6 doctrine now, for it is worthy of the God whom you serve; but, if an eternal hell of torments is the fate of the unbeliever, we prefer our own religion."* Now, it might be very naturally concluded from the tenor of the passages we have quoted that the exponents of the new theory rejected the doctrine of penalty altogether, and represented God as a being of simple benevolence. But such is not the case. On the contrary, they insist on the necessity of a "credible and operative doctrine of Judgment to come' upon all mankind." Even while rejecting the doctrine of eternal retribution, they confess that "As to the nature, duration, and severity of the suffering which will have been undergone by the finally impenitent before the last moment of their existence, and as to the means by which and the circumstances under which they will be put out of existence, we know very little indeed." "What it would or would not be right for this or that person to suffer within the limits that revelation renders possible we cannot tell."‡ It will no doubt appear surprising to most thoughtful minds that a theory that pretends to grapple with some of the most difficult problems relating to the Divine character and government, and to make the Word of God a harmonious and consistent system of revealed truth, should have so many difficulties of its own to confess. We should like to know, however, wherein lies the advantage of the new view as regards its moral influence on mankind. It, in common with the orthodox doctrine of future retribution, has its "Judgment to come," "its terrors of the Lord," its "second death" to proclaim. In either case the motive of human fear is appealed to. In either case God" to the impenitent "is a consuming fire." In either case it is a calamity unspeakable to be lost. "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." What, then, is gained by reducing the penalty of the obstinate transgressor? If motives of fear are a hindrance to the success of the Gospel, why not abandon the idea of penalty for transgression altogether? But, if fear is legitimate and useful as a religious motive in any degree, who shall say what precise idea of the soul's future fate is fitted to awaken that salutary emotion in its just amount. 66 The gravest objection however to the argument by which it is attempted to defend the new doctrine of man's future destiny remains to be noticed. We consider it, in the highest degree, misleading, mischievous, and unfair to represent the orthodox doctrine of future retribution as "causing men to turn away from God in terror, instead of coming with their sins and sorrows to His feet." It is putting into the mouths of the wilful and obstinate a false and insincere excuse. The Scriptures ascribe the cause of human estrangement and alienation from God to wilful † Report, p. 35, * Report, p. 24. Report, p. 16. blindness, unbelief, and sin. Nor can any thoughtful and unprejudiced mind doubt that such is really the case. Nothing but evil, therefore, can result from this lame attempt to damage and discredit the doctrine of eternal punishment by throwing upon it the responsibility of "alienating myriads from the entire Christian system."* We have reason to believe that in all the evangelical pulpits of Christendom the God of the Gospel is represented, not as a "cruel, malignant, and vindictive" being, as the advocates of Conditional Immortality unfairly insinuate, but as one in whom an infinite and unsurpassable love and a stainless and unbending justice harmoniously blend-as a gracious and merciful God, whom to know and to enjoy is eternal life and happiness—but whom to resist and deny is everlasting death and misery. Nor can it be denied that this view of the Divine character has been to a very large extent "operative" and fruitful for good in its influence on mankind. It has kindled the loftiest sentiments of benevolence and pity towards the perishing thousands of mankind in many Christian hearts, and has generated strong and active impulses of zeal for their rescue and moral improvement. As far as we can see, the doctrine of the ultimate annihilation of the wicked would have the contrary effect. It would tend to lessen Christian sympathy towards those who are "without God and without hope in the world." It would inevitably cripple Christian activity and enterprise at home, and "check and hamper" the work of God on the mission field. And there is little reason to doubt that thus the deadly evils of languor, supineness, and apathy in the Church would be increased tenfold. Indeed, signs already appear which, we fear, abundantly warrant this surmise. In the "Report," to which we have so frequently referred in this paper, the Rev. S. Minton is made to say: "We know that the doctrine of Conditional Immortality has brought unspeakable relief and comfort to thousands of our fellow-Christians." We should very much like to know in what way. If it has so relieved them as to relax their efforts for the salvation of the lost, it is a questionable benefit. And even though such an unfortunate result should not follow, yet it must appear a most unworthy display of the worst kind of selfishness when Christian men think mainly of their own "relief and comfort" in estimating the value of a theory that renders the happiness of others none the surer, and, it may be, to say the very least, their misery none the less. For our own part, we are convinced that the true secret of personal peace and satisfaction, in face of the terrible facts of human sin, impenitence, and perdition, is not to be found in any particular "view," "theory," or speculation on the nature or destiny of man, but rather in hard, faithful, self-denying work, done in prayerful deReport, p. 23. † Report, p. 16. * Thus would the Lord We hesitate not to say that pendence on the divine help and guidance. Inactive contemplation of the present moral condition and future prospects of the unbelieving masses of mankind is only fitted to fill the mind with depression and sadness. Light and peace come by unremitting devotion to Christian work. have us use the daylight of our life. the requirements of the world, in its darkness, and sin, and misery, will never be met by those who are intensely and absorbingly concerned about their own "relief and comfort." We are afraid that this form of selfishness is the crying sin of half the Christian churches in the land. What is wanted is, men and women who, with heroic self-abandonment, will go forth to the "waste places" of human life, which, as St. Augustine says, are "fertile only in sorrow," and show men the path of a nobler life by teaching them the blessed secret of saving faith in a holy, gracious, and benignant God. ART. IV.-ATHENAGORAS'S APOLOGY FOR THE CHRISTIANS. Translated by JABEZ COLE. (Concluded from page 89.) XII. AND what! Think you, then, that we should thus cultivate inno cence and purity of heart if we were not persuaded that a God is witness of all our actions? No, doubtless; but because we are convinced that we shall have to render account of all our works to God who has created us-we and the world-we have chosen a course of life held in contempt by the multitude, yet full of humanity and of moderation. We fear nothing upon the earth, not even death itself, persuaded as we are that nothing can be compared to the good things we shall receive in heaven from the hand of the Sovereign Judge in recompense for a life of wisdom and of virtue exercised no less for the good of others than with the view to our own salvation. Plato pretends that Minos and Rhadamanthus will judge and punish the wicked. We say that this Minos and this Rhadamanthus, and even their fathers, if they ever had any, will themselves be judged, for all must appear before the judgment-seat of God. What are men to be regarded as virtuous whose maxim is, "Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die "-men who see nothing beyond the grave, and believe death to be a profound sleep, an eternal oblivion; thereby endorsing the sentiment of a poet, who says that sleep and death Our are twins, the latter to be as little feared as his elder brother? And are we, who deny ourselves of all ungodliness and worldly lusts, living daily in the fear of God and for the good of man, to be accounted as impious and not fit to live? religion gives us happiness of soul, no less than fortitude of mind and the martyr's spirit. Those who taste of the honey or of the milk set before them can judge of the quality of the whole from the flavour of the part partaken of. The day-star in the Christian's heart is also the day-star of the Christian's heaven. That day-star is Jesus Christ, who is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever, as says an inspired apostle. XIII. The immense majority of those who accuse us of atheism have not the slightest knowledge of God, measuring their piety by the number of victims they sacrifice, and making it a crime in us not to recognise the gods which your cities adore. Why do we Christians abstain from immolating victims? Because the great Father who has made all things has no need of blood and of smoke, any more than he has need of flowers or of perfumes. It is the sacrifice of a broken and contrite spirit that he requires, It is love in the heart and virtue in the life that are acceptable to him. Why, then, present to God holocausts of which he has no need? He demands no bleeding victim, but an enlightened and reasonable worship. One even of your own poets has said, "It is neither victims, nor touching prayers; it is neither libations, nor the smoke of sacrifices, which can appease the gods, if one has transgressed the law, if one has sinned. No, not these, but repentance and obedience." XIV. We are reproached by our enemies for not frequenting their temples and worshiping their gods. But is not such reproach most unreasonable? seeing that those who heap it upon us are at variance among themselves about the very deities to be worshiped. Thus, Athens worships Celenus and Metanira; whilst Macedon acknowledges Menelano, offering to him sacrifices, and consecrating feast-days to his honour, although the people of Troy never hear his name but with horror, and prefer to celebrate the memory of Hector. The island of Scio renders divine honours to Aristeus, whom it regards as Jupiter or Apollo. Thasos reveres Theagenes, who, however, had soiled his character by a murder at the Olympic games. Samos honours Lysander, notwithstanding his murders and his crimes. Hesiod and Alcman deity Medea; the Cilicians Niolea; the Selicians Phillipus, son of Butacidus; the inhabitants of Amathontes Onesilas; the Carthaginians Amilcar. But what am I saying? a whole day would not suffice me to name all these gods. Since our enemies cannot agree among themselves touching their divinities, why do they make it a crime in us not to accept their religious beliefs? What do we see in In Egypt? Surely that country has attained the very summit of the absurd and ridiculous, notwithstanding its boasted "wisdom." their temples-into which the multitude press-those Egyptians smite upon the breast, because their god is dead, and at his death they offer sacrifices as to a deity. But why be astonished when we know that they elevate brute beasts to the rank of Divinity; and that at the death of these sacred animals they shave their heads, burying the dead creatures in their temples, and prescribing for them public mourning? If, then, we Christians are impious because we do not worship your gods, all the cities, all the nations are impious too, for none of them worship the same divinities, each community adoring the special god or gods itself has made! XV. But, should all the peoples adore the same God, what then? Do not the majority confound God with matter, addressing their prayers to vain images? No matter who is the god, it is an idol which is worshiped; such being the proclivity of degenerate and unenlightened human minds for the purely sensuous and superstitious even in religious matters. If God and matter are but one and the same thing, designated under two different names, then it is evident that we Christians are impious and atheistic in not bowing down to wood, to stone, to silver, and to gold. But if, on the contrary, as we believe, God is a spirit, and therefore, not matter, nor divisible into "gods many," but essentially and immutably one, why should we be held at hand and persecuted as abominable infidels for simply worshiping Him? Who does not see that matter is, relatively to God, precisely what the clay is in regard to the potter? The clay is the materiel, the potter is the worker and fashioner. This is the teaching of common sense, and whatever opposes it is not philosophy, but wildest sophistry. Besides, is it not the doctrine of our greatest teachers, such as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, and Cicero ? men whom your Majesties hold in the highest veneration, and whose sentiment in this particular is your Majesties' own. Materialism and Atheism are convertible terms, whilst between a Democritus and a Protagoras there is no difference, unless there may be said to be one of degree of insanity as regards their respective systems of anti-theistic, and, therefore, anti-rational philosophy. As a rule all the philosophers believe in one Supreme Being; they being the poets and the priests who lay sacrilegious hands on His unity, and re-fashion Him into that many-headed hydra of idolatry which the world worshipeth. To make as many gods as there are different forms of matter is to confound the Supreme Being, incorruptible and eternal, with a created and perishable materialism. XVI. This universe, without doubt, is an admirable system, calling forth our wonder and our gratitude, whether we consider |