VERSE 23. Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down and break it in pieces. 24. And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise; and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings. 25. And he shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. 26. But the Judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.
We have here further particulars respecting the fourth beast, and the little horn.
Perhaps enough has already been said respecting the fourth beast (Rome), and the ten horns or ten kingdoms which arose therefrom. The little horn now more particularly demands attention. As stated in verse 8, we find the fulfillment of the prophecy concerning this horn, in the rise and work of the Papacy. It is a matter of both interest and importance, therefore, to inquire into the causes which resulted in the development of this anti-christian power.
The first pastors, or bishops, of Rome enjoyed a respect proportionate to the rank of the city in which they resided; and for the first few centuries of the Christian era, Rome was the largest, richest, and most powerful city in the world. It was the seat of empire, the capital of the nations. "All the inhabitants of the earth belong to her," said Julian; and Claudian declared her to be "the fountain of laws." "If Rome is the queen of cities, why should not her pastor be the king of bishops?" was the reasoning these Roman pastors adopted. "Why should not the Roman church be the mother of Christendom? Why should not all nations be her children, and her authority their sovereign law? It was easy," says D'Aubigne, from whom we quote these words (Hist. Ref., vol. 1, chap. 1), "for the ambitious heart of man to reason thus. Ambitious Rome did so."
The bishops in the different parts of the Roman empire felt a pleasure in yielding to the bishop of Rome some portion of that honor which Rome, as the queen city, received from the nations of the earth. There was originally no dependence implied in the honor thus paid. "But," continues D'Aubigne, "usurped power increases like an avalanche. Admonitions at first simply fraternal, soon became absolute commands, in the mouth of the pontiff. The western bishops favored this encroachment of the Roman pastors, either from jealousy of the eastern bishops, or because they preferred submitting to the supremacy of a pope rather than to the dominion of a temporal power."
Such were the influences clustering around the bishop of Rome, and thus was everything tending toward his speedy elevation to the supreme spiritual throne of Christendom. But the fourth century was destined to witness an obstacle thrown across the path of this ambitious dream. Arius, parish priest of the oldest and principal church of Alexandria, sprang his doctrine upon the world, occasioning so fierce a controversy in the Christian church that a general council was called at Nicæa, by the Emperor Constantine, in A. D. 325, to consider and adjust it. Arius maintained "that the Son was totally and essentially distinct from the Father; that he was the first and noblest of those beings whom the Father had created out of nothing, the instrument by whose subordinate operation the Almighty Father formed the universe, and therefore inferior to the Father both in nature and dignity." This opinion was condemned by the council, which decreed that Christ was of one and the same substance with the Father. Hereupon Arius was banished to Illyria, and his followers were compelled to give their assent to the creed composed on that occasion.—Mosheim, cent. 4, part 2, chap. 5. Stanley, Hist. of Eastern Church, p. 289.
The controversy itself, however, was not to be disposed of in this summary manner, but continued for ages to agitate the Christian world, the Arians everywhere becoming the bitter enemies of the pope and of the Roman Catholic Church. From these facts it is evident that the spread of Arianism would check the influence of the Catholics; and the possession of Rome and Italy by a people of the Arian persuasion, would be fatal to the supremacy of a Catholic bishop. But the prophecy had declared that this horn would rise to supreme power, and that in reaching this position it would
Subdue three kings. Some difference of opinion has existed in regard to the particular powers which were overthrown in the interest of the Papacy, in reference to which the following remark by Albert Barnes seems very pertinent:
"In the confusion that existed on the breaking up of the Roman empire, and the imperfect accounts of the transactions which occurred in the rise of the papal power, it would not be wonderful if it should be difficult to find events distinctly recorded that would be in all respects an accurate and absolute fulfillment of the vision. Yet it is possible to make out the fulfillment of this with a good degree of certainty in the history of the Papacy."—Notes on Dan. 7.
Mr. Mede supposed the three kingdoms plucked up to have been the Greeks, the Lombards, and the Franks; and Sir Isaac Newton supposes they were the Exarchate of Ravenna, the Lombards, and the Senate and Dukedom of Rome. Bishop Newton (Dissertation on the Prophecies, pp. 217, 218) states some serious objections to both these schemes. The Franks could not have been one of the these kingdoms; for they were never plucked up before the Papacy. The Lombards could not have been one of the three; for they were never made subject to the popes. Says Barnes, "I do not find, indeed, that the kingdom of the Lombards was, as is commonly stated, among the number of the temporal sovereignties that became subject to the authority of the popes." And the Senate and Dukedom of Rome could not have been the one; for, as such, they never constituted one of the ten kingdoms, three of which were to be plucked up before the little horn.
