Love's Final Victory / Ultimate Universal Salvation on the Basis of Scripture and Reason

by Horatio

THE SWEEP OF THE INFINITE MIND.

I have sometimes on a sweet and hallowed night watched the moon riding so peacefully through the white clouds; and it did seem to me that if there is suffering anywhere, God has a time and a plan for relieving it. I could not think of Him as being happy otherwise. But if in the sweep of the infinite Mind he descries, even in some far off age, the entire passing away of sin and suffering, I can imagine Him as being perfectly happy. All events being equally present to Him, anticipation may be very much the same as reality.

It has just struck me that the multiplicity of the considerations here advanced may lead to some degree of confusion. I will therefore repeat some of them, and glance at others, condensing them into as few words as possible. I think the effect will be that the total argument will be presented with more clearness and force.

We read that Christ "gave Himself a ransom for all." To my mind that settles the extent of the Atonement. Words could not be plainer. But if Christ gave Himself a ransom for all, will He be satisfied with saving only some? Surely He will see that the ransom which He paid will have its due effect. That means that somehow, sometime, all will be saved. Else in regard to those who are not saved, He died in vain; which is unthinkable.

But He will be satisfied. Yes. He will be satisfied. It is so predicted. Can He be satisfied with less than the salvation of every human soul? We have seen that He died for all. Can He be satisfied with less than the redemption of all? If that is not effected now, will it not be effected later? His administration is from everlasting to everlasting.

It is said again that "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." The scope of His Atonement is universal. Evidently it fails of its full effect now. There are millions who have not even heard the Saviour's name; but they are included in the great plan of propitiation, and it cannot fail.

Then it is written that He "tasted death for every man." This puts the matter beyond all peradventure. His Atonement was not only for the whole world, but for every man. He had every individual singly in His view in making His Atonement; and will it fail of its effect? Surely "His purpose will stand, and He will do all his pleasure."

We read again that "all Israel shall be saved." The words must not be minimized or explained away. Certainly Israel is not saved now. Think of the sins into which they fell in the past; think of all the crises in their history when God was ready to cast them off; think of their condition to-day,—a byword and a hissing among the nations. If the scene is thus to be closed, it seems a mistake ever to have chosen them as a people at all. But it was no mistake. Their time will come; if not in this life, then in the life beyond. They will be saved; the promise will stand.

Again: Christ has promised that if he is lifted up on the cross He will draw all men to Himself. If that promise is limited to this life it is not true. Christ has not drawn more than a moiety of mankind to Himself. But it is gloriously true if we take in the future. He is not limited to one epoch of time. A thousand years are with Him but as one day.

Then think of the sacrifice which the Father made. He gave His Son. Who will fathom the meaning of that sacrifice? Some there are who say that God cannot suffer. On the contrary. I believe that His suffering in giving His Son no man nor angel can fathom. And is it to be thought that God made that sacrifice for less than every human soul? The fact that He loved every soul that He has made, should settle the question.

Then we are often told that the Atonement is suited for all, though it is not intended for all. When we admit that God loves every soul, and that the Atonement is suited for all, are we not shut up to the conclusion that it is, or will be, applied to all? Nothing could hinder, except man's own obstinacy, and we have seen that his obstinacy can be overcome without interfering with his freedom.

We believe that sin will finally be put down. To that effect there are many scriptural declarations. But it is conceivable that it is tolerated for a time as an object lesson, and as a safeguard against evil. Some such beneficent design God certainly has in view; else all His benevolent purposes would take effect in this life. We have to remember that His administration is from everlasting to everlasting. We have also to remember that God has all moral as well as all physical power, even to taking captive the most wicked of men.

When we think of the divine union of love, wisdom and power in God, it is not hard to believe that they will finally triumph. If God in His divine wisdom knows how to act, and divine power enables Him to act, and divine love impels Him to act, it is reasonable to forecast the ultimate holiness and happiness of all intelligences.

We are accustomed to say, and we often see it, that God brings good out of evil. The ultimate abolition of all sin, and the universal triumph of goodness, are but an expansion of the same principle.

We have also to remember that sin in any form is an abnormal condition of the universe. It is not reasonable to think that abnormal conditions will prevail for ever.

