will be created after the winding up of this world’s history. * This should be read in connection with Dr. Bellamy, as expressed on p. 1G8. / ; ! ■ % ■ / ' ' ■ . . |f: ■ • / II . 1 • .