But we apprehend that the chief difficulty in the application made by these eminent commentators, lay in the fact that they supposed that the prophecy respecting the exaltation of the Papacy, was not, and could not have been, fulfilled, till the pope became a temporal prince; and hence they sought to find an accomplishment of the prophecy in the events which led to the pope's temporal sovereignty. Whereas we think the prophecy of verses 24, 25, refers not to his civil power, but to his power to domineer over the minds and consciences of men; that the pope reached this position, as will hereafter appear, in A. D. 538; and that the plucking up of the three horns took place before this, and to make way for this very exaltation to spiritual dominion. The insuperable difficulty in the way of all attempts to apply the prophecy to the Lombards and the other powers named above, is that they come altogether too late in point of time; for the prophecy deals with the arrogant efforts of the Roman pontiff to gain power, not with his endeavors to oppress and humble the nations after he had secured the supremacy.
The position is here confidently taken that the three powers, or horns, plucked up before the Papacy, were the Heruli, the Vandals, and the Ostrogoths; and this position rests upon the following statements of historians:—
Odoacer, the leader of the Heruli, was the first of the barbarians who reigned over the Romans. He took the throne of Italy, according to Gibbon (Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 3, pp. 510, 515), in 476. Of his religious belief Gibbon (ib., 516) says, "Like the rest of the barbarians, he had been instructed in the Arian heresy; but he revered the monastic and episcopal characters, and the silence of the Catholics attests the toleration which they enjoyed."
Again he says (p. 547), "The Ostrogoths, the Burgundians, the Suevi, and the Vandals, who had listened to the eloquence of the Latin clergy, preferred the more intelligible lessons of the domestic teachers; and Arianism was adopted as the national faith of the warlike converts who were seated on the ruins of the Western empire. This irreconcilable difference of religion was a perpetual source of jealousy and hatred; and the reproach of Barbarian was embittered by the more odious epithet of Heretic. The heroes of the North who had submitted, with some reluctance, to believe that all their ancestors were in hell, were astonished and exasperated to learn that they themselves had only changed the mode of their eternal condemnation."
The reader is requested to consider carefully a few more historical statements which throw some light on the situation at this time. Stanley (History of the Eastern Church, p. 151,) says: "The whole of the vast Gothic population which descended on the Roman empire, so far as it was Christian at all, held to the faith of the Alexandrian heretic. Our first Teutonic version of the Scriptures was by an Arian missionary, Ulfilas. The first conqueror of Rome, Alaric, the first conqueror of Africa, Genseric, were Arians. Theodoric, the great king of Italy, and hero of the Nibelungen Lied, was an Arian. The vacant place in his massive tomb at Ravenna is a witness of the vengeance which the Orthodox took on his memory, when, in their triumph, they tore down the porphyry vase in which his Arian subjects had enshrined his ashes."
Ranke, in his History of the Popes (London ed. 1871), vol. 1, p. 9, says: "But she [the church] fell, as was inevitable, into many embarrassments, and found herself in an entirely altered condition. A pagan people took possession of Britain; Arian kings seized the greater part of the remaining West; while the Lombards, long attached to Arianism, and, as neighbors, most dangerous and hostile, established a powerful sovereignty before the very gates of Rome. The Roman Bishops, meanwhile, beset on all sides, exerted themselves with all the prudence and pertinacity which have remained their peculiar attributes, to regain the mastery—at least in their patriarchal diocese."
Machiavelli, in his History of Florence, p. 14, says: "Nearly all the wars which the northern barbarians carried on in Italy, it may be here remarked, were occasioned by the pontiffs; and the hordes with which the country was inundated, were generally called in by them."
