« AnteriorContinuar »
fairly admitted, a revision of the orthodox teaching upon this dread subject must soon follow.
3. We ask our readers to notice that Dr. Warfield here admits the truth of this principle. This quite compensates for the hard things he has to say against us. His language is, "Equally true are the two great principles on which he rests his argument: that the death-state is essentially penal, the very penalty threatened by God for sin; and that resurrection, as so far a reversal of this penalty, is essentially a benefit and results from Christ's work of redemption." That is just what we are contending for. Resurrection, as a fruit of Christ's redeeming work, is a reversal of sin's penalty and essentially a benefit. We ask Dr. Warfield then, where the benefit comes in in the Westminister view of the resurrection of the unjust? Where is the remotest suggestion of a benefit in the doubling up and endless sealing of the sinner's damnation which it teaches? How can Dr. Warfield possibly make this admission consistent with his recent solemn pledge to maintain and defend these statements 1
He does indeed go on to say, " But when he infers from these inductions and principles that the resurrection of the wicked is therefore a gracious restoration of corruptible human life and manhood to them in order to afford them another opportunity to win salvation, he has flown out of sight of his premises, beyond the tether of reason, and flat in the face of Scripture." He then goes on to complain that the whole of our book is a body of revised interpretations of Scripture, and that if the novelty be allowed at this point, the whole current system of theology must needs be revised. Now to this we have to say that it is unfair to represent us as teaching that the unjust dead are raised " in order to afford them a second opportunity to win salvation," when we hold that a majority of the human race never had a first opportunity. There is a confusion in many minds between the terms " salvation " and " eternal life." All men come into the world under the guilt of the race-sin, and go down to death and hell—unless made the sons of God by faith in Jesus Christ (John i. 12)—under condemnation. From this pit of death, however, all men are saved in the fact that for all there has been provided a resurrection from the dead (Rom. v. 12-21; 1 Cor. xv. 22; 1 Tim. ii. 6). But this does not secure to all eternal life and sonship to God. It is only through the knowledge of God in Christ that this high boon is conferred (John xvii. 2, 3). Now we believe that the purpose of God in recovering to life the human race is that all may come to this "knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. ii. 3-6), and so have the opportunity of eternal life. This, for all who never heard of Christ is not "another opportunity." It is their only opportunity.
But if this be not the precise benefit brought in by their resurrection, will Dr. Warfield state what the benefit is? He admits that this recovery brings with it "essential benefit." Our explanation of this blessing he declares to be away off from our premises and a flat contradiction of Scripture. But if Dr. Warfield contends that this benefit is even a mitigation of the sufferings of the lost he flies flat in the face of his Standards. For they make it to be an untold aggravation of their misery. Unless the recovery from the death-state—which our critic admits to be sin's penalty—brings back with it the opportunities which inhere in restored life, we cannot see where the "essential benefit" comes in. But waiving the question of the logic of our inference, what hurts us most is to be told that it " flies flat in the face of Scripture." Why then does not Dr. Warfield prove this? Here again we are doomed to disappointment. Not one of the critics of our book has attempted a refutation of its argument from Scripture. We have been met time and again, as here, with assertion. And single passages have been quoted which seem to bear against us. But, as Dr. Warfield justly observes, our argument is virtually a revised interpretation of Scripture. It rests not merely upon single passages but upon the light which the great principle of redemptive resurrection throws upon the whole volume, and upon the plan of the world which it reveals. For example, when the Bible starts out with a thrice repeated promise that in a chosen seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed, we
say that when it says " all" it means all, and that, in order to make the promise good, God pledges Himself by the mouth of, holy prophets to show wonders to the dead—who are the major part of the all—as well as to the living. Dr. Warfield would limit the " all" either to an elect class, as does his Confession, or make the promise apply to some distant millenial period when all nations shall be blessed with the light of the gospel. We submit, Which of these interpretations flies most in the face of Scripture? It is not necessary, however, that we go over again in this reply the Scripture ground so often trodden in these pages. If our reviewer had given either principles or passages of Scripture to sustain his bold assertion, we would cheerfully meet him on this ground. As he has not given them we can simply meet assertion with assertion. We affirm that the main point of our contention—that the resurrection of even the unjust is a gracious intervention and in fulfilment of God's promise to bless all generations through a chosen seed—is proved, and Dr. Warfield cordially admits it. As to whether his inferences from that principle are more correct than ours which he stigmatizes, we leave our readers to decide.
