Such may have been Finney's case in particular. He preached the Gospel; that was the secret of his genuine success. Men were simply frightened by his lurid descriptions of h.e.l.l. So extreme was he in this respect that strong men trembled, and Finney had to be pulled by the coat tails that he 'might go no further. So it was not his awful descriptions of the lost that were so blessed. It was the modic.u.m of Gospel truth, presented with great earnestness, that really told.

Let me give two examples of the same principle from New Testament history. There was a certain Jew named Apollos. It is said of him that he was "mighty in the Scriptures," that he was "instructed in the way of the Lord," that he "mightily convinced the Jews." Yes; but at the same time he "knew only the baptism of John." Great as that man was, he was taken in hand by those obscure Christians. Aquila and Priscilla, who "expounded unto him the way of G.o.d more perfectly." The truth he had was enc.u.mbered for a time with a great deal of error; but it was owned and blessed notwithstanding.

WANT OF PROPORTION.

A more notable case was that of Peter. You remember his glorious response to our Lord's challenge, "Whom say ye that I am?" Peter promptly and gladly responded, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living G.o.d." By that confession, Peter has covered his name with immortal honor. You remember, too, his sermon on the day of Pentecost, when three thousand men were converted. You recall also that sermon a little later when the converts numbered five thousand. Yes; but the man who was thus owned and honored really believed that the Gospel was for the Jews alone. Notwithstanding all his advantages, he was really a subject of that delusion. And he continued so for some time. Three miracles had really to be wrought to convince Peter to the contrary.

This want of proportion in the man's illumination is really marvellous.

It goes a long way to explain many revivals since that time.

Thus, Peter--grand apostle though he was--and notwithstanding that for three years he had been the bosom friend of Christ--had very narrow views as to the intended scope of the Gospel. He believed that the Gentiles were common and unclean; and it took, first a vision, and then a miraculous experience, to cure him of that insular idea. But he was cured, and never went back to his former contracted ideas.

So, it seems to me, the Christian World of to-day needs a vision along the same line; but larger. They have to take in the millions of un-Christian people in Christian lands, together with the uncounted millions of heathen during all time; and they have to learn that from the divine standpoint not one individual of them all is common or unclean. We believe that every one of them is destined for glory, and honor, and immortality. It may take a long time, and methods which as yet we know nothing of, to work out that glorious issue; but we cannot conceive of anything less as being worthy of eternal wisdom, power, and love.

From this point of view there can be no uncertainty about the end.

Whether we think of G.o.d as desiring the highest character and happiness of His creatures; or whether we think of the means that Christ has used, and is using, to secure that end; or whether we think of the capacity of man for attaining the highest and the best--we can have no doubt that suffering will ultimately be done away, and that G.o.d will be all in all!

That is, everything in everybody! Let us try to realize it. It is no mere golden dream.

I heard lately of a boy in Chicago under whose addresses people were being continually converted; and it was said there was nothing peculiar about his addresses but want of grammar. It is thus that G.o.d often chooses the weak things of the world to confound the mighty. The mere fact, then, that successful revivalists believed in the old theory of eternal torment, is no proof, nor even an indication, that it is true.

What a recoil we experience now when we read Jonathan Edwards' appalling description of sinners in the hands of an angry G.o.d! Even our beloved Spurgeon fell into this most horrible mistake. In all such cases it was logical enough. These men were but honestly following up the necessary result of their creed. Yet it may be well to quote Spurgeon's own words, that we may see what the old doctrine infallibly leads to. He says: "When thou diest, thy soul will be tormented alone. That will be a h.e.l.l for it. But at the Day of Judgment, thy body will join thy soul, and then thou wilt have twin h.e.l.ls; thy soul sweating drops of blood, and thy body suffused with agony. In fire, exactly like that we have on earth, thy body will lie, asbestos-like, forever consumed, all thy veins roads for the feet of pain to travel on, every nerve a string, on which the devil shall forever play his diabolical tune of h.e.l.l's unutterable lament."