These extracts give us a general view of the state of affairs at this time, and show us that though the hands of the Roman pontiffs might not be visibly manifest in the movements upon the political board, they constituted the power working assiduously behind the scenes to secure their own purposes. The relation which these Arian kings sustained to the pope, from which we can see the necessity of their being overthrown to make way for papal supremacy, is shown in the following testimony from Mosheim, given in his History of the Church, cent. 6, part 2, chap. 2, sec. 2:—
"On the other hand, it is certain, from a variety of the most authentic records, that both the emperors and the nations in general were far from being disposed to bear with patience the yoke of servitude which the popes were imposing upon the Christian church. The Gothic princes set bounds to the power of those arrogant prelates in Italy, permitted none to be raised to the pontificate without their approbation, and reserved to themselves the right of judging of the legality of every new election."
An instance in proof of this statement occurs in the history of Odoacer, the first Arian king above mentioned, as related by Bower in his History of the Popes, vol. 1, p. 271. When, on the death of Pope Simplicius, A. D. 483, the clergy and people had assembled for the election of a new pope, suddenly Basilius, præfectus, prætorio, and lieutenant of King Odoacer, appeared in the assembly, expressed his surprise that any such work as appointing a successor to the deceased pope should be undertaken without him, in the name of the king declared all that had been done null and void, and ordered the election to be begun anew. The horn which exercised such a restrictive power over the papal pontiff must certainly be taken out of the way before the pope could reach the predicted supremacy.
Bad Conundrums
BAD CONUNDRUMS.—The conundrum Christian is one of those irregular, spasmodic, impulsive, one-sided, half-baked Christians, that is to-day up, and to-morrow down, to-day hot, to-morrow cold; to-day he is devout, to-morrow he is frivolous. Now he is liberal, now niggardly. He is a jumble of inconsistencies. If he has a good trait, he is sure to have a half-dozen others, as some one has said, that "put it to shame." Is there a flaming revival in progress? This man's presence and noisy zeal may be confidently counted on, blazing away, comet-like, with a transcendent glow of fervor and pretense, and ready with much volubility to rebuke the more unassuming, but really also, quite likely, the more pious, devoted, humble brethren, for their tardiness and languor: only, however, to subside with the special excitement itself, and then to remain as the hills of Nova Zembla during all the rest of the year. Alas! how many conundrums of this sort the churches have to carry!—Examiner and Chronicle.
JESTING USE OF SCRIPTURE.
A JESTING use of Scripture is an abuse of Scripture. Yet it is so used both by believers and unbelievers. It is frequently used in jest in public lectures. Even such men as Spurgeon and Talmage employ Scripture in this way. Talmage's lecture at Louisville was severely criticised in one of our religious papers for exposing religion to ridicule. It is often jestingly used in social gatherings and ordinary conversation, and that by Christian people. Much of the wit and humor in social life derives its piquancy from allusion to Scripture. The head-lines and advertisements of newspapers are often filled with irreverent and flippant use of God's word. Allusions to the Bible and religion, often season the jokes and witty sayings which appear in secular and religious papers and magazines. Many of the good things in Harpers' Drawer are of this character. Our college songs and class-day jokes often depend upon allusion to Scripture for much of their wit and humor.
Is not such use an abuse of Scripture? Shall our sacred Book become a jest-book? If a Buddhist or Mohammedan were to see extracts from the Bible made the basis of jokes, and that by Christian people, would it speak well for our religion? I am not aware that Mohammedans are wont to make allusions to the Koran an ingredient of jokes.
Not only does this use of the Bible degrade it in the eyes of others, but it also degrades it in our own eyes. It associates the Bible with what is low and ridiculous, and tends to diminish our reverence for it. The writer has had several passages of Scripture so associated with ridiculous things, that the mention of the passages immediately brings up the jests made upon them, thus destroying almost their whole force.
The spiritually minded Christian cannot but be jarred by the jesting use of Scripture. That this use of the word is irreverent and an abuse, is evident from the revulsion of the spiritual nature which it occasions. To be sure, many Christians become more or less accustomed to it; but the hardening is rarely complete, and the jar is there, though very slight perhaps, or very concealed. Large portions of Scripture have been, in the public mind and consequently in the Christian mind, more or less connected with the comical. For example, the stories of the fall, of Jonah, and of the ark, have come to be mostly a theme for joking remarks. It is hard for a Christian to study these without some ridiculous suggestion entering his mind.