There are some who believe that God is so unchangeable that He must necessarily be happy under all conditions. Such are not the representations of Scripture; and though they are but representations, we believe they are agreeable with the fact. Besides; that is not true of our selves; and we know that we are created in the divine image. Now if sin is a disturbing factor of divine happiness, it is reasonable to think that it will finally be done away.

There is no constituent of character that brings so much happiness as love. As God really is love, He is the infinitely happy one. It is therefore reasonable to suppose that divine love will ultimately have its happiest expression; and that will involve the abolition of all sin.

Wrath is no constituent of the divine character; but a potentiality only. If God is to be supremely happy there will finally be no sin to call forth his wrath, for wrath is a disturber of happiness.

So long as God is just, He must punish sin. But punishment is His strange work; it does not directly minister to happiness; therefore it is reasonable to think that sin that calls for punishment will be done away. Besides; Christ bore the penalty of all sin; infinite justice demands no more, any further infliction of suffering is intended only for discipline.

When the angels came to earth on the occasion of the Saviour's birth, they said that they brought good tidings of great joy to all people. But millions and millions of people passed away from earth without hearing the good tidings. Then they must hear the good tidings in the life beyond. But if they are consigned to eternal torment, there are no good tidings for them. And if they are extinct they can hear no tidings, either good or bad. What remains but that the good tidings that did not reach them here will be conveyed to them there? It is likely that the angels knew the scope of their message, and that the conveyance of that message to those on the other side of time, was no more difficult or abnormal than to us on this side.

Then, what about those whom we have known whose spiritual condition was doubtful when they passed away? Is it not extremely likely that God has some way of developing what is good in them, and casting out what is evil? We feel that just at present they would be out of place in either world. Is it not reasonable to think of some intermediate stage of preparation?

Besides; from what we know of the divine method of procedure, it does not seem likely that He would thrust a frail human spirit into the blinding glory of heaven all at once. We are used to gradual changes; they suit us better. An infant newly born is not conscious at first that any radical change in its life has occurred; but it accommodates itself easily and naturally to its new life. And so it would seem uncongenial to us to be thrust at once into the excellent glory. A stage of preparation—be it long or short—would seem to be desirable and necessary. And if it is desirable and necessary, it is provided.

Then there are sins of the mind which are not cast off with the flesh. The sins may be forgiven, but the evil inclinations cling to us. We need a certain time and a certain process to have them eliminated.

We can easily conceive too—in fact we meet with cases of the kind quite often—where a man that is not a Christian has a soul of goodness that makes him really the superior of many so-called Christians. But he is not a Christian. He dies suddenly; and where does he go? The idea of Restoration settles all difficulty. The good that is in him is developed; ultimately he is fit for the inheritance of the saints. In no other way can we think of a wise and gracious disposal of him.

In connection with this idea we cannot but note that even dying saints are by no means perfect in general. There are many cases in which the last sickness seems to bring no marked change. Yet we have the assured hope that all is well. But if we look at the matter critically, we see no evidence of a state of perfection being reached. There seems to be a need of a refining process on the other side of death; and if it is needed it is provided.

There is a recognized principle, too, that whatsoever is really good will not perish. This is true, both in the domain of physics and of morals. If therefore there is even the beginning of goodness in any soul, it is but reasonable to assume that such goodness will persist, and be completed either on this side of death or on the other side. Such an idea seems to be highly compatible with a beneficent, divine government.

If it be asked why such a process is not carried out always on this side of time, I say we must be cautious about irreverently intruding into divine methods. We might as well ask why Saul, for instance, was not converted earlier. We can but say, "Even so Father, for so it seemed good in Thy sight."

We have to remember that the present is only one domain of God's administration. The whole span of time which is to us so vast, is but a passing epoch to Him. If we would keep this in mind, it would solve many supposed difficulties.

I think it will be freely granted that no design of God can ultimately fail. But if we follow up that principle, there is no eternal torment; for if will hardly be contended that God designed it. And so with final extinction. It would be a reflection on the divine intention to suppose that he called into being such myriads of the human race, and so wonderfully endowed them, merely to extinguish them at last. This principle, if duly studied, will be seen, I think, to eliminate all possibility both of extinction and of endless torment.

