It has been during the ministry of this faith in the present century that the leading doctrines of the theology formerly prevalent in our land have been questioned, investigated, and in many minds outgrown. Who now believes in the endless suffering of infants? a doctrine deemed unquestionable in the churches a century ago. Even the existence of it at that time, in face of the most stubborn facts, has been denied by those whose parents and grandparents heard it from the Christian pulpit. Who assents to the doctrine of the total depravity of human nature, its inability "to do a good deed or think a good thought," and its utter odiousness in God's sight? What considerations and reconsiderations are there of that doctrine of atonement which involves the assumption that God was so incensed against his sinful children that Christ, the second and more merciful person in the Godhead, came into the world and died to appease the wrath of God and render it possible for him to be merciful to the delinquents; and how much more emphatic is the conviction finding utterance, so eminently expressive of Christian Universalism, "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved."[22] And the doctrine of endless punishment, how, during the time of which we are speaking, has this been questioned in the churches of our land. It has been seen that the divine character is involved in this doctrine, and that one of the most difficult of all theological works is to vindicate this character in the light of it. Formerly, it was deemed little short of impiety to question the justice of God when this horrible doctrine was represented as an indication and vindication of it. To cite emphatically the passage in Matthew (xxv. 46), "These shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal," was considered evidence enough that the divine justice could and would be signalized in the utter banishment of great numbers of his children from him, world without end. To question the exegesis of the passage as generally given—the original meaning of the word rendered "everlasting" and "eternal"—was regarded as a direct affront to the human wisdom of the past that had sanctioned it; and to declare such an explanation of it as derogatory to "the Eternal Goodness," was to question the veracity of the High and Holy One! But the thoughts of men have kept at work; inquiry has gone on; the old explanation has been most confidently and emphatically denied, and a more reasonable and consistent one given. Even the most respectable orthodoxy itself has conceded that the aionian punishment here set forth is not necessarily to be understood as implying endless duration, and that in the argument henceforth against the doctrine of universal restoration, this old interpretation of the text need be no longer urged.[23] We have reserved a more extended view of this subject, however, for the close of this volume.
[17] Rev. Dr. A. A. Miner, Discourse at Gloucester, September, 1870.
[18] Comm. on Acts, ii. 23.
[19] Heb. ii. 9.
[20] Rev. H. W. Beecher.
[21] John, xii. 32; 1 Tim. ii. 4.
[22] John, iii. 16, 17.
[23] Dr. Taylor Lewis.