If the jesting use of Scripture is abuse of Scripture, what shall be done to repress it? It may indeed be said that such use of Scripture is inevitable; that the Bible has become so rooted in our thought that it connects itself necessarily with every form of speech. I think, however, that in England and Scotland, where the Scripture has impressed itself more deeply upon the minds of men, than in America, this abuse of the Scripture is rarely found. A little care and self-control will suppress the jests on Scripture which so readily suggest themselves to many minds. We pray "Thy name be hallowed;" shall we not also pray "Thy Book be hallowed?" The one petition is involved in the other. God's Book is called the "Holy Scriptures," and shall we not keep it holy and revered by not employing the word in jest ourselves, and protesting against this use by others?—California Christian Advocate.
QUESTIONS ABOUT SIN.
By Roswell Fenner Cottrell
SIN is in the world. No sane man, who knows enough to complain of the wrong-doing of his neighbor, can dispute the fact. The Bible tells us the simple story of its entrance; and it also sets before sinners a way of pardon and life. But the carnal mind is not so ready to repent and accept of pardon as it is to question and impeach the wisdom of God in permitting sin to enter. Why did not God place man in a condition in which sin would be impossible? Men imagine that they could have devised a wiser plan. But it is enough for me to know that sin has been permitted by a wisdom superior to mine; and I can see too that man, in being made free to choose, is more honored by God than he would have been had inexorable fate predetermined his course of action. In the wisdom of God sin exists; and it is enough for me to know that there is a perfect and infallible remedy in Jesus Christ.
But there is another question concerning sin which is open for discussion. It is this: Shall sin exist forever? Now, unless God has revealed the fact that in his purpose sin shall not be destroyed, but shall exist forever, it certainly is a subject on which we are free to reason. And is it not more reasonable to think that sin is a temporary evil, and that it shall cease to exist, than to believe that it is to continue forever? Who can produce a reason why evil should be immortalized, and to endless ages mar the fair creation of God?
And where is the revelation that this is the purpose of God? Is it not on the other hand revealed that God will destroy the devil and his works? Heb. 2:14; 1 John 3:8. The curse followed sin. Gen 3:17. The time will come when the curse will be no more. Rev. 22:3. Will it not be thus because sin, the cause of the curse, has been utterly destroyed? This is reasonable; is it not also scriptural?
R. F. COTTRELL.
Looking Forward in Times of Trouble
THERE are two ways of looking forward—of losing sight of the present in the thought of the future. One is, to anticipate dark days and days of evil, in times of light and joy; the other is, to anticipate the better things God has prepared for us, while we are in sorrow and need. The latter way is the better way; it is the only right way.
The other way is as wrong as it is unwise and pernicious. There was a beautiful illustration of this better way in one of the latest utterances of the good Dr. Plumer, on his dying-bed, at Baltimore. It was during a season of much personal suffering that he said, in cheerfulness: “One night in Jesus' bosom will be worth all this.” That is the way to look at our sorest trials. That is Paul's way; it is David's way; it is the way for every believer in Jesus: “I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.” “I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness.”—S. S. Times.
CONSISTENT CHRISTIANS.
By Dwight Lyman Moody
WHEN we walk with God we preach wherever we go. Our example is a sermon. And there is nothing that will impress the world like a consistent Christian life. When Jacob turned towards Bethel to build an altar unto God, "the terror of God was upon all the cities round about." When the children of Israel walked with God and trusted in him as their leader, no nation could stand before them. But when they got tired of God's company and asked for a king, a leader that they could see, he gave them Saul who stood head and shoulders above the rest of the people. He was just such a leader as carnel eyes would choose. But what was the result? A single giant, Goliah of Gath, came out and defied King Saul and all his army. In the days of Joshua when the people followed God freely, they were not afraid of the Anakim. They slew a race of giants. But now they dared not to meet this one. Such is the result of being out of communion with God. It will not do to come to Bible readings in the afternoon and go to the theater at night; to attend prayer-meetings one evening and dancing parties the next. If you want your friends to be saved, your children converted, you must be consistent as a Christian, you must let your light shine steadily before them.
—Moody.
PREACHING WHAT ST. PAUL PREACHED.
As AN instance of the close rule under which Rome holds her priests, it is told that a French Catholic priest began to preach in unwonted style, which attracted the attention of his congregation first, and presently that of his bishop. The latter sent for him and said, "You do not preach what the church orders."
"I preach what St. Paul preached."