No doubt such descriptions are awful. But are they not reasonable, if eternal torment is true? It is no use to turn away awe-stricken from such details; they are quite in harmony with the main idea of torment.

Get the main idea right, and all such details will disappear. In fact, they have largely disappeared now. Why? Because the main idea is really disbelieved. Yes, disbelieved, though it is confessed. Surely, this disloyalty to what in our inmost souls we believe to be the truth is disloyalty to the Spirit of Truth.

Spurgeon's words are horrible enough; but they are far exceeded by others. Take the case of the Rev. J. Furniss, in a book of his on the "Sight of h.e.l.l." This author would be fiendish, if he were not silly.

Here are his words:

"Little child, if you go to h.e.l.l, there will be a devil at your side to strike you. He will go on striking you every minute forever and ever without end. The first stroke will make your body as bad as the body of Job, covered from head to foot with sores and ulcers. The second stroke will make your body twice as bad as the body of Job. The third stroke will make your body three times as bad as the body of Job. The fourth stroke will make your body four times as bad as the body of Job. How, then will your body be, after the devil has been striking it every moment for a hundred millions of years without stopping?

"Perhaps at this moment, seven o'clock in the evening, a child is just going to h.e.l.l. To-morrow evening at seven o'clock, go and knock at the gates of h.e.l.l, and ask what the child is doing. The devils will go and look. They will come back again, and say, The child is burning,' Go in a week and ask what the child is doing. You will get the same answer, 'It is burning,' Go in a year and ask. The same answer comes, 'It is burning.' Go in a million years and ask the same question. The answer is just the same, 'It is burning in the fire!'"

This is lurid enough; but is it not logical? It does seem to me that in this as in many other instances there is a great want in the popular imagination. Men will think it reasonable to believe in endless suffering; consider it even a sure sign of orthodoxy; sometimes speak of it glibly; but when the idea is drawn out into detail, they will shrink back from the detail in horror.

The fact is, that the theory does not bear to be presented in detail; when it is, even its supporters are horrified. Yet the most lurid details are strictly logical. For there is no conceivable detail of agony to be compared with that of its eternal duration. The most dreadful suffering that can be imagined pales almost into insignificance compared with the idea of endless--endless--endless duration. Even a mild discomfort, if eternally prolonged, infinitely surpa.s.ses in amount the most fearful suffering that has an end. But men will accept the theory of endless suffering almost as a commonplace, yet recoil with horror from any presentation of it in detail.

The fact that it does not bear to be even thought of in detail goes a long way to discredit the whole theory. A little development of the imagination here would be more effectual with the majority of men than all the logic in the world. And let us not think that imagination is some kind of a wild and exuberant offshoot of pure reason. No; it is a G.o.d-given faculty, and of a quality almost divine. As Ruskin says, "It is the greatest power of the soul."

Just think for a moment that sane men and kindly men could really believe in the lurid descriptions which I have quoted! Yet this pa.s.sed for orthodoxy! Is it not a marvel that men ever believed it, or tried to believe it? Only think of infinite love, infinite power, and infinite wisdom, combining to accomplish such a result! It is almost beyond belief that men of ordinary feeling, and with the Bible in their hands, ever tried to believe it. For the truth must commend itself to the heart as well as to the mind. If it does not, we ought to be on our guard.

On this most serious aspect of the case, I quote from Carlyle. He says:

"What the light of your mind, which is the direct inspiration of the Almighty, p.r.o.nounces incredible, that, in G.o.d's name, leave uncredited; at your peril do not try believing that."

It will be seen that what I have elsewhere called an "affinity for truth," Carlyle calls the "direct inspiration of the Almighty." There is no contradiction. The one phrase notes the effect of our intuition; the other recognizes its origin. At all events, this mental and moral repugnance to the theory is a strong indication that it is not true.

