WORDS OF RECONCILIATION.

VOL. IV.]

AUGUST, 1888.

A PLEA FOR UNIVERSALISM.

[No. 8.

Our readers will be surprised, upon reading the following letter, to know that there are Presbyterian ministers in charge of churches who go much beyond anything we have taught in the direction of universalism. Here is a pastor who writes to us from the West in friendly criticism because we do not go to the extent of teaching that all men will be saved. We publish all of his communication for which we have room and subjoin a reply.

DEAR BROTHER: Your kind letter is received with the desired book. I thank you heartily for your kind allowance regarding the Magazine. I will try to pay for it as I can. My dear brother, I desire to write you not as a critic, but as a loving brother and co-worker in the same cause. As such allow me first to express my hearty agreement with the main purpose of your book and magazine. I admire them both; but I beg leave also to express my contrary opinions on some points for which you will kindly forbear with me.

I. I agree fully with you that resurrection is of redemptive character. This I conclude with you from the fact that it is always spoken of in the Bible as due to Christ's mediatorship. Whereas sin bringeth death, Christ bringeth life to the dead. He affirms that He came not to destroy but to save men's lives. Christ is resurrection and life, and he that believeth on Him, though he were dead, yet shall he live. John xi. 25.

II. I agree with you that death brings to the sinner immediate trial and suffering, such as is described by Christ; not after, but before resurrection. Your book brought me much light on this point. It proves the point well.

III. I agree with you that the election of some is for the purpose of saving the rest. They are the firstborn, that are ordained to go and bring forth fruit" John xv. 16. Election is a glorious doctrine in this light.

But now I beg leave to express my difference on the following points:

1st. I do not believe that a second death can defeat the glorious work of Christ.

It gives very little comfort to know that the first death can not ruin us, if a second death can. If the devil succeeds in robbing Christ of the fruit of His labor, He labored in vain, and the second death is either stronger than Christ or He did not intend to rescue from it. Why not then leave them who will fail the second time, to their first doom? Christ's victory over death and the devil must be complete, 1 Cor. xv. 55, 57. You evidently think it is better to give a half loaf than nothing, by saying Redemption is the fruit of Resurrection, but yet salvation is not universal. To throw the weight of the blame for this second failure on the creature, you have to introduce Arminianism (which you justly discard here) into the next world, by admitting that incorrigible sinners are the subjects of this death.

"He

Who are incorrigible sinners? Salvation is by grace, and "where sin abounds grace does much more abound." shall divide the spoil with the strong." If Christ's redemption does not also include deliverance from the second death, why does not the Scripture give more prominence to this death? But the Scripture does not say that Christ abolished the first death, but simply designating the strongest enemy with the comprehensive term death, it says, "the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death."

I do not pretend to solve the difficulty, for I believe there are many points regarding the mode and progress of redemption

which we are not yet able to look into. But this does not hinder us from knowing the promised outcome. What lies between the promise and its final accomplishment is often very dark and even forbidden to know (Acts i. 7.), because God will exercise our faith and humility and cheerful obedience.

We know that the world by sin is lost; we also know "that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world;" we, moreover, know that sinful man can not save himself, but that Christ came to seek and save that which is lost. The Good Shepherd will seek until he find.

John the Revelator, in chapter 20, is evidently not speaking of the final outcome but of the progressive accomplishment of the plan of redemption. But Paul was chosen to reveal the mystery (Eph. iii. 2-9) of the ages. He speaks plainly of the outcome in 1 Cor. xv. 22-28; Hebrews ii. 8; Phil. ii. 9-11; Eph. i. 20-23, and other places that could be cited.

God has a time for every thing and purpose under heaven. Eccles. ii. He will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. God worketh in man to will and to do his good pleasure. Christ is able to save to the uttermost all that come unto God by him. "And they shall be all taught (drawn) of God." John vi. 44, 45. I believe these statements to be true to their full extent; yet I do not believe that any will ever be saved or see God without holiness. Only the pure in heart shall see God; but that is just the purpose for which Jesus came: To save us from sin. This, you will admit, is not crude universalism."

When the world at first was finished, the verdict of God on beholding creation was: "Very good." The verdict on Christ's work of new creation will include also every thing made new, Rev. xxi. 2, and men will say: "He hath done all things well," Mark 7, 37.

2d. I do not believe, as you seem to imply, that the suffering in hell or hades, to whatever degree or duration it may be inflicted, is properly a curse. It is punishment with correction in view. Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law in that He was made a curse for us," Gal. iii. 13. By virtue of this re

demption Christ has brought all men into the relation to God of children. This is plain from Scripture, if we only distinguish between being actually God's children, and the being only counted so. "Until the time appointed by the Father there is no difference between a son and a servant." But God sent his Son to redeem them that were under the law and in bondage, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, by virtue of that redemption, God hath sent forth his Spirit into your hearts, crying Abba, Father," Gal. iv. 1-7. So Christ redeemed us before the world was made, but actually only after 4,000 years. So when we receive by faith the Spirit of adoption, we are made actually God's faithful children. Look at another proof, from John xi. 52. "The children of God" that were scattered abroad, were no others than the Gentiles, that, by Paul, are called the children of wrath, even as others," Eph. ii. 3. Jesus teaches and commandeth us, Math. vi. 9, and xxviii. 20; even all nations, to pray to God as Our Father." The Lord's Prayer is for all men. The universal fatherhood of God is already an Old Testament revelation, Mal. ii. 10; but the New makes it plain beyond doubt. "If the children of God forsake his law, He will visit their sins with the rod, and their iniquities with stripes, but his loving kindness he will not take away from him, nor suffer his faithfulness to fail," Ps. lxxxix. God has means to bring every prodigal home.

3d. I somewhat differ from you on the nature of death.

In my view death is a state of painful existence. It is a separation from blessed communion with God on account of sin. If that sin is forgiven and we are purged and healed from it, then perfect life is restored. Adam died the first day he sinned; though his body and soul yet lived. The prodigal son, when roaming from his father's house, was dead, and when again brought back, he was alive.

4th. It seems I differ from you regarding the nature and object of the Confession of Faith. I would not make an effort to amend or reconstruct the Confession, but rather displace it altogether as a binding rule of faith, or interpretation. You are right in complaining that the church has placed her ruling

Standards in the place of Christ. The Standards ought only to be means of knowing the mind of the church, and aids of interpretation like good commentaries. They have virtually no authority. A confession of faith can necessarily not be a rule of faith, because all men can err, as the Standards themselves admit. But an uncertain rule will not do. No one but an infallible Pope could make such a rule. Many divines can not make one without compromising. Will this make it true? I do not think so. When the church began to grow corrupt the binding confessions of faith began to be made. Ruling confessions are therefore a part of Popery. This is significant. We can not have a perfect confession of faith until we have a perfect understanding. But the Bible is the only perfect rule; let it suffice. Let the Standards serve as a means of creating, not compelling unity.

A Presbyterian Minister.

This letter is too long for us to attempt a detailed reply, but it falls in with one of the purposes of this magazine which is to afford the recalcitrant opinion in the Presbyterian church an opportunity to be heard, and to show the necessity for some change in its system. We are glad to know that there are many men in that church who are anxious to know the truth, and who seek it at first hands from the Word of God, even though their reaction from the rigors of that system drives them further toward restitutionism than we are prepared to go. This brother is evidently anxious to know and to follow the truth. We therefore ask him to consider in the way of reply:

1. That we agree as to the final outcome, that all things must be reconciled to God and that all God's enemies, the last of which is death, must be destroyed.

2. If we believed, as he appears to do, that man is inherently immortal, we would feel obliged to accept his con