"That won't do. You must not preach what the church does not sanction. You had better retire and reflect. I will give you a letter to the head of a convent." The letter was given, and the priest went his way: Before reaching his destination he thought he would have a look at the letter. He opened and read, "This is a dangerous man. Take him into your establishment, and never let him out." The priest did not care to be imprisoned for life, and he went on to Paris, and returned the letter to the bishop. Now he has joined the Protestants in their work of spreading the gospel of Christ, which is also the gospel of spiritual liberty—a work in which he cannot too much "preach what St. Paul preached."—Examiner and Chronicle.
The Sabbath School.
By S. J. Wilson
WHERE TO UTILIZE THE CHURCH'S TALENT.
ONE of the problems for Christendom to solve is this: How can the latent talent of the church be developed and made available? It is a most important question. That this talent is not developed and made available is a most palpable fact. Some denominations succeed in this matter better than others, but in all there is a lamentable defect, and in consequence of this the church goes lamely, not putting forth a tithe of her real strength.
What could be more admirably adapted to the development of this latent talent than the Sabbath-school? Here all can find employment. Some of the most efficient lay talent in the church has thus been developed. Men who began with their class in the Sabbath-school have risen, by successive steps, until they occupy positions of national and of world-wide influence. There is talent enough buried in the earth or wrapped up in napkins to make the church arise and shine like the sun in the heavens.
Teachers should learn to qualify themselves for their office and its duties. They should not only study the word of God, but should also study the dispositions of children. They should make themselves adepts at imparting instruction,—in winning and retaining the affection and confidence of their classes. The highest attainments, the most brilliant talents, are not too good to be devoted to this service. The State has her normal schools; why should not the church have hers also? There ought to be a trained and disciplined corps of teachers, who are not only qualified for the service, but who have an enthusiasm in it,—who will bring with them an ardor that will diffuse the warmth and life of spring where now reigns the dreariness of winter. Some pagan nations consecrated new buildings by enclosing a living child in the masonry of the foundation. We are far in advance of that superstition; but there is a time coming when our indifference to the intellectual and moral condition of the millions of children in the land will be regarded with almost as much horror as we now regard the pagan atrocity that entombed a living child in solid masonry. Notwithstanding all that has been done, much remains to be done; and it behooves the church to address herself to the work as she has never yet done.—S. J. Wilson.
ORIGINALITY.
By S. S. World
A SABBATH-SCHOOL teacher is sometimes found who is very desirous of showing originality. He will not look at lesson helps, because he wishes to develop his own plan, and to accumulate his own materials. Such may be a good attitude in which to approach the lesson. The teacher who studies the Bible-text first, and then uses his own power of thought and resources in unfolding its meaning, begins right. But if he stops there he will be very inadequately prepared. His exposition is liable to be meagre, common-place, one-sided, and possibly, erroneous. Careful, conscientious, and prolonged study is the safeguard against such a danger. There are commentators who have brought disciplined minds and the results of profound studies to the elucidation of the text. Biblical geography and antiquities lend their aid. Modern customs throw their light upon the manners and customs of Scripture times. Lesson helps gather these results from many books and put them before the teacher. He need not sacrifice his originality in using them, if he learns to use them rightly.—S. S. World.
The Perils of Bible Criticism
It was Mr. E. P. Whipple, we believe, who once remarked that "exegesis" too often means "exit Jesus." It cannot be questioned that there is a sort of Bible study, characterized by subtle wire-drawing and fine hair-splitting, which tends to bring all careful and scholarly Bible study into disrepute. And yet any Christian man will admit, when he stops to think for a moment, that no research and trouble necessary to get at the meaning of the word of God is misspent. The only trouble is that men of little learning, but of much hard sense, have a conviction that the result of much of the critical scholarship of the day is to get out of the Bible not God's message, but a meaning that was never there until the critic's ingenuity put it there. It is a pity that there is just enough of this kind of scholarship to make a conviction not altogether unfounded.—Sel.
WHAT THINK YE OF CHRIST?
THIS is a question which has lost none of its importance since it was first asked; which each must yet answer for himself, and the answer to which will form our lives and shape our destinies. When it was first propounded to the Jews, it was no small matter to confess that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, the Son of the living God. To confess that Jesus was the Christ, at that time, was to estrange one's friends, to be regarded as an outcast, and to be cut off from church privileges, which then included nearly all the privileges which a citizen could enjoy. But the times have changed. Popular and worldly religion of this age accepts Jesus as the Son of God. And then it lifts its head in pride because it has "witnessed the good confession," and goes on living very much as the Pharisees did who rejected him altogether.