4. As to his allegation that our revised system of interpretation must issue in a new anthropology, in a modified doctrine of atonement, and in a general revision of theology, we accept the charge. It is high time for such a revision. When a fundamental principle of the Gospel has been left out in the construction of the current system, is it any wonder that its whole conception of man, o£ his relation to God, of his redemption and his destiny, must needs be restated? On the page before Dr. Warfield's review of our book occurs his review of Dr. McCosh's recently published lectures on the Religious Aspect of Evolution. While he does not go to the full length with Dr. McCosh in accepting the fact of evolution as "completely made out," "demonstrated," he yet has evident sympathy with it, and commends the book as a highly useful apologetic. Does any one doubt that when the evolutionary hypothesis comes to be fully accepted among theologians as true science, even to the extent to which it is accepted by Dr. McCosh, that a large part of Princeton theology will have to be re-written? Will.the old doctrine of the creation of man, of the fall, of man's inherent immortality, of the methods of his redemption, and of his final destiny, long stand before it? We are not now asking whether the truth that is essential to these doctrines will be given up. We have no fear of that. But many of the accessories with which these truths have been loaded in the way of human explanations will have to go. Let Dr. Warfield possess his soul in patience over the dangers to his system from the principle of redemptive resurrection. The revision will have to come from another quarter if it does not come from this. The seeds of it are already sown in Princeton, and too thickly to be eradicated. We hope and pray that God will give him the wisdom and grace to prepare for it. After listening to Dr. Patton's inaugural, we do not see how Princeton's new President can hesitate to follow in the path of progress opened by his predecessor. We hope much from him. Who knows but that these two young men—the one in the seat of learning, the other in that of theology—both of whom are men more open to the light than the Princeton creed admits of, may have come to the kingdom for such a time as this.
With regard to the minor points made by Dr. Warfield they are comparatively unimportant provided the main principle be conceded. When he assumes that the claims of God's righteousness for temporal sin must needs be satisfied by an endless punishment he speaks without warrant of reason. And as to warrant of Scripture, that is the very point in dispute. And the justice of our view of it he virtually concedes when he consents to regard resurrection as a " reversal of penalty." A stronger point is the one he raises against our view of "the resurrection of judgment," as bringing over into the restored manhood an evil heritage from the past after penalty is remitted. But this seems to be a necessary consequence in any scheme of moral government. A captive set free from a penal colony, a convict liberated from prison, is thereby set free from all legal penalty and restored to full rights of citizenship. But this does not permit of his beginning life again as though he had never been a criminal. He has suffered in person, in health, in fortune, and in character, and is loaded for his new struggle of life with these disadvantages from the past. We have believed that the laws of life, which are the law of God, would thus assert themselves in the new embodiment. While admitting that there must be a corrective value in hadean sufferings preparatory to resurrection, yet nothing is more profoundly true that every one must receive in body according to the deeds done (2d Cor. v. 10 Gr.), and that every defective form of being must keep its possessor under trial and judgment, and liable to a second death. However, as we stated at the outset, these adjustments of this principle of redemptive resurrection are of small importance compared with the principle itself. Only we confess surprise when Dr. Warn eld cannot discover in even the harshest view of retribution possible under these two principles of a resurrection that sets free, and yet is according to character, a theodicy infinitely better than that furnished by the eschatology of his creed. No reasonable view of the divine fatherhood is possible under his system. And he ought to know it.
The Rev. S. J. Andrews, a minister of the Catholic Apostolic Church, has sent us a copy of a recent monograph of his upon Church Unity, put in the form of a letter to the Rt. Rev. John Williams, D.D., Bishop of Connecticut. It contains many important and suggestive thoughts. With respect to his theory that unity can never be restored until there be a restoration of the full ministries of the apostolic church, that is prophets and apostles, we can only say here that it doubtless has an element of truth in it. We purpose to make some