When we consider how both extinction and torment might have been avoided, we are forced to believe that neither alternative was in God's plan. When sin was introduced by our first parents, He might at once have cut them off, or rendered them childless. In either case the myriads of the human race would not have appeared, and thus any alternative of torment or extinction would have been avoided. This consideration, it seems to me, goes a long way to settle the whole question.

Another thing is, that endless torment cannot really be believed. Men may say they believe it; they may think they believe it; it may seem orthodox to believe it; but they really do not believe it. To think that a soul is tormented for ever and ever and ever, is really beyond belief. It is well it is so. Otherwise man would be insane.

When we consider that the soul has a strong affinity for truth, and when we consider that endless torment cannot be believed, there is a strong presumption that it is not true. Any sustained attempt to believe that which the mind instinctively repudiates as false, is in the highest degree demoralizing. There is a strong presumption therefore that the theory of endless torment is not true.

Let it also be noted how hardening was the process of believing the old doctrine. So far did they go who professed it, that some of them gloated over the prospect of souls in torment. Such hardening of the heart raises a strong presumption that the doctrine is false.

Our highest idea of punishment is, that it is reformatory. But in endless torment there is no possibility, and no design, of reformation. A God of infinite love would surely use the highest method, with the highest intention. If suffering was of a limited duration and conduced to our final perfection, we could understand it, and adore the Author of it. But who can see any beneficent design in everlasting torment?

If strict justice demands punishment of eternal duration, we would ask why the punishment is not as a matter of necessity inflicted at once. But we see that justice does not demand its prompt infliction. God can wait long years before inflicting it. But if He can wait ten years, why not a hundred? And if a hundred, why not forever?

Along the same line, we would say that an infinite penalty can never be rendered. For infinitude has no end; and so, no matter how long the penalty might be drawn out, there would still be an eternity to come. So we would never come to the end of eternity; and the penalty could never be rendered. This seems to me a strong argument against everlasting punishment.

In the same connection I would venture the idea that sin is not an infinite evil, and does not call for an infinite punishment. I do not think that a finite creature like man can commit an infinite crime. The fact that an infinite punishment cannot be rendered, seems to show that the crime is not infinite. If not, then in justice there is no everlasting punishment.

Coming back to matters more strictly within our grasp, I would ask what has been so often asked: What will become of the heathen? Many of them never had a chance to be much better than they are. Restoration, so far as I can see, is the only settlement of the difficulty. But that settles it completely. In the next world they will learn the way of eternal life which they could not learn here, and ultimately they will rise to eternal blessedness. If there were nothing else, the settlement of that transcendent problem would be a strong endorsement of Restoration.

Then there were heathens who in this life rose very high in knowledge and character. On the principle that whatever is good is immortal, what they gained here will be supplemented, until they are fit for the inheritance of the saints. "The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this."

The idea of Restoration also explains the apparent cruelty of the God of the Old Testament. Sinners were often cut off; and that was a salutary lesson for others; but those who were cut off, were transferred to scenes where they would have better surroundings, and where they would in time rise to a higher moral plane.

The same theory accounts for the salvation of infants. We all believe in the salvation of infants. The heart refuses any other belief. But it is largely a matter of sentiment, apart from the idea of Restoration. They have no character whatever to begin with. But Restoration supplies—we know not how and do not need to know—all they require. The mere fact that infants require some place and process of development beyond this life, is a strong argument for such aid being rendered to others as well.

Also, take the case of suicides. There are many who in a frenzy of despair commit the crime of self-destruction. It is easy to believe that there is sympathy and helpfulness for them on the other shore.

And so with lunatics. Apart from Restoration it is difficult to think what will become of them. They are not responsible, and it would be unfair to treat them as criminals. On the other hand, they have no ideas nor character such as would fit them for a better world. But they will regain their intellect at the point they lost it; and it is not hard to conceive of their swift upward trend.

There is one very serious difficulty which we can conceive of no way of solving, except on the supposition of Restoration. I refer to the agony which a person must suffer even in heaven on finding that loved friends or relatives are not there. To know that they are in extinction, that they are fit for nothing better, and that hence they are shut out from eternal joy, would surely be an everlasting pang. And the case is infinitely worse if it is realized that they are in endless torment. We think the very thought of that would be unendurable even in a better world.

But how gladsome is the prospect of neither of these fates being in store for them. If it is known that they are in a state of discipline for a time, to emerge by and by into scenes of bliss, we can fancy that such knowledge would be a source of joy unspeakable. And who can imagine the rapture of meeting with such friends later on? This view of Restoration solves the difficulty so often felt in regard to dear ones who died in a state of alienation from God. The everlasting hope that is thus opened up for them is a source of perennial joy.

Here I would make a statement which at the first glance may seem to some rather startling. It is this: There is not punishment for sin, either in this life, or in the next. Christ has settled all that by offering Himself as the sin-bearer for all mankind. "The Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all." "He hath made Him to be sin for us." "It pleased the Lord to bruise Him." "God gave His Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." If the condition of believing on Him seems to limit the everlasting love of that statement, take the next; "God sent not His Son into the world, to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved." Yes, the world. There is no limitation there. That means the modern heathen world, and the ancient heathen world, and all grades of humanity of all time. Christ has suffered for them every one. There may be suffering, but there can be no just punishment for sin, either in this life or the next.

But then, there is the necessity for purification. And suffering is made by divine grace to serve that end. We can well conceive then that there are all grades of suffering, and all grades of the duration of suffering, in the next life. It is no contradiction of this idea, but rather a confirmation of it, that very much of this suffering is the result of former sin. Indeed, when we see, even in this life, how often that suffering is a result of sin, yet is a means of purification, we can well believe that it will so operate in the next life, and on a larger scale.

Sinners of every grade require just two things; Forgiveness and Holiness. That is, a title to heaven, and a fitness for it. Let us see how these two things are acquired, and if either of them demands eternal punishment.

Justification is acquired by the death of Christ, and by that alone. "He died for our sins," "He was wounded for our transgressions." "The Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all." "We are justified freely by his blood." That is the one reason and ground for forgiveness. So then, whether men know it or not, they are forgiven. It is the merit of Christ that counts, and that alone. Christ has paid the penalty, and it takes due effect in the forgiveness of every sinner. He "tasted death for every man." Therefore, there can be no just punishment even in the case of the most incorrigible; far less can there be eternal punishment.

But then, as I have said, the sinner needs holiness. Suffering seems to be absolutely necessary here. But in this case suffering is not punishment; for punishment implies wrong doing. But all wrong doing has been atoned for, as we have seen. Hence the suffering that is inflicted is not punishment; it is discipline; the Fatherly infliction of love. "Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth."

And what is the divine intention of this chastisement or discipline? Is it not the production of a worthy character? In this case it is no less than the re-creation of a character. In producing such a character God uses various means, and one of these, as we have seen, is discipline. But if suffering were continued through all eternity, it would surely not be discipline. We think it would have the very opposite effect, and would produce the maximum of evil. Therefore, on the ground of needed discipline, as well as on that of forgiveness, we can see no necessity for eternal torment. And if there is no necessity for it, certainly it is not inflicted.

It may be well to make this matter a little clearer, even at the risk of some repetition. If there is any doubt about sin being actually forgiven before the exercise of faith or penitence, I would ask: What is the actual ground of forgiveness? Is it not the Atonement of Christ? Necessary as faith and penitence are, could either or both procure forgiveness? If they could, Christ need not have died. But of all things, that was the prime necessity. Without shedding of blood there could be no remission. The corollary of that is, that with shedding blood there can be instant and universal remission.

* * * * *

Instant, we say? Yes; for "we are reconciled to God by the death of His Son," He was "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world," so God is reconciled now; and not only that, but from all eternity.

* * * * *

And universal? Yes; for he "tasted death for every man." So every sinner is forgiven by virtue of Christ's Atonement. The benefit of that Atonement extends to the worst man of our race.

* * * * *

But are not faith and penitence necessary? Yes, they are necessary to final salvation; but if they are necessary to forgiveness, then there was no necessity for Atonement. It is Atonement alone which procures pardon; and as Atonement was for the whole race, so forgiveness is for the whole race also.

To be sure it is written that "we are justified by faith," But surely, we are not to understand those words literally or rigidly. For could faith of itself really justify us? Could it really pay the debt we owe? It is "the gift of God." Is it not therefore wholly without merit? Is not its function, rather, to bring us into the consciousness of justification? I do not see how it could do more than that.

But if we want to know the ground of justification, must we not look for it in the death of Christ? It is written that we are "freely justified by his blood." Is not that really the ground? And inasmuch as Christ is "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world," the merit of his death goes back to the first, as well as extends to the last, sinner of our race. When the matter is viewed in this light, does it not seem a moral necessity that all sin is already forgiven?

But it may be pleaded that God is "angry with sinners every day;" that "tribulation and wrath" are ordained for "every soul of man that doeth evil;" and so on. How, then, can divine anger, tribulation, and wrath rest upon a person that is forgiven?

Simply because God's very nature is opposed to sin in every form; and he must visit sin with wrath and tribulation, though it be forgiven. In fact, it is because sin is forgiven, and that thus the basis of salvation is laid, that God is so painstaking to make the most and the best of us.

It is, therefore, easy to believe that wrath and tribulation will be continued in the next life until the sinner repents, and turns to God. The fact that Christ has died for him will be no mitigation of necessary discipline, any more than it is now. The very fact that in this life we see the same principle of suffering on the part of God's own children, is proof enough of the righteousness and wisdom of a similar course being followed in the next life. The merit of Christ's Atonement does not avail for shielding sinners from necessary suffering in either life.

But did not Christ at times pronounce forgiveness in such a way as to mean that it occurred just then, and not before? Take that case of the paralytic to whom he said, "Thy sins are forgiven." Does it not look as if the man were forgiven then and there? And yet, how could It be? The man as yet had not been healed, and so there was nothing to indicate his saving faith in Christ. Yet the Saviour pronounced his forgiveness. It seems to me that Christ was rather bearing testimony to the fact that the man had been forgiven—he did not say when. It may have been that the poor paralytic was laboring under the fallacy that his suffering was owing to special sin, and so Christ wished to give him the joy of conscious pardon.

Or, take the case of the poor penitent in the house of Simon. Jesus said to her, "Thy sins are forgiven," and to "go in peace." Now were her sins forgiven the moment Jesus spoke to her? Were they not forgiven prior to that? Was there anything in the woman's mental or moral attitude to Christ to indicate that not till the moment that he spoke the word were her sins forgiven? The fact is, that he spoke the word when circumstances led up to it, and not before. There is nothing to forbid the idea, it seems to me that her sins were always forgiven; but Jesus spoke the word of comfort just when it was needed. She had now the joy of conscious forgiveness; I think that was what Jesus intended to bestow.

So it seems to me that all sin is forgiven already. The death of Christ secures that boon. And is there anything which would break a sinner's heart so effectually as to know that, let him sink in wickedness to the lowest possible depths, yet that all his sin is already forgiven? If anything would win him, can you conceive of anything so effectual as that? What a display that would be of the conquering power of love divine!

Here I would note a singular coincidence. The very day after I had written that there is no punishment for sin either in this life or the next—that it is all discipline—I received a book from some unknown friend in which the same idea occurs. Speaking of a prodigal daughter, the author says: "There was but one thing wanting to restore her to her home—a mere act of the will that should have prompted her to say, 'I will arise, and go to my father!' It is precisely so with every child of God. There is no moment in which they are not forgiven, and the Father anxiously longing for their return." In another place he says, "All sin is forgiven sin."

But, mark you; this author writes from the standpoint of orthodoxy. Then if "all sin is forgiven sin," how can it merit eternal punishment? How can future suffering be considered punishment at all if all sin is forgiven?

And this author is very sure that the suffering is absolutely endless. This is what he says: "If in the infinite love of God there might be found a shortening of the sinner's doom, it would certainly be a matter of relief to all; but the only Book that comes with answer to the great questions of the soul, it seems to me, lends no encouragement to such a hope."

Evidently, this man's heart is better than his head. He says that God has ordained everlasting suffering; but our author is not satisfied with that; he would be glad if some "shortening" of the sinner's doom could be found, but he cannot find it. He does not seem to realize that in these words he claims to be more merciful than God Himself.

Now, if "all sin is forgiven sin," as the author says, and as I believe it is, then how can there in justice be everlasting suffering? The suffering cannot in justice be punishment, since the sin is forgiven; nor can it be discipline if the suffering has no end, for no moral improvement would be attained thereby, but the very maximum of evil. Surely, a merciful and just and wise God cannot be the Author of any such scheme? Would it not be a thousand times more reasonable to conceive of suffering as being temporary; to be inflicted as a necessary discipline; and then when the discipline is attained, to cease?

The reverent and reasonable way of looking at the entire matter seems to be something like this: First; all sin is forgiven in virtue of the Atonement that has been made. The benefit of that Atonement extends to the first man of our race, as well as to the last one. The benefit of it extends to the whole family of man, whether heathen or not; and whether small sinners or great.

Further; every man is a sinner in some degree, and he needs a degree of discipline which the present life does not provide, but which is provided in the next. This will be as varied as men's character and attainments. In those who have risen high, it may well be described as a passage into glory, for it will, indeed, be realized as such. But it will be a lower glory, preparatory for a higher, to be attained later on. Others, with different degrees of evil still clinging to them, will have to undergo pains and penalties suitable to their condition, and so by gradual ascent attain to perfection and blessedness. Thus, it is reasonable to think that there will be as great a variety of character and capacity then as now; and this will largely determine the great variety of place, service, and so on.

But supposing that future punishment did issue in moral improvement, and that such improvement should go on increasing, is it thinkable that under an infinitely gracious and wise government there would come no time of such perfection as would warrant release? But in that case the suffering would not be endless. Whichever way you take it, that seems to be the inevitable, final issue.

So it seems to me that the only wise, and beneficent, and just idea of future suffering, whether it be intense or mild, or whether it be of shorter or longer duration, is, that it will be the means of working out a divinely intended degree of moral perfection; and that it will then come to an end. This course of procedure we observe here and now. It may operate on a larger scale, and with more final results, in the life to come; but we apprehend that the principle will be much the same. And the principle is enough for us now. The details, we are sure, will be worthy of Infinite Wisdom and Love.

It will thus be observed that our author's dictum that "all sin is forgiven sin" absolutely forbids the idea of endless torment. It is a marvel that he did not see this before. But somehow, likely from early training, there is a strong disposition to retain the idea of endless torment as though it were the Gospel. We think, on the contrary, that any good reasons, whether founded on Scripture or on common sense, should be hailed as a deliverance from intellectual and spiritual bondage. Above all things, let us beware of turning the divine light into darkness.

This is a mere sketch of the order that may be supposed to obtain in the next life. We need to put Scripture and reason together to get a view of such things as will commend themselves to our best judgment. And when we have done our best, what can we really know of details? Not much, certainly; but enough to appeal strongly to faith and hope. In fact, anything like a complete revelation could not be given to us now and here; for we have not the capacity nor the experience to understand it. And even if it could be given, it might largely distract us from the ordinary duties of life. It is a gracious Providence that shuts out the unseen from these mortal eyes. But we have the great consolation that "what we know not now, we shall know hereafter."

In regard to the unfolding of divine truth, I have just met with the following terse expression of it: "The inscrutable laws of the all-wise God do not reveal themselves in one generation, but ripen with the desire for knowledge on the part of mankind."

Thus, there is a progress in revelation. There are epochs when men get larger views of truth. I think the present is one of these epochs. Many statements of Scripture that were supposed formerly to relate wholly to the present life, are now seen to relate to the life beyond. This brings a wonderful naturalness and harmony into the whole scheme of grace, so far as it is revealed.

The idea of no endless torment is but an enlargement of the principle that God brings good out of evil.

Consider also that an ideal condition of the universe seems to require that sin and suffering will be forever eliminated; and that under God's administration an ideal condition will be realized.

Further; God has a personal love for every human soul. The most degraded of our race can say as truly as did Paul, "He loved me." It is reasonable to expect, then, that infinite Love will secure for the worst of mankind something better than endless torment.

I have referred to the fact that the mind has a strong affinity for truth. But certainly, it has a strong repugnance to a belief in endless torment. Men try to believe it because they think it is taught in the Bible, and that it would be a dangerous thing to doubt it. But apart from that, there is no natural or hearty concurrence of the mind in that view. And I think I may say that such an attitude is more pronounced in those of an elevated and reverent turn of mind.

Then we know that God "does not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of men." Therefore we believe all the suffering of this life and of the next is but as a means to an end.

The fact, also, that sin and suffering are abnormal features of the divine administration, indicates almost beyond doubt that they will finally be done away.

Remember, too, that it is very clearly revealed that an Atonement has been made for "every man." Thus, a divine provision has been made for every man Now the provision involves desire; and can the desire fail? Under a perfect administration, therefore, how can there be endless suffering?

Then if God gave His own Son, and if the Son gave Himself, for the redemption of the world, will that Atonement fail of its effect in a single case? Such a possibility is almost unthinkable.

Consider, also, that the possibility of eternal sin and suffering seems to imply a failure of the divine administration; which is impossible.

Then, God is forever the same. If He is love, wisdom, power, justice, mercy, now, He is the same through all eternity. At no future epoch, therefore, can we conceive of the necessity of endless torment.

We have to remember too, that God rules in all worlds, and throughout all time. Forever, and everywhere, "His counsel will stand, and He will do all His pleasure."

It is an orthodox doctrine that God cannot suffer. But that does not seem in harmony with the breathing of His sigh, "O that they were wise!" or "How can I give thee up?" or the tears of Christ over the apostate city. Now, if God is eternal Love, do not sin and suffering interfere forever with His happiness? But normally we conceive of Him as the infinitely happy One; therefore that normal condition requires that sin and suffering be ultimately done away.

Then we have the fact that we are God's children; yes, even the most debased of mankind. Paul could say to the idolaters of Athens, "We are His offspring." Now, if we are really His children, and therefore infinitely dearer to Him than our children are to us, will not the present suffering of even one of us be a source of pain to the eternal Father? On that ground we cannot think of suffering as being endless. This is holy ground; let us tread it reverently.

Further; we read that Christ "lighteth every man that cometh into the world." Now, if He loves every man, and atones for every man, and enlightens every man, is it conceivable that He will not somewhere and at some time save every man?

Likewise, we read that "the Spirit is given to every man." Is not that the initial stage of redemption? Then will not redemption be completed? Here we see but a very small part of the outgoings of Him who is from everlasting to everlasting.

Then this larger view explains God's universal call. He says, "Look unto me and be ye saved, all ye ends of the earth." There we see God's intention; and if it is not carried out in this life, will it not be in the life to come? We are accustomed in our short-sightedness to think that the dividing line of death is final. But with God it is not final. It only marks the stage from one epoch to another.

In the same way, this larger view explains God's repeated promise to Abraham. The promise was made to him that in him all the families on the earth would be blest. But uncounted millions of them have not been blest, so far as this life is concerned. Will the promise not be fulfilled? And how can it be fulfilled but by being fulfilled in the next life?

Then, of Christ it was foretold that he should "see of the travail of His soul, and should be satisfied." But surely, He is not satisfied with the comparatively small number of the human race that have been saved. If He loves each one of them individually, will He be satisfied with less than the salvation of each one?

Evidently, He looked forward to this all-conquering epoch when He said that He would draw all men unto Himself. Certainly, He did not draw all men to Himself when He was here. What remains for us but to enlarge our view, and believe that He will do it there?

Along the same line we have the promise that "all Israel shall be saved." That promise has not been fulfilled, and never can be fulfilled, in this life. Is it too much to say that it will be fulfilled in the life to come?

In like manner it is promised that "He shall have the heathen for his inheritance." But uncounted millions of the heathen have died in utter darkness; and millions more are dying now. How can the promise be fulfilled within the bourne of time? But we thank God that the whole span of time is but one short epoch with Him whose ways are from everlasting.

Judging from the revelations that we have of God, we believe that He can and will achieve the maximum of holiness and happiness for all His creatures, according to their several capacities. In harmony with this view, scientists and moralists say that it is a law of the universe that anything that is really good will endure. It is likely that in the future life we shall see the working of that principle as we cannot see it now.

It is strongly in favor of this idea that man is endowed with such amazing potentiality. There seems to be no end to his capacity of development. Now, is it to be supposed that an all-wise God would endow man with such possibilities, and create no scope for their development? Certainly, there would be no worthy development of them in the case of endless torment. This idea strongly suggests universal salvation.

In the case of eternal suffering, without hope of release, would not that condition develop every possibility of evil to all eternity? And would not such an outcome be entirely contrary to the purpose of the Holy One?

Then it is an everlasting argument for universal salvation that such a consummation would be far more glorifying to God, than any other alternative that we can conceive.

Thus, the larger view goes a long way to explain God's delay in saving the heathen. We may fail in giving them the Gospel; but will He fail? Is His success made dependent on any passing whim or indifference of ours? Surely not. He may have good reasons for saving some in this life, and others in the next. We see but a short way into the whole scheme of things.

This larger view also solves the difficulty of dealing after death with the imperfect Christian. He is not fit for the world of bliss, nor yet for the world of woe. But the discipline we are supposing fits him for his higher destiny.

And so, we may well suppose, it will be with the non-Christian good man. On the principle that what is good will endure, all that is good in him will be retained, and the evil will be eliminated.

Also, on this basis we can reasonably forecast the destiny of the insane. Since they lost their reason they are not responsible. But they will resume their reason at the point where it deserted them, and they will be prepared for the inheritance of the saints.

The same theory justifies the destruction of wicked nations. They had gone down to such depths of sin, that it was better for them to be cut off, and to have a new opportunity under more favorable conditions.

This larger view also explains why God chose to continue the human race after they sinned, and entailed on all their posterity such mourning, lamentation and woe. God did an infinitely better thing for the race than extinction. He provided a way of salvation for all. So the day may come in the endless years when all the pains and penalties of earth will be reckoned trifles as light as air, contrasted with the supernal glory that has been attained.

I would also say that according to this larger view there is no more difficulty as to supposed eternal separations. It has always been a mystery how the good can be happy when conscious that those whom they loved are in everlasting torment. Some have even tried to believe that they would rise to God's own point of view, and survey with complacency the utmost torments of the dammed!

When I was a child I often heard the dictum from the pulpit that "the nature that sinned must suffer." Therefore, it was said that our Lord took our humanity in order that He might suffer in our nature. I have believed since that if He had suffered in any other nature, His suffering would be no less efficacious. I believe that the merit of His suffering could be transferred to any other world that needs it, be the inhabitants human or otherwise, and be their sin what it may. I think it is not for us to limit that merit to our own race. But we need not follow that point farther now.

I often heard another dictum, and one of more importance, that I feel inclined to question. It was said that sin committed against God is an infinite evil, because God is infinitely holy. Therefore, it was argued, that sin deserves infinite punishment; but that as finite beings we cannot render an infinite penalty in point of quality, we must render it in point of duration; hence the justice of everlasting punishment.

I confess that to me all this show of logic items act much more than a play upon words. For one thing, it may be doubted if a finite being is capable of committing an infinite sin. If he is not, the whole argument collapses.

Then if he is capable of it, and if the sin in justice demands an infinite punishment, how can a just God forbear inflicting the punishment at once? But He waits to be gracious. Is not that a transgression of the strict law of justice? But if in justice He can wait an hour, why not a year? And if a year, why not a hundred years? And if a hundred years, why not forever? Thus the penalty would be avoided altogether.

Further; if sin demands an infinite penalty, the penalty could never be rendered. For infinity has no end; and so, prolong the penalty as we might through uncounted aeons, there would still be an eternity to come. Therefore, the penalty would never be exacted. It requires the whole of eternity; and eternity will never end. Therefore, on this showing, with all reverence, God might as well stop at once, and claim no penalty, for the penalty goes on forever; and forever has no end. Not even a moiety of the penalty could be inflicted; for a moiety can be measured, but infinity has no measurement.

Besides; if the penalty is to be infinite in duration, might not a very mild punishment suffice as well as a more intense punishment? For the sum total would be equal. One infinity of duration and of suffering is equal to another; so there would be no need to inflict any severe suffering; infinity of duration would make the suffering infinite in amount, however slight it might be in quality. So if an eternity of suffering could be endured, which it cannot, the smallest degree of discomfort would be sufficient to meet the demand.

And it is not to be forgotten that all these assumptions are based upon the theory that God is only strict justice, whereas we know that He is love as well; yes, and wisdom; so we believe He would find a better method than the one we have sketched, even if it could be realized.

Thus, the whole argument breaks down. It is but a human invention, and not a good invention; designed, it would seem, to support a foregone conclusion. Ten thousand times better than all such absurd elaboration is the simple statement that "His mercy endureth forever."