The question for each to answer for himself now is that of Pilate: "What shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?" If he is the Son of God, where shall we place him in the divine plan? In what light shall we view his incarnation and his death? Whence the necessity of such suffering and such a death? What was its object, and what is to be accomplished thereby? These are all-important questions; and the world is being much agitated by them at the present time.
If this agitation tended to lead people to self-examination and humiliation before God,—to inquire how they could appropriate to their great necessities the benefits of his wondrous death, it would be well. But such is not the case. The tendency of the current inquiry is, largely, to show that there was no absolute necessity for his death; nothing in the divine government or the divine character which made such a sacrifice necessary to human salvation.
Here is the great inconsistency of the Universalist system. It claimed that there was nothing but love in the divine character; nothing which could possibly demand the death of the offender; and yet claimed that all were saved through Christ, while it could not show that, by any principle of the divine government, the death of Christ was at all necessary, or could be closely related to human salvation. If there is nothing in the character of Deity which called for the death of the sinner, what possible relation can the death of Christ have to the sinner's salvation?
When we examine closely this dilemma of Universalism we shall find that the current of liberal orthodoxy is setting in the same direction. It is Universalism only half concealed. The recent trial of Dr. Thomas, of the Methodist church, will doubtless serve to greatly strengthen this tendency toward loose views of the atonement. When such religious papers as the Christian Union and the Independent show an unmistakable sympathy for Dr. Thomas, and are ready to excuse his position, which again places his accusers in the light of persecutors, we may expect that lesser lights in the religious world, and the secular press in general, will make him a martyr for an admissible Christian faith.
The correspondent of the Christian Union gives the following as the views of Dr. Thomas on the atonement:—
"On the atonement, Dr. Thomas holds what he calls the moral view, which is nearly the same as the moral influence theory of Bushnell. He loves to express his opinion in the words of Paul, 'God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself.' He insists that the Father loved the world as much as did the Son, and came forth in Christ to save it. He denies that one part of the deity was sacrificed to appease another part, or that Christ was punished as a sinner in man's stead. His sufferings and death, instead of being inflicted as a penalty, were voluntarily undertaken to do away with the necessity of a penalty. The atonement was intended to show the love of God and to save the sinner, by wooing him and otherwise influencing him to a better life, and also by making it possible for God to pardon him and still uphold the integrity of the law."
This is the theory of Henry Ward Beecher also, all except the last sentence, which does not at all belong to the theory. The Scripture theory is that of maintaining the integrity of the law while the sinner is pardoned, but "the moral view" subverts this.
The expression, "One part of the deity sacrificed to appease another part," does not seem respectful to the subject. Yet it must be admitted that the faulty view of the divine existence held by many, gives rise to such a thought. The gist of the theory, however, is found in the following sentence:—
"His sufferings and death, instead of being inflicted as a penalty, were voluntarily undertaken to do away with the necessity of a penalty."
The New Testament distinctly speaks of the death of Christ as "a sacrifice." "He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." Heb. 9:26. "Offered one sacrifice for sins." Chap. 10:12.
As Jesus was a fulfillment of the law in its Levitical service, we look to the Scriptures for the correct idea of sacrifices, which is that of substitution. Upon this we will dwell more particularly in another article. At this time we will notice the love of God as professedly vindicated by this "moral influence theory."
We readily admit that God so loved the world as to give his Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. There was a reason why man was in danger of perishing; he was a sinner, and "the wages of sin is death." Death as a penalty, he was in danger of suffering. Jesus came to suffer death that man might live.
But why must man suffer the reward of his actions? Because God is just, and his law is immutable. Justice required the infliction of the penalty upon the evil-doer. And what is accomplished in the death of Jesus? By means of it God may be just and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus. Rom. 3:23-26. Thus it is made plain that justice required the death of Christ in order that the sinner might have life.
"God loved the world." But we are told that the death of Christ was to manifest this love to the world. Then we inquire, If God's love to the world induced him to save the world from death, why did not God's love to his Son save his Son from death? Or did not God love his Son as well as he loved the world? He was always "well pleased" with his Son; was he better pleased with the world? If the love of God was the only attribute exercised in this proceeding, who shall reconcile the infinite love of God with the agony of Jesus in the garden, and the more terrible agony and awful death on the cross. If the sufferings of Christ were an exhibition of divine love, and love only, would not the sinner be excusable if he prayed to be spared from sharing in such love? We speak reverently, and considerately. If justice did not demand the death of Christ in the sinner's stead—if his death was not suffered as a penalty—then we affirm with full confidence, that no one can show any necessity for his death. And if his death was not necessary to meet the demands of the divine law in the sinner's stead, then his sufferings and death were anything but a manifestation of the love of his Father. We say, in the sinner's stead, because justice had no demand upon Christ himself, for he was sinless. "But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." Isa. 53:5. "He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin." 2 Cor. 5:21. Any view of his death but that of a substitute or sacrifice, subverts the atonement and casts dishonor on the divine government. If his death was the suffering of a penalty, then justice is vindicated, and the reproach which sin has thrown upon the divine law and the divine character, may be thrown off without the total extermination of the sinful race.
ETERNITY OF TORMENT
termination of the sinful race.
ETERNITY OF TORMENT.
EVERY considerate person must have been often pained at the flippant manner in which some preachers speak of the eternal torment of the lost, as though it were a matter not to be questioned, and even a subject for rejoicing. Why it should provoke them to anger to have it called in question, as is sometimes the case, is hard to explain. George Storrs once said that he was led to examine the evidences of the doctrine by hearing a professed Christian praising the Lord that the wicked would be tormented to all eternity!
Such people do not know of what they are speaking. We have no conception of eternity. We can conceive of very long periods, but eternity—a whole eternity—is still beyond them. An eternity of accumulating guilt and ever-increasing suffering, as some teach, is too horrible to be calmly contemplated. Add to this the thought of the belief entertained by many (professedly), that that torment, to some of their own friends, has already been going on for years. If they do indeed believe it, we cannot imagine what manner of spirit they are of that they can eat and drink and sleep with the peace of mind they seem to enjoy. We should count that mother unworthy of the name who could sleep in peace knowing that her child was in burning torture, for even one night. But in this theology it is torture—beyond conception at the beginning and ever increasing—and yet it makes no visible impression on their minds.
Men of deep thought and fine sensibilities are either overwhelmed by the terribleness of this doctrine, or else they have discarded it. Dr. Barnes confessed that it was unendurable to him. But very few view it as he did. Most theologians of the present day have discarded it. We do not mean that they have actually renounced it, but they have so modified it as to make it something beside what the words of their profession indicate. At the late General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, a newspaper reporter interviewed a large number of prominent D. D.'s, and found that the orthodox Methodist faith of "hell fire" was discarded by them. Even bishops repudiated the idea of actual fire in the torment of the wicked. What their faith really is we cannot imagine. We cling to the old faith—that "fire and brimstone" are not mere figures in the Bible. A fire that can melt the elements must be very literal. And we believe it will have the effect on the wicked which fire—unquenchable fire—has on chaff or stubble; it will burn them up, leaving them neither root nor branch. In that case the wicked will be destroyed, just as the Bible says; "punished with everlasting destruction." In a never-ending torment, a "death that never dies," we have no faith.
In contrast with the positive style adopted by many when speaking of the eternity of torment, we recommend the following thoughtful words of Dr. Watts on the "Duration of Punishment":—
"I grant that the eternity of God himself, before this world began, or after its consummation, has something in it so immense and so incomprehensible, that in my most mature thoughts I do not choose to enter into those infinite abysses; nor do I think we ought usually, when speaking of creatures, to affirm positively, that their existence shall be equal to that of the blessed God, especially in regard to the duration of their punishment; perhaps this sort of language may carry in it something beyond what we are called to discourse about, at least in this mortal state, and therefore such comparisons are more safely omitted."
This language of Dr. Watts will certainly commend itself to all who seriously contemplate this awful subject of eternity. We have heard speakers declare, in the most positive manner, that every sinner "has a soul which must live and suffer as long as God lives." But many a new-fledged preacher will boldly walk where Dr. Watts feared to tread, in his "most mature thoughts." We are aware that in the progress of critical Biblical knowledge a learner might know, of some things, more than even Dr. Watts could know in his day. But we cannot know more of eternity than he knew; and we cannot change the Bible truth that the wicked will come to an end, be blotted out, be destroyed forever, "utterly perish in their own corruption." If we go beyond this we add to God's word, and all such as do this incur a terrible penalty.