H

SIDE ISSUES.

AVING considered the direct objections to the doctrine of Conditional Immortality, suggested by "Lex" in a former number, we proceed to the collateral questions, which are thought to require an answer before the main point can be regarded as settled. By referring to pp. 817-819, our readers will see that what these questions come to is -How and when is salvation attainable? Can it be obtained in this life by any, such as infants or heathen, who have not been brought by faith to the knowledge of God in Christ? Can it be obtained hereafter by those who fail to obtain it here?

Now first let us show, that however interesting and important such questions may be, they have absolutely no bearing whatever on the doctrine of Conditional Immortality. We urge against the orthodox that eternal life is the gift of God in Christ, and not the natural and inalienable possession of every human germ which reaches a certain stage of development. How can that position be affected by any question as to the when and how such a gift is actually bestowed? We urge against Universalists, that our Lord's words, "that he might give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him," absolutely bar the possibility of its being given to all,-unless "as many as thou hast given me can mean -as many human germs as reach the requisite stage of development. How can this position be affected by any question as to whether all those who have been given to Christ, and will live for ever, must necessarily be brought to the knowledge of Christ in this life? Or, again, our Lord describes certain persons, who will be found on the earth at his second coming under the image of tares, that are bound in bundles to be burnt. How can the question, whether that means that they will go on burning for ever, that they will be burnt into wheat, or that they will be put out of existence, be affected by the further question, what constitutes any one a tare, and so exposes him to this eternal torture, purification, or destruction as the case may be? What will become of these "children of the wicked one," cannot surely depend upon whether A or B will be included amongst them. Yet these various points are often mixed up together in the most singular confusion. Even in the very article on which we are commenting it is asked, "Why should Universalism be regarded as the only alternative, if the doctrine of eternal misery and that of annihilation be alike rejected?" For two reasons. First, because every one must ultimately be either saved or lost; secondly, because every one who is lost must either be kept alive for ever in sin and misery, or perish. The triangle has only three points; and no human ingenuity can invent a fourth. This seems so plain that one marvels how the question could be asked. But the mystery is explained by the confusion of ideas betrayed in the words which immediately follow. "I cannot but say to myself, Why should the notion of a further probation, under conditions differing from those that now obtain, be considered incredible ?" Why indeed? But what has that to do with the question? The probability at least of such a further probation is held both by some of those who believe the wages of sin to be death, and by some of those who believe it to be eternal misery: but they would all agree that, unless every one is sooner or later actually saved, some persons must

undergo one or other of those penalties; in other words that Universalism is the only alternative if eternal misery and destruction be alike rejected.

The same confusion appears in another passage, which, as it requires two distinct answers, we shall divide. "Do they hold that every man, who is not while on earth made a new creature in Christ Jesus, will at the day of judgment be sentenced to a more or less prolonged torment, terminating in utter destruction? or, do they suppose that the work of redeeming mercy not being limited to this world, men who have neglected or rejected the invitations of the Gospel in this life may in another and a future state have further opportunities of repentance and faith?" Why, some of them hold one of these opinions, and some the other. But they all agree-1st, That some will never be brought to repentance and faith either in this world or in the world to come; and 2nd, That those who are not will perish by the second death under circumstances more or less terrible, according to the extent of their guilt. How is the truth or falsity of these two propositions affected by the question, when any particular person's day of grace must necessarily cease? Are we to consider every doctrine as doubtful, the maintainers of which differ on some other doctrine closely connected with it? If so, no proposition in the world can be regarded as established, outside of the exact sciences.

But the writer adds," which opportunities, if improved, may secure them a happy existence, prolonged indefinitely, but not necessarily involving immortality ?" We certainly are not aware of any one holding this view. For what would it come to ? Why, that a sinner might be brought to repentance and faith, be saved by Christ, and enjoy for a long period the consciousness of God's favour, and yet perish everlastingly. To know God in Christ, we are told, ensures "eternal life," or, in other words, "necessarily involves immortality."

As an instance of the "miscellaneous hitting," which the confusion above mentioned leads to, we may quote a writer in the Contemporary Review for July, 1872, who pronounced the destructionist theory to be "hideous," and yet at the same time maintained that "it would become the Almighty to extinguish" irreclaimable offenders, "and not to continue them in an existence which would be a fruitless misery to themselves, and a contamination to all who came in contact with them." It is perfectly obvious from his whole argument that what he meant to call "hideous" was the idea that every one's final destiny is irrevocably fixed at the moment of death. Some destructionists, no doubt, hold this, as do some believers in eternal torment; but it is no necessary part of either view, and many persons on both sides of the question utterly repudiate it. So also a writer in the CHRISTIAN WORLD not long since spoke of the destructionist view as "that saddest theological speculation." Yet surely he does not agree with Mr. James Grant that it is sadder to think of an incorrigible evil-doer being put out of existence than to think of his being stereotyped for ever in a state of sin and misery-sadder to think of the universe being cleansed by the destruction of all who will not love God and his creatures than to think of its remaining polluted for ever. Whatever he did mean to call the "saddest theological speculation," I feel very confident that he did not mean to apply it to the doctrine of destruction in the last resort. And what I

66

am pleading for is that we should all endeavour to say exactly what we mean, and that when people describe some theory which they call "annihilation" (a thing, by the way, that no one on either side believes) as hideous," sad," "miserable," " dreary," and so forth, they should state exactly what is the doctrine which they so regard, and in comparison with what other doctrine they so regard it. At present we are often left in equal ignorance as to the particular object of the writer's aversion, and as to what he wishes to substitute for it. Does he recoil from the possibility of any human being who has been born alive ever perishing, or from the belief that all such will ultimately perish if they die without faith in Christ, or from any intermediate view? And what does he believe himself? That they will all be converted-certainly, or only probably? And if the latter, what does he think will become of those who are not?

It will be observed that we have here met these collateral questions on the broad platform of our common faith. They are beset by considerable difficulties, and to enter upon anything like a discussion of them would far surpass our present limits. We have only been endeavouring to "clear the ground," by showing that on no view of them whatever-whether they be answered affirmatively or negatively, or whether it be admitted that Scripture supplies no positive answer to them at all-do they throw any doubt on the plain simple truth of Conditional Immortality. But the writer of this article may perhaps be allowed, without committing any one else, to give the following brief statement of his own views from a letter which appeared some time ago in the Christian World:—

"1. The most clearly revealed, and incomparably the most important, fact in the future of the universe I hold to be the entire and everlasting cessation of evil-' God all in all.' The salvation of any number of individuals, human or otherwise, is absolutely insignificant by the side. of this grand ultimate fact. I would infinitely rather be assured of it than of my own personal immortality. 2. With scarcely less clearness does it appear to me to be revealed that this reconciliation of the universe will not be accomplished until after the destruction of those who persist in rejecting the counsel of God against themselves. In other words, I believe that God will be all (things) in all (persons)-not who have ever existed-but who then exist or shall thereafter exist. 3. I feel fully persuaded from the general tone of the New Testament, as well as from some of its positive declarations, that Divine grace may be sinned against in this life to such an extent that in those cases there remaineth no more possibility of repentance, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall (not purify, but) devour the adversaries. 4. On the other hand, with the plain declaration of St. Peter, which no ingenuity can get over, that the Gospel was, once at least, preached to the dead, I cannot but hope that in some cases it is so still. I confess to feeling very much staggered by the almost total absence of anything in the new Testament to confirm the inference from that isolated passage. But there the statement is; and the more closely it is examined the more impossible it seems to give it any other meaning. On the whole, I am inclined to think that it must have been intended to comfort believers by showing that the Gospel offer is not in every case necessarily

final; while the general silence of Scripture on any hope of salvation beyond the grave is a very solemn warning to unbelievers of their extreme peril. What things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law.' The Bible speaks to men, rather than of them."

SAMUEL MINTON.

0th

PROFESSOR HUXLEY IN AMERICA.

F the multitudes who heard the address of Professor Huxley before the Johns Hopkins University, and of the other multitudes who will read it, all will unite in admiring the clearness and simplicity of his statements, the depth and grasp of his investigations into physical and intellectual education, and the earnestness of his convictions on the whole subject before him. But there are some, at least, of this number who will be apt to think it was not alone for these merits that the address was remarkable.

It was remarkable for what he did not say-for what he left unsaid on an occasion and with a subject before him which called for other and further utterances, without which his speech resembles the tongue without language, eyes without light, ears without sound-in short, a body without a soul. The address was a skeleton of very artistic anatomy, but still only a skeleton, for it lacked the power, energy, warmth, and motion of real life. To borrow one of his own illustrations-he made a desert and called it peace, we may say of this address on the education of man, he makes a manikin and calls it a man.

It requires a bold man, even in this age of free inquiry, to define the true and wise education for man, embracing the whole arena of the school and the university, and yet to venture utterly to discard and ignore all training of his moral sentiments, of his responsibilities to a Supreme Being, of his religious nature, instincts, and convictions. Yet such is Professor Huxley's programme; such his curriculum of a full, complete university education, which he entitles "a fortress of the higher life of the nation"-a man without God; a ship on a stormy, rock-bound coast without a rudder; a drawn sword in the hand of a maniac. Experience and observation alike concur in the conclusion that without the purifying and restraining influence of the religious principle. all the universities in the earth can never truly educate one man.

Would the Professor have us ignore or suppress all sense of the being and attributes of God, and of our duties and responsibilities to him? If such a thing were possible, it would be most illogical and unwise, for even Voltaire said: "If there were no God, we should have to invent one."

Perhaps Professor Huxley's defenders would reply to such obvious criticism: "He was not expected or invited to give us any utterances on religion, as a topic; that the religious training of students must be the work of parents at home, or of the church and its teachers, and therefore was not within his horizon." If such be really his sentiments, why did he not say so, if no more, and that would have conveyed his homage to the necessity and value of such training, as a part of every man's true education; but this significant silence, the failure to say even so little, on an occasion which properly called for it, argues his

disbelief in the religious idea, and a disparagement of religious faith as a factor of any worth or power in education.

It is observable that in the address the word God does not appear. Twice he speaks of fate, once of fortune, and once of providence, glittering phrases that do not mean anything definite or descriptive of the Bible faith, but mere terms borrowed from the creed of paganism. Perhaps Mr. Huxley agrees with Pope :

"Know then thyself: presume not God to scan;

The proper study of mankind is man."

He, too, may consider it presumptuous to scan God, yet the patriarch Job, who as scientist and philosopher is not a whit behind our professor, taught a different and far more rational creed when he said: “ Acquaint thyself with God." And so too, the prophet Jeremiah delivers this oracle from the divine wisdom: "Thus saith the Lord, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might; let not the rich man glory in his riches, but let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the Lord, which exercise loving kindness, judgment and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I delight, saith the Lord." And the Great Teacher sent from God declares: "This is life eternal, to know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent."

It is easy to foresee the mischievous effect on the suspectible minds of young students of Professor Huxley's obvious distrust and indirect rejection of the religion of the Bible as an element of power and efficacy in the education of man. Other solecisms in what he claims to be the true wisdom could be easily pointed out, but the limits of a newspaper article forbid details. Of these we should not overlook the bold sophisms contained in such passages as these: Speaking of the school education, he says: "If an average boy of fifteen be able to read and write his own language with ease and accuracy, and with a sense of literary excellence derived from the study of our classic writers; with a general acquaintance with the history of his own country and with the great laws of social existence, supposing him to have acquired the rudiments of physical science, and a fair knowledge of elementary arithmetic and geometry, an acquaintance with logic rather by example than by precept, the elements of music and drawing, I venture to maintain the proposition that a young person educated thus far has a liberal, though perhaps not a full, education. It is liberal in breadth, it extends over the whole ground of things to be known and of faculties to be trained, and it gives equal importance to the two great sides of human activity, art and science."

What scope is afforded in this definition (as covering the whole ground of things to be known, and faculties to be trained) for the culture of ethics-the sense of right and wrong-of good and evil-to say nothing of religion?

Again he says: "So sure as it is that man lives not by bread, but by ideas, so sure is it that the future of the world lies in the hands of those who are able to carry the interpretation of nature a step farther than their predecessors-that another centenary will find our country grown to two hundred millions of English speaking people."