On this most serious aspect of the case, let us pause for a moment longer. The more our mind dwells on it the more p.r.o.nounced is our conviction that it is not true. Just think of one soul being consigned to everlasting torment. Through ages and ages interminable, to be succeeded by other ages forever and ever, the agony is prolonged, with the absolute certainty that forever and ever there will be no release or mitigation.

Would not the very thought of such a fate drive us insane? Surely it would; yes, though the supposed criminal had committed the most atrocious crimes, and though he had done us the worst conceivable wrong.

But here we are, giving our minds to business, our hearts to pleasure, and our nights to sleep, yet all the while professing to believe that one of our fellow creatures, perhaps one whom we have known, it may be one whom we have loved, is in everlasting torment. Yet if a stranger was confined in a burning house, we would make the most frantic efforts to relieve him; and if we failed, the very memory of his fate would be painful to us all our days.

But the case we are trying to imagine is very different. He is no stranger, but one with whom we were acquainted; perhaps one of our own family; possibly one whom we have loved as our own life. And he is not suffering for a few minutes only, but forever and ever, without any possibility of relief. Yet we go about our business or our pleasure without giving him a thought. Is there not a strong presumption that deep down in our souls we do not really believe that he is in eternal torment? We may try to believe it; orthodoxy may tell us that it is true; but do we really believe it? Our innate, G.o.d-given conviction may turn out to be nearer the truth than our creed.

And let it be remembered that the supposed torment is eternal fire; yes, eternal fire. We may conceive of the fire as being changed somehow to suit our spiritual condition; but not less is it eternal fire. And we calmly think of such endless fire as a possibility!

Yet we have thought of but one person as enduring such a fate. But if it is the portion of even one, it must be so for countless millions. For millions have lived and died in heathenism, and millions are dying in heathenism now. Other millions in Christian lands are pa.s.sing away in practically the same condition. And all of these are our brothers and sisters of the human race. By far the great majority of them had no chance of hearing the joyful sound. Yet some of them rose to sublime heights of character. And yet they are all consigned to this holocaust of everlasting fire!

Consider also that the Being who is thus supposed to deal with these uncounted myriads is a Being of mercy inconceivably tender; of a love that is from everlasting to everlasting; of a wisdom that is infallible; of a power that can use any means for the execution of His will. Then ask yourself this question, and answer it truly from your own soul: Is it possible to believe that such a Being has nothing better in store for His own children? Surely, surely, such a fate as we profess to believe must have had its origin in the heart and brain of a fiend! That it can be seriously entertained by devout and reasonable men we think must be accounted for on these grounds, that it comes to us with the stamp of orthodoxy, and that it is not candidly examined. Otherwise, to every sincere and candid mind, and to every heart that has any genuine feeling, it would seem revolting and incredible.

With regard to the possibility of a man trying to persuade himself that he really believes with mind what he utterly repudiates with his heart, I have already quoted some very trenchant words from Caryle. In another pa.s.sage, he speaks of "the most orthodox of mortals making the impious attempt to put out the eyes of his mind, to persuade himself to believe that he believes." Then, he says: "Away with it; in the name of G.o.d, come out of it, all true men."

Such forced complacency in the knowledge that loved friends are consigned to hopeless torment, is repugnant to our humanity; yes, and most repugnant when humanity is at its best. On such themes some people do seem to lose their common sense and common feeling. If there were nothing else, such outrageous conceptions ought to be enough to discredit the whole theory of eternal torment. But we can endure the idea of temporary separation, when we know that such separation is necessary, and that it will issue in everlasting reunion.

As to the sincerity of our professed belief that thousands of the heathen are every day dropping into everlasting fire, let me give a diagram which I have just met with, showing the relative expenditure in the United States for various commodities per year; and the amount contributed for Foreign Missions. And yet, this is a liberal showing for missions, compared with that of many other Christian countries.

================================================================= Liquor ===================================== Expenditures for Meat =================================== Tobacco, Cigars, Etc.

================================= Bread, including Flour and Meal =============================== Iron and Steel ============================== Dairy and Egg Products =========================== Sawed Lumber ========================= Cotton Goods ======================= Boots and Shoes ====================== Woolen Goods =================== Sugar and Mola.s.ses ================= Fruit =============== Public School Education ============= Furniture =========== Tea and Coffee == Salaries of Ministries = Foreign Missions

Now, will any person pretend that we are sincere in our professed belief that the heathen are dropping by the thousand every day into everlasting fire? Surely, if we really believed that, and if we believed that there is only one way of averting such a fate, we would move heaven and earth to avert it. The common-sense inference is, that we do not really believe it. We may flatter ourselves that we do; long usage may aid the deception; but let us be honest with ourselves, and see how the case really stands. We may think that it would never do to drop the traditional att.i.tude; but let us be sure of this, that self-deception can never be an aid to true religion. In this as in all things, let truth have the right of way.

I have just seen an extract from a Canadian Journal which speaks for itself. Here it is:

"To enter Canada costs a Chinaman $500. Last year thirteen hundred and eighty paid the tax, the treasury of the country receiving from them $690,000. _The Missionary Witness_ makes the statement that combined contributions of the Christians of Canada for the evangelization of heathen nations was only about half as much as the Chinese paid for the privilege of living in Canada. It asks, Is it not amazing that in prosperous Canada 1,380 men cannot be secured who will voluntarily tax themselves to send the Gospel to heathen lands as much as 1,380 heathens are taxed by us to land on our sh.o.r.es? The love of Christ constraineth us! How much?"

Have we not here a practical acknowledgment that the idea of the heathen dropping every moment into endless fire is not really believed?

As I say elsewhere, this revulsion of heart and mind is a strong plea that the doctrine is not true. And it is a fearful thing to quench that inner light. I have already quoted Carlyle's trenchant words on this point. But I have just now met with another saying of his of still more scathing intensity; and I would ask you to ponder his words well. He says: "What is incredible to thee, thou shalt not, at thy soul's peril, attempt to believe. Elsewhither for a refuge, or die here. Go to Perdition if thou must--but not with a lie in thy mouth; by the Eternal Maker, no!"

To be sure, such courage and candor might cost dear. Some years ago there was an able and conscientious minister of the Canadian Presbyterian Church who took the risk of being candid. He was a most lovable man; able, eloquent, active, helpful, humorous, candid, tender, devout; in fact, possessed of nearly every desirable quality. But he had the larger hope; and one day he unguardedly gave expression to it in the words of Tennyson:

"O yet we trust that, somehow, good Will be the final goal of ill--"

and so on. Immediately he was a marked man, and the question was not allowed to settle until he was placed on trial for heterodoxy. There was considerable turmoil and excitement; but ultimately some kind of a compromise was reached by which his orthodoxy was vindicated. He told me that if he were once out of the church of which he was then minister, he could get no other. I suppose he meant that he could not accept the standards of the church; and of course that att.i.tude would debar him.

SOUNDNESS IN THE FAITH.

At the same time it is but right that the Church should protect its soundness in the faith by some form of subscription. The trouble is, however, that the form now in force is subscribed to with reservations.

Then what reservations? They are not defined; so it comes to this, that each subscriber makes his own reservations.

As evidence that such is the case, I may say that no minister in the Presbyterian Church of Canada, with whom I have spoken--and I have spoken with many--really believes in endless torment. Yet that doctrine is clearly stated in the Confession of Faith which ministers formally accept. The corrective of such a state of things in my opinion would be the adoption of a simple evangelical creed that men of the most diverse views on other matters could honestly accept.

Even in reference to the manner in which the creed is accepted in the Presbyterian Church of Canada, there seems to me to be a want of candor.

When a minister is being received, or installed in a charge, he is asked if he is prepared to sign the Confession of Faith. He is not asked to sign it then and there. To express his willingness to sign it does not seem to be so much of a tax on his candor as actually to sign it. Such a proceeding seems to me to put somewhat of a premium on insincerity. It is well known that there are reservations. Would it not be more honest to accept a short statement of evangelical truth, which could be accepted